Patriot Act is a strong weapon

The twin bombings in Bombay earlier this week serve as another deadly reminder: Terrorism is still a threat to the world.

There is more proof: There is the recent indictment of the would-be arms dealer connected to al-Qaida as well as recent bombings in Kashmir, Morocco and Israel -- all with links al-Qaida.

But since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States.

Part of the reason is because of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed right after Sept. 11. The Patriot Act has expanded government surveillance capabilities, toughened criminal penalties for terrorists and removed a legal barrier that for years prevented intelligence agencies and criminal investigators and prosecutors from sharing information.

It's disappointing to see the continuing outcries from various groups against the Patriot Act and, by extension, the Bush administration's effort to thwart future terrorists threats. Every day there is someone claiming the act promotes civil liberties violations and constitutional trespasses. The critics sing an increasingly tiresome tune that the Patriot Act is another step in the dangerous road to tyranny.

Each of these accusations can be countered with a reasoned answer showing that only terrorists need be alarmed about the Patriot Act, not innocent American citizens.

For example, the American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a lawsuit in Michigan against the Patriot Act's business records provision, which is the section of the act that gets the most criticism.

What the ACLU is referring to is the section that allows the FBI to obtain documents if they are relevant to a terrorism investigation.

The ACLU says this power allows the FBI to "spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy."

This argument ignores the facts.

The FBI can do nothing under this provision without the approval of a federal court. If the FBI believes some particular person has information, it still needs to get permission from the federal court, which grants permission while weighing risk versus rights.

Some have also been critical of the Patriot Act's provision for delaying notice of a search as a play for power by the government. What those people don't tell you that this is not a new power at all. Courts have long allowed the government to delay notice of a search if notifying the target would risk destruction of evidence, witness intimidation or flight from prosecution. That laws been on the books for years.

The criticisms and attacks on the Patriot Act are all based on misinformation and ungrounded fears. The act is a case of the government doing its job and protecting its citizens from the attack of aggressors. Nothing's more patriotic than that.