Once-Lone Foe of
Patriot Act Has Company
By SHERYL GAY
STOLBERG, NYTimes on the Web, December 19, 2005
 |
|
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Senator
Russell D. Feingold, left, a leader in fighting the Patriot Act,
with from left, Senators John E. Sununu, Ken Salazar and Patrick J.
Leahy |
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 -- When
Congress passed the antiterrorism bill known as the USA Patriot Act in the fall
of 2001, greatly expanding the government's investigative powers, a single
senator, Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, voted against it.
With the nation reeling from the Sept. 11 attacks, opposing the bill seemed an
act of political suicide, especially for a Democrat.
Today, more than 40 Democrats and four Republicans stand with Mr. Feingold as he
helps lead a filibuster blocking the act's renewal. They are betting that
the politics of terrorism have shifted from fear of another attack to wariness
of "Big Brother" intrusions on personal privacy.
"If we stand up and say, as we are doing now, that we are absolutely committed
to fighting terrorism, and that we are absolutely committed to the civil
liberties of the American people, then that's a winning position," Mr. Feingold
said in a recent interview. "For us to show weakness on civil liberties at
this point would be another sign to people that the Democratic Party is not
standing up for what it believes in."
Polls suggest that the public is supportive of the act but skeptical.
President Bush's admission on Saturday that he had authorized the National
Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans may have deepened that skepticism.
With Mr. Bush facing criticism, even from within his own party, for his handling
of the war in Iraq and his policies on the detention and treatment of military
prisoners, the Patriot Act could soon become a casualty of shifting public
sentiment.
The act's 16 major provisions are set to expire at the end of the month, and in
his radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush warned that the Senate action "endangers
the lives of our citizens." He added, "In the war on terror, we cannot
afford to be without this law for a single moment."
Senators on both sides agree that the law is necessary, yet on Sunday, their
efforts to renew it remained stalled. Democrats are pressing for a
three-month extension to give lawmakers time to settle their differences, but
the White House and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, have refused.
"None of us want it to expire," Mr. Feingold said Sunday, in an appearance on
the CNN television program "Late Edition" with Senator Arlen Specter, the
Judiciary Committee chairman and the bill's chief Senate sponsor. "It is
only the president who is basically playing chicken with us."
The legislation bottled up in the Senate was the product of weeks of
negotiations with the House, which passed it last week by a vote of 251 to 174.
The bill would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions. Should they lapse,
proponents of the extension say, investigators would be hampered in their
pursuit of terrorists.
With the House trying to adjourn for the year early Monday and the Senate by
midweek, Mr. Frist said Sunday that he had not decided whether to call for a
second vote. Mr. Specter, meanwhile, said Sunday that he had called his
Democratic counterpart, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, to suggest a change
in the bill. But asked if he thought it was still possible to get the bill
passed, Mr. Specter did not sound optimistic. "Well, barely," he said.
Republicans say Democratic candidates will suffer in the 2006 mid-term elections
if the act lapses, just as they did in 2002 when Democrats rejected legislation
to create a new Department of Homeland Security.
"Here we go again," said Dick Wadhams, a Republican strategist who is now chief
of staff to Senator George Allen of Virginia.
One Republican, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, went so far as to warn colleagues
that they would be held responsible for another attack. "God help us if
there's some kind of terrorist attack when we are not protected by the Patriot
Act," he said, adding, "We will have to answer for that."
At the same time, strategists of both parties say the Homeland Security debate
and the Patriot Act debate are difficult to compare. As Mr. Wadhams noted,
the Homeland Security fight took place one month before the 2002 elections,
while the 2006 elections are still a year off.
Democrats held up passage of the Homeland Security bill because of a dispute
over labor rights for federal employees, but the new debate focuses on the
question of how to balance keeping Americans safe with protecting their civil
liberties.
Polls show that public support for the Patriot Act has waned over time and that
the more Americans know about the act, the less they like it.
An ABC News poll in June found that half of Americans believed the government
was doing enough to protect their privacy, down from three-quarters shortly
after the act was passed. A Gallup poll, also conducted in June, found
that 30 percent believed the Patriot Act went "too far" in restricting civil
liberties, but among those very familiar with the bill, the figure was 45
percent.
And a University of Connecticut survey, published in August, found that roughly
three-quarters of Americans worried that the Patriot Act would be abused to
investigate matters unrelated to terrorism.
"The polls are pretty clear that voters want limits on the government's power,"
said Geoff Garin, a Democratic strategist. "This is really an argument not
about fighting terrorism but about checks and balances and unbridled government
authority."
Mr. Garin says the Patriot Act generates particular suspicion among white male
voters, who resist government intrusion on matters ranging from gun ownership to
property rights. That could explain why the biggest supporter of gun
rights in the Senate, Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, is among those
backing the filibuster.
Another Republican backer of the filibuster, Senator John E. Sununu of New
Hampshire, said: "In my state, I think there's pretty strong support for
protecting civil liberties during times of war and peace."
It also helps the Democrats that some of the chief supporters of the filibuster,
including Mr. Leahy and Mr. Feingold, have broken with their party on other
issues. Both those senators recently voted to confirm Chief Justice John
G. Roberts Jr. And in 2001, Mr. Feingold was the only Democrat on the Senate
Judiciary Committee to vote to confirm John Ashcroft as attorney general.
Mr. Feingold, widely believed to be considering a run for the White House in
2008, sounded confident last week. "I hope and believe," he said, "that
the Democrats are done allowing Republicans and others to use phony fears as a
way to attack us."
|
