Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: SAFE deserves support

Friday, Feb. 20, 2004 | 9:26 a.m.

Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor.

PRESIDENT George W. Bush feels strongly about the Patriot Act, which will expire in 2005. Although he has yet to veto any bill passed by the Republican-dominated Congress, he has threatened to veto legislation that will change the law. The strongest bill to make some changes is one called the Security and Freedom Ensured Act, or SAFE, that has more than a little support from senators of both political parties. It was introduced by Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., last fall.

I was surprised to see Craig's name on the bill because of his loyalty to the president and his strong conservative voting record. If the president wanted Craig to chop down the last tree in Idaho or Alaska, the senator would probably say, "Give me the chain saw." But there are parts of the Patriot Act passed by Congress in a rush shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, that bother some who supported it. One of the few House members to oppose the initial Patriot Act was another very conservative Republican, Rep. Butch Otter, also from Idaho.

An editorial in Idaho's Twin Falls Times-News gives Otter credit for pushing his point of view with his colleagues from Idaho and encouraging support for SAFE. The editorial tells readers: "Since Congress passed the Patriot Act in the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, debate over the law has steadily grown louder. Many politicians and law enforcement agencies have praised it for giving them the tools to hunt down terror cells and suspects in the homeland.

"Other civil libertarian groups express concerns that certain provisions threaten the liberties of American citizens, rather than the acts of terrorists.

"One of the leading opponents from the start has been Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, who isn't a tweed-jacket liberal by any means.

"The Patriot Act has been a burr under Otter's saddle from the very beginning. He was one of the few Congress members who voted against it in October 2001. Since then, he has slowly and effectively helped bring his Idaho colleagues, (Sen. Michael) Crapo, Craig and Rep. Mike Simpson, to help push the bill."

Craig, when introducing SAFE, which is S.1709, recalled his support for the Patriot Act in 2001. Then he added: "Even so, the USA Patriot Act is not a perfect law, and it is no criticism of those who are so ably waging the war against terrorism to suggest that it may be in order to amend some aspects of that law.

"The SAFE Act is intended to do just that; make some commonsense changes that help to safeguard our freedoms, without sacrificing our security. It focuses on areas of activity that have been particularly controversial: delayed notice warrants, which are also referred to as 'sneak and peek' warrants; wiretaps that do not require specificity as to either person or place; the impact of the new law on libraries; and nationwide search warrants. Our bill would amend, not eliminate these tools or repeal the USA PATRIOT Act in these areas."

Attorney General John Ashcroft is using every part of the Patriot Act and is carrying the water to put out the fire caused by SAFE. This makes Senator Durbin's remarks, when SAFE was introduced, rather interesting.

Durbin remarked: "Many in Congress did not want to deny law enforcement some of the reasonable reforms contained in the PATRIOT Act that they needed to combat terrorism. So, we reluctantly decided to support the administration's version of the bill, but not until we secured a commitment that they would be responsive to Congressional oversight and consult extensively with us before seeking any further changes in the law.

"Unfortunately, the Justice Department has reneged on their commitment to Congress, frustrating oversight on the PATRIOT Act at every turn."

Yes, I would say it's about time that Congress takes a close look at the animal they delivered in 2001.