- The Washington Times - Monday, January 30, 2006

The most consequential part of President Bush’s State of the Union address tonight, at least in the near-term, will be the section he devotes to the need to ensure the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence communities have the tools they need to protect us. In particular, he will make a strong case for the Patriot Act — one we can only hope the minority of senators blocking its re-enactment will heed.

Mr. Bush afforded a small group of us an insight into his thinking on this and related matters, and a sense of the urgency he will attach to the Patriot Act’s renewal, in a meeting last Thursday. Those present included 18 pre-eminent national security, intelligence, legal and public policy practitioners. Nearly all previously held senior U.S. government posts and signed a letter to Congress circulated last week by the Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law.

In informal remarks and extended, candid give-and-take with the participants, the president communicated the gravity of the peril we face. As Osama bin Laden’s most recent audiotape reminds us, enemies of this country remain intent on hitting us again, and hope to do so with even more devastating effect than on September 11, 2001.

Two of those present knew firsthand the costs of the last attack on our homeland: Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who lost his wife, Barbara, on American Airlines Flight 77 when it was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon; and Debra Burlingame, sister of Capt. Charles “Chic” Burlingame, that doomed aircraft’s pilot.

In the more than four years since September 11, 2001, both have selflessly served their country. Mr. Olson was, until recently, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department and a leader on counterterrorism litigation and policymaking.

For her part, Miss Burlingame has become one of the most visible, and formidable, of the September 11 family members in championing counterterrorism legislation and policies needed to prevent future terrorist attacks in this country — and opposing initiatives that would undermine America’s ability to do so.

Such concerns prompted her to write a powerful op-ed article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal about the need to renew the Patriot Act and to continue presidentially authorized, warrantless “hot pursuit” enemy communications by the National Security Agency — even when one of the parties is inside the United States and may be an American citizen. Under the headline — “Our right to security,” she observes:

• “A minority of senators want to gamble with American lives and ‘fix’ national security laws, which they can’t show are broken. They seek to eliminate or weaken antiterrorism measures which take into account that the Cold War and its slow-moving, analog world of landlines and stationary targets is gone. The threat we face today is a completely new paradigm of global terrorist networks operating in a high-velocity digital age using the Web and fiber-optic technology.”

• “After 41/2 years without another terrorist attack, these senators think we’re safe enough to cave in to the same civil liberties lobby that supported that deadly Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) ‘wall’ (which, before the Patriot Act, prevented information-sharing between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that might have thwarted the September 11 attacks) in the first place. What if they are simply wrong?”

In a television ad produced by the Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law, Miss Burlingame asks a further question: “What will [those senators] say to their constituents if another attack occurs that might have been prevented” — had key provisions of the Patriot Act not been weakened or allowed to expire?

These are questions the president himself should pointedly pose during tonight’s address: Does anyone listening — in the House chambers and across this great country — want to bet, in the face of known threats and likely ones, that we can responsibly deny those charged with protecting us the tools they have successfully used since 2001?

Are the Patriot Act’s critics really willing to risk the lives of potentially many thousands of Americans on a gamble we can once again safely accord terrorists more legal protections than we do drug-traffickers, racketeers and other criminals — an anomalous, not to say bizarre, situation corrected by the Patriot Act?

As Debra Burlingame puts it so well: “Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities.”

So tonight, Mr. Bush should — and I am confident, will — make clear neither he nor the Congress have any duty higher than protecting the American people. Adopting the conference report that will extend or make permanent the Patriot Act’s “sunsetted” provisions, and preserve its full usefulness in combating terror at home, is consistent with that duty. Filibustering the conference report — to say nothing of the boast last month by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid that opponents had “killed the Patriot Act” is not.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is a columnist for The Washington Times and president of the Center for Security Policy, the organizational sponsor of the Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide