HOW THEY SEE IT \ The Patriot Act We need it to safeguard our security

By PETER HUESSY
KNIGHT RIDDER/TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON -- Critics of the Patriot Act have distorted the truth to the point where an honest debate has become extremely difficult. This is dangerous, for the act has saved countless lives and protected our national economy.
The legal tools it provides are backed up by a process requiring judicial review; they are the same tools authorities have used for decades in dealing with drug dealers and organized crime.
The four parts of the act that have received the most attention are the ones dealing with delayed notification of a search; whether business records can be sought; the extent to which information can be shared within and between the law enforcement and intelligence communities; and provisions that allow roving surveillance.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that delayed notification was constitutional. The Patriot Act simply clarified procedural requirements. Probable cause is still required as is judicial approval and review. A search might reveal only part of a terrorist plot. A subsequent search might reveal its full extent. Premature notice would allow other plotters to be warned, hardly helpful to law enforcement.
Law enforcement has the power to subpoena business records without a warrant. There is no 4th Amendment protection to keep third-party records private. Prior law allowed a U.S. attorney to seek records with a mere grand jury subpoena.
Thus the Patriot Act allows authorities to seek approval to secure such records from a special court, while keeping the operation secret.
This is simply common sense. This section has been described as allowing a library search but the word "library" appears nowhere in the law.
Although it is true law enforcement thought to search library records to see if the Unabomber had checked out books mentioned in his "Manifesto," a court and judge must approve any such request and there must be probable cause establishing that the target of the search is a foreign terrorist or foreign spy.
Infamous 'wall'
The most notorious problem with prior law -- now remedied by the Patriot Act -- was the infamous "wall" that prevented intelligence secured by wiretap or grand jury investigation from being shared with other criminal investigations.
One federal law enforcement agency, thus, could go after an Al-Qaida terrorist for drug running, but if it acquired information from a special court-mandated wiretap that exposed a plot to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, it could not contact other law enforcement agencies
This led to a situation in 1993 after the first World Trade Center bombing that the FBI could talk to the police, foreign intelligence and even the bombers themselves, but were prohibited from talking with other federal agencies working on terrorism.
This "wall" actually was strengthened during the Clinton administration -- and ultimately led to the refusal to provide permission to U.S. law enforcement to examine a suspect computer.
To correct this absurd situation, the Patriot Act simply allowed wiretap and grand jury information to be shared even if developed through a special court warrant. Probable cause is still required; a warrant must be signed by a judge and requested from the director of the FBI and attorney general. If anything, the law has strengthened the protections of our Constitution.
Finally, roving wiretaps have been used since 1986, but somehow Patriot Act critics now view their extension to cover terrorists as a wholesale threat to our civil liberties.
It is the height of absurdity for critics to admit that while we can use all these tools to remove mobsters and drug lords from our midst, murdering terrorists can be given a free pass.
X Peter Huessy is a senior defense associate at the National Defense University Foundation and a member of The Committee on the Present Danger. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services