Council resolution provokes response.

Byline: CHRISTOPHER CARDANI For The Register-Guard

I AM AN ASSISTANT United States attorney in Eugene. I have been a federal prosecutor for 13 years and a resident of this community for the last 10. After Sept. 11, I was enlisted by my employer, the U.S. Department of Justice, to help fight the war on terrorism, a mission I gladly accepted.

Part of my anti-terrorism work included training and implementation of the USA Patriot Act, a bill that was overwhelmingly supported by the United States Congress - including Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith - and signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001.

I read with dismay that the Eugene City Council recently voted - unanimously - to condemn the Patriot Act by way of a formal resolution. I am compelled to write this response because the council's vote was uninformed, hurried and based on incorrect information.

I maintain that The Register-Guard has published inaccurate information about the Patriot Act, feeding an environment of paranoia and unjustified fear about the anti-terrorism legislation. While The Register-Guard's editors have informed me that they stand by the newspaper's stories, it's time to set the record straight.

In a Nov. 26 front-page article, The Register-Guard reported that the Patriot Act "allows 'sneak and peek' searches of suspects' homes without subsequent notification of the searches." A complete and careful reading of the relevant provisions shows that this alarming statement is simply wrong. Federal law requires that the resident of a home searched by law enforcement be notified of the search.

Long before the Patriot Act, federal judges permitted law enforcement to briefly delay notifying a homeowner of a court-authorized search if immediate notification would jeopardize the investigation. The Patriot Act did nothing more than recognize this longstanding practice. A provision of the Patriot Act ratifies the delayed notification procedure if a federal judge finds that immediate notification would harm an investigation.

In any event, the Patriot Act requires that notification be made within a reasonable time. In fact, no such warrant has been served on anyone in this area since the passage of the Patriot Act.

The same article stated that the Patriot Act "allows police to arrest and detain indefinitely any American suspected of terrorism... ." A review of the act shows that this too is wrong. The Patriot Act allows non-U.S. citizens suspected of being terrorists to be detained for up to seven days while the government decides whether to file criminal or immigration charges against them. If not so charged, these aliens must be released.

American citizens are not impacted by this provision and, to date, no one in the United States has been detained under this section of the Patriot Act. While President Bush has exercised executive wartime authority in detaining a few unlawful enemy combatants, this has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Other reporting on the Patriot Act is correct, but misleading. Critics of the Patriot Act would have librarians believe that the new law will force them to routinely turn over patron records to law enforcement officers. The truth is that long before the Patriot Act, federal agents could obtain grand jury subpoenas for library records if relevant to a

criminal investigation. This authority is vital to gather all relevant evidence against potential terrorists.

For example, if the FBI receives reliable information that a suspected terrorist is attempting to poison our water supply, and has checked out books from the library on poisons, law enforcement officials would be remiss if they failed to check with the library to see if that were true. Under the Patriot Act, if relevant to an international terrorism investigation, the FBI can apply for a court order to obtain business records from third parties, which could include a library.

Patriot Act critics would also have us believe that the law allows the FBI to randomly read our e-mails. Wrong. Federal agents may not read the contents of someone's e-mails without first obtaining a search warrant issued by a federal judge, requiring probable cause to believe that someone is committing a crime and that their e-mails are likely to provide evidence of the crime. Recognizing that terrorists and other criminals communicate through e-mail messages, the Patriot Act wisely includes a provision allowing agents to apply for a court order to determine who terrorists and other criminals are communicating with.

Opponents of the Patriot Act complain that it is a complex and lengthy piece of legislation, which only a lawyer could fully understand. If that is the case, why didn't the Eugene City Council seek guidance about the Patriot Act from its own lawyers before hastily voting to condemn it? Instead, the council let itself be steamrolled by 200 vocal partisans who noisily thrust the resolution before it on a night when it was not even on the council's agenda. We expect more from our elected leaders.

The Patriot Act modernizes weapons needed by law enforcement to detect, capture and prosecute dangerous criminals and terrorists. In fact, provisions of the new law have been used to successfully convict John Walker Lindh, who was captured fighting American soldiers in Afghanistan, and to apprehend the killers of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

When details of the Patriot Act are properly reported, I know that the majority of the citizens of our fine community will support this important piece of anti-terrorism legislation. In the future, let's hope the Eugene City Council does its homework in obtaining the facts before passing resolutions denouncing laws which help safeguard our national security.

Christopher Cardani is an assistant U.S. attorney in Eugene.