Effort to Curb Scope of Antiterrorism Law Falls Short
By Eric Lichtblau
New York Times
Friday 09 July 2004
WASHINGTON, July 8 - An effort to bar the government from demanding
records from libraries and booksellers in some terrorism investigations
fell one vote short of passage in the House on Thursday after a late burst
of lobbying prompted nine Republicans to switch their votes.
The vote, a 210 to 210 deadlock, amounted to a referendum on the
antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act and reflected deep divisions
in Congress over whether the law undercuts civil liberties. Under House
rules, the tie vote meant the measure was defeated.
The outcome led to angry recriminations from House Democrats, who
accused Republicans of "vote-rigging" by holding the vote open for an extra
23 minutes to get enough colleagues to switch votes. Frustrated Democrats
shouted "Shame, shame!" and "Democracy!" as the voting continued, but
Republicans defended their right as the majority party to keep the vote
open to "educate members" about the dangers of scaling back government
counterterrorism powers.
"We're more interested in catching terrorists who are trying to kill
Americans than we are in leaving the Capitol in time for happy hour," said
Stuart Roy, a spokesman for the majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of
Texas.
The library proposal, tacked onto a $39.8 billion spending bill, would
have barred the federal government from demanding library records, reading
lists, book customer lists and other material in terrorism and intelligence
investigations. The antiterrorism law expanded the government's authority
to secure warrants from a secret intelligence court in Washington to obtain
records from libraries and other institutions, using what many legal
experts regard as a lesser standard of proof than is needed in traditional
criminal investigations.
Federal law enforcement officials say the power to gain access to such
records has been used sparingly. Still, the provision granting the
government that power has become the most widely attacked element of the
law, galvanizing opposition in more than 330 communities that have
expressed concern about government abuse. Critics say the law gives the
government the ability to pry into people's personal reading habits.
"People are waking up to the fact that the government can walk into
their libraries, without probable cause, without any particular information
that someone was associated with terrorism, and monitor their reading
habits," Representative Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who
sponsored the measure, said in an interview.
Republicans lobbied furiously to defeat the amendment. President Bush
threatened late Wednesday to veto the spending bill if the provision was
included, and the Justice Department on Thursday sent a letter saying that
at least twice in recent months "a member of a terrorist group closely
affiliated with Al Qaeda used Internet services provided by a public library."
Even so, the measure appeared headed for passage, leading by at least
18 votes as the set time for voting wound down. The House traditionally
holds its votes open for 15 minutes to give lawmakers time to get from
their offices to cast their votes, but the vote on Mr. Sanders's amendment
stayed open for 38 minutes, officials said.
Democrats identified eight of the nine Republicans who switched their
votes: Michael Bilirakis of Florida, Rob Bishop of Utah, Thomas M. Davis
III of Virginia, Jack Kingston of Georgia, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado,
Nick Smith of Michigan, Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Zach Wamp of
Tennessee. One Democrat, Brad Sherman of California, also switched his vote
to nay, officials said. In all, 18 Republicans joined Democrats in
supporting the measure; four Democrats opposed it.
"The timing was well within the rules of the House floor," said Burson
Taylor, a spokeswoman for Representative Roy Blunt, the majority whip.
"Sometimes that plays to our advantage, sometimes it plays to the
Democrats' advantage."
But Democrats accused Republicans leaders of corrupting the voting
process and drew comparisons to the dustup last November over a Medicare
bill, which squeaked through the House after Republican leaders held the
vote open for three hours to get colleagues to switch their votes. The
House ethics committee is looking into accusations that one lawmaker, Mr.
Smith, was offered a bribe on the House floor for his vote.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, said after
Thursday's vote: "Republican leaders once again undermined democracy, this
time so that the Bush administration can threaten our civil liberties. How
thoroughly un-American."
And Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, said: "The
Republicans are so desperate to look into bookstore and library records
that they violated the very principles of democracy to block an amendment
that had already passed. This is an outrage."
The defeat of the library amendment was an important victory for Bush
administration officials.
"We're obviously pleased," said William E. Moschella, an assistant
attorney general.
Mr. Moschella sent the letter that cited recent efforts by Qaeda
associates to use public libraries to communicate over the Internet.
Mr. Bush has made the Patriot Act and its importance in fighting
terrorism a theme in his re-election campaign, urging Congress repeatedly
to extend provisions in it that are set to expire at the end of next year.
But few members of Congress have rushed to take Mr. Bush up on the
idea, and Mr. Bush's Democratic rival for the White House, Senator John
Kerry of Massachusetts, has hit the issue with equal vigor in arguing that
parts of the law go too far in prying into the lives of ordinary Americans
and risk government abuse.
Debate on the House floor on Thursday revealed deep disagreement over
even fundamental questions about what power the government now has to
demand library records and how that power has been used since the law was
enacted the week after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Last September, Attorney General John Ashcroft accused critics of the
government's library powers of fueling "baseless hysteria," and he
grudgingly declassified government data showing that the Justice Department
had not yet used the power to seize library records.
But the department has refused to say how often the authority has been
used since, saying the information remains classified. The American Civil
Liberties Union said last month that documents disclosed in court
challenges showed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had sought to
use that section of the law soon after Mr. Ashcroft's declaration.
Officials with the American Library Association, with more than 64,000
members, said they suspected based on anecdotal evidence that the
government had used the antiterrorism law and related powers to demand
library records more frequently than it had acknowledged.
But Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the group's Washington
office, said it was impossible to know because librarians served with
demands for records were barred under the law from talking about it. The
library association is planning a survey to get a better accounting of how
often libraries have been served with demands for records.
"Libraries have always been subject to legitimate law enforcement - if
the government thinks there is some specific criminal activity, they can go
to a judge, show probable cause and get a court order," Ms. Sheketoff said.
"There doesn't need to be all this secrecy. Librarians are good citizens
like everyone else."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/071004Z.shtml
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:45:39 PST