Jon Kyl, May 16, 2003

After the 9/11 attacks, Congress overwhelming passed a new antiterrorism law - the USA Patriot Act -- that expanded the ability of law-enforcement agencies to investigate suspected terrorists. Many of the law’s provisions had been long requested by the FBI and were endorsed by bipartisan Congressional counterterrorism commissions.

I sponsored one provision which, simply put, updated federal wiretap laws to treat taps on terrorists’ laptops and cell phones the same way the FBI has traditionally tapped standard telephone lines against other criminals like the mafia. This measure was hardly controversial. Yet before 9/11, it took years to pass even simple antiterror laws due to staunch opposition from groups like the ACLU.

The May 12 bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia that killed at least 8 Americans demonstrates once again that the terror network, while weakened, is still a threat. And that we still need these anti-terrorism measures to stop future terrorist plots.

Yet attempts to thwart the Patriot Act are only on the increase.

One day after the Riyadh bombing, the City Council of Hartford, Connecticut voted 7 to 2 in support of repealing the Patriot Act, labeling it a menace to Americans’ civil liberties. (The two dissenters on the Hartford City Council carefully suggested that perhaps they had no business weighing in on national security issues of which they know little).

"I have no reservations about standing up and saying that the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act II are bad for the United States of America," Hartford Councilman John B. Kennelly declared, referring to the original law and an imaginary "follow-up" bill - Patriot II -- that was neither proposed, drafted, sent to Congress, nor enacted into law. One-upping Hartford, the city of Arcata, California ordered its officials to refuse to aid federal investigations carried out under the Patriot Act, which council members declared "unconstitutional."

Nearly 100 city councils - including Tucson’s -- are members of this misguided bandwagon (half of them located in just two states, California and Vermont). They collectively bemoan what Cornelius Steelink, an ACLU member and main supporter of Tucson’s resolution, calls "a massive intrusion to our privacy" which he equates to "a serial rapist going through town." Like many other critics, Mr. Steelink is particularly worried about a provision of the law that he says permits the FBI to obtain from libraries lists of books that a suspected terrorist has bought or borrowed. Others claim mass detentions of U.S. citizens have taken place.

The charges are nonsense. No court has ever declared any part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. The provision regarding libraries to which Mr. Steelink and others refer so ominously - section 215 -- does not even mention the word "libraries." Nor does it allow the Justice Department to order any library or school to turn over its records. Section 215 does not apply to U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and only can be used in cases of suspected terrorism and where court approval is obtained.

And what about all the individuals claimed to have been detained under the Patriot Act? The Washington Times reported: "After the September 11 attacks, 766 individuals were detained by the Justice Department and charged with either immigration or criminal violations. To date, 508 have been deported and the rest released. Contrary to published reports that more than 100 persons remain in detention, the Justice Department said last week that only one person is being held, on an immigration-related charge." The paper’s investigation also noted that all the detentions mentioned were made under previous laws, and none under the Patriot Act.

But the Patriot Act has played a role in other aspects of the war on terror. Rather than serving as a menace to law-abiding U.S. citizens, it is credited with aiding a sting operation that apprehended alleged Islamic terrorists at a hotel in Germany, for example, as well as assisting the dismantling of alleged terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, and Portland. One of the suspected Portland terrorists reportedly was overheard complaining about the Patriot Act’s effectiveness in scaring away potential financial contributors who feared the new legal consequences.

One would think that city councils have better things to do than condemn a temporary federal law that is working to protect us against terrorists.

Jon Kyl is a Republican senator from Arizona.