A controversial law granting federal authorities new powers to target terrorists faces growing heat over beliefs that it can lead to civil rights abuses while others are seeking to expand its grasp.

The USA Patriot Act was signed into law weeks after the 9-11 attacks. Among other things, the 340-page law granted federal investigators authority to seek roving wiretaps for suspects and to conduct property searches and delay notifying the owner.

It also allowed the detention of foreigners suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without being charged and expanded the definitions of terrorism.

The Justice Department touts the Patriot Act as an important tool and says its use of the law is restrained.

But the act's future remains in question. Already, there are moves on Capitol Hill to gut the law, two years before sunset provisions kick in.

In July, the U.S. House passed an amendment that would block the Justice Department from using any funds to conduct "sneak-and-peek" searches in which a judge approves a search warrant but agrees to delay notifying the target.

Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have filed lawsuits seeking disclosure of how the law is being applied and challenging provisions that permit "sneak-and-peek" searches and secret scrutiny of people's library records by the FBI.

The fight isn't just in Washington or the courts.

More than 160 communities across the country and three states have issued symbolic resolutions opposing the Patriot Act.

A similar resolution is to be taken up by the City Council in Austin this month, and the ACLU could have one before San Antonio's City Council soon. The proposed resolution for San Antonio says the act and related executive orders and regulations threaten fundamental rights and liberties.

Resolution supporters say they fear granting government more power or broadening the definition of terrorism has a chilling effect on dissent.

"The slippery slope is that anyone who is opposed to the administration ends up being a terrorist," said David Plylar, a member of the San Antonio Peace Coalition. "It just communicates to people, 'Shut up and mind your own business.'"

Critics also say the Justice Department's secrecy shows the agency isn't truthful about its use of the law.

"The government seems to be suggesting, 'We've got this power; trust us, we'll use it in a judicious manner,'" said Patrick Filyk, vice president of the ACLU's San Antonio chapter. "I don't necessarily trust them on that."

Filyk buttressed the claims by pointing to a recent Justice Department Inspector General report that found 34 credible complaints from Muslim and Arab immigrants who alleged civil rights abuses and civil liberties violations by prison staff.

Department spokesmen say those claims have nothing to do with the application of the Patriot Act.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-San Antonio, say they haven't seen signs of major problems with the law. Smith is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Cornyn is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both of which conduct oversight of the act.

"So far, no provision of the Patriot Act has been found unconstitutional or otherwise deficient by any court, so I think that, on the whole, it is doing what Congress expected it to do," Cornyn said.

Smith said there are many misperceptions about the law.

"The Patriot Act took laws that had been applied primarily to drug traffickers and organized crime and applied them to terrorists," Smith said.

The department set up a Web site, www.lifeandliberty.gov, to try to clear the air. Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked all 94 U.S. attorneys to speak in defense of the act. Most recently, Ashcroft embarked on a multi-city tour trying to shore up support.

"I think the attorney general recognized some congressional sentiment, some frustration, over the fact that we are not necessarily winning the war on terrorism in the way that we though we might, quickly," said Duke University law professor Scott Silliman, executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.

Much of the controversy focuses on a provision of the Patriot Act that allows agents to obtain information from any source, such as libraries, provided a secret court grants permission.

Critics say this can have a chilling effect on what people read. But supporters say the average American has nothing to worry about, that the law is aimed at terrorists, not people who don't share the same views as the administration.

"It cannot be used to investigate an ordinary crime or even domestic terrorism," U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton said.

The Justice Department said agents have contacted about 50 libraries nationwide during terrorism probes. Beth Graham, spokeswoman for San Antonio's library system, said she was not aware of any requests by the FBI here.

In the year after Sept. 11, 2001, federal and local law enforcement officials visited 545 libraries to ask for records as it investigated crimes, according to a survey conducted by the Library Research Center at the University of Illinois. That was less than in the year before the attacks, when 703 libraries reported such requests, the survey found.

Despite the reduction and government assurances, there's still an outcry from civil liberties activists.

The proposed ACLU resolution for San Antonio asks that city libraries post signs warning visitors that the FBI might be checking out their reading interests.

U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., earlier this year introduced a bill that aims to exempt libraries and bookstores from such scrutiny by the FBI. It has garnered 132 co-sponsors and bipartisan support, Sanders said.

"Librarians are very concerned about it from a civil liberties point of view, because they're worried that if people believe that the FBI can come in and monitor your reading habits, you're going to be a little bit nervous about reading certain types of books," Sanders said.

"It's imagining abuse where none exists," rebutted Paul Rosenzweig of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank in Washington. "That's a really good example of how anti-Patriot Act people exaggerate and fabricate."

Inside and outside Washington, there's discussion about what's next.

On the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., has taken the middle road on the act, but he also has said it would be made permanent "over my dead body."

Cornyn said it would be premature to talk about terminating it, because the war on terror is likely to continue.

"Before I say conclusively, I'd say we'd have to wait and see as we get closer to that (sunset) date."

Smith believes extending the act's life is necessary.

"Terrorists aren't going to suddenly cease their activities or drop their goals in 2005, so I certainly hope we will extend it," he said.

Moreover, there is discussion of possible successors to the law.

Internal Justice Department memos show officials have grappled with a proposal, commonly called Patriot II, that aims to expand powers to federal authorities beyond the original law.

The proposal even included a provision that would revoke the citizenship of Americans who cooperate with terrorist organizations.

Justice officials said the proposal was merely an idea and has gone no further than the department, but that has done little to ease critics.

"The guys in the Justice Department are constantly looking for ways to bust criminals," said Plylar of the Peace Coalition. "Civil liberties are a secondary concern."

© 2003 San Antonio Express-News

###