US politicians extend anti-terror act

The US House of Representatives yesterday voted overwhelmingly to extend the USA Patriot Act, America’s main anti-terrorism tool, just hours after television news beamed images of an attempted bombing attack in London.

House Republicans generally cast the law as a valuable asset in the war on terror. Most Democrats echoed that support but said they were concerned the law could infringe civil liberties. Following nine hours of debate, the politicians approved the measure 257-171.

The bulk of the back-and-forth centred on language making permanent 14 of 16 provisions that were passed after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and initially intended to last only four years.

Ten-year extensions were also approved for two other provisions set to expire on December 31, one allowing roving wiretaps and another allowing searches of library and medical records. They were the focus of most of the controversy as members ploughed through the main legislation and 18 amendments.

“While the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have helped avert additional attacks on our soil, the threat has not receded,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, said that while “I support the majority of the 166 provisions of the Patriot Act,” the extensions could lessen accountability. “Ten years is semi-permanent,” he said.

President George Bush’s administration hailed the vote.

“After measured deliberation and a public debate, the House has again provided the brave men and women of law enforcement with critical tools in their efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement.

A competing bill also has been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would give the FBI expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury. That ensured further Senate talks on the terrorism-fighting measure. The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate.

The House debate included frequent references to the London attacks earlier in the day, two weeks after larger London blasts killed 56 people.

The roving wiretap provision allows investigators to obtain warrants to intercept a suspect’s phone conversations or internet traffic without limiting it to a specific phone or identifying the suspect.

The records provision authorises federal officials to obtain “tangible items” such as business, library and medical records.

Advocates argued that such powers already exist in criminal investigations so they should be expressly continued for terrorism investigations. They also cited safeguards in the bill, such as a requirement that a judge approve the records search.

One of the amendments sets a 20-year jail term for an attack against a rail or mass-transit vehicle; a 30-year sentence if the vehicle carries nuclear material; and life imprisonment – with the possibility of the death penalty – if anyone is killed in such an attack.

Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan and a former FBI agent, recalled using such tools in gang and child molestation investigations.

“All we do in the Patriot Act is say, ‘Look, if we can go after child molesters sitting in the library and bombers who we need to sneak-and-peek on a warrant, we ought to be able to go after terrorists,”’ he said.

Critics said that although certain provisions have been extended, re-assessments are necessary.

“Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing,” said Rep. Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat. “The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?”