If U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to know why the USA Patriot Act is drawing so much fire, he should do more listening than talking as he stumps the country to defend the act.

Also See: Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

Americans of all political stripes and persuasions are alarmed at the sweep and scope of the law passed in the fearful aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The groundswell of opposition -- at least three states and 140 local governments have passed resolutions condemning it -- persuaded the Bush administration to send Ashcroft out to defend it. A resolution opposing the act is on the Austin City Council agenda for Sept. 25.

Sending Ashcroft is a major gamble because he is easily the most controversial member of the president's Cabinet, a divisive personality and a frequent target of civil libertarians. He is scheduled to appear in 18 cities in the coming weeks to promote the law as an effective tool to fight terrorism. (Ashcroft's schedule is not public, but a visit to Austin is unlikely.)

The attorney general has been deaf to concerns about the Patriot Act, some of them voiced by Republicans in Congress. The House recently beat back a bid by the Justice Department to enact "sneak and peek" searches of homes and businesses because of worries about violating civil liberties. At this point, it's clear Ashcroft needs to listen to his critics, not lecture them.

The Patriot Act is a complex, detailed law that relaxes long-established restrictions on government intrusion into personal lives. It allows more sharing of information among law enforcement and intelligence agencies, authorizes "roving wiretaps," allows detention without charges of noncitizens, expands police access to e-mail, increases monitoring of financial transactions and permits government access to library records while forbidding disclosure of those searches.

Much of what the Patriot Act allows is reasonable. What is not is the lack of oversight and judicial review before such intrusive actions are permitted. Searches, wire taps and record seizures ought to be approved by a judge or a grand jury that first determines a reasonable cause for them exists. That review is too lax under the Patriot Act.

The Justice Department's efforts to ease public fears aren't inspiring. For instance, it contends that the act's definition of domestic terror groups subject to surveillance and wire taps is limited to those who break the law. But many mainstream groups, including Greenpeace, anti-abortion activists and civil rights groups indulge in civil disobedience to effect change. That doesn't make them terrorists, yet they're subject to the definition.

Ashcroft is barnstorming now because the Patriot Act expires in two years and he wants to not only make it permanent, but expand it. The opposition he is finding in Congress and across the country threatens to undo his plans.

Balancing national security with the personal liberty Americans enjoy requires a deft touch. Much of what the Patriot Act allows would be more acceptable if it were subject to stricter oversight and tighter control to minimize potential abuses. This country does not want to return to the domestic spying days of J. Edgar Hoover.

The government can't ensure freedom by undermining it. If Ashcroft listens as he travels, he will realize that Americans want national security but fear that the Patriot Act has too few checks

The City of Austin resolution can be found at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/agenda/2003/downloads/081403028.pdf

###