To some, the USA PATRIOT Act provides protection from terror.

To others, it has overstepped the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution.

The Patriot Act was passed shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to increase border security and surveillance powers for federal investigators and to create a bridge of communication between and within intelligence agencies.

And, regardless of public opinion, the act might become a fixture as the re-elected President Bush announced plans during his campaign to pass it into permanent law.

Now, three years after it was first introduced, local and national civil liberties officials are fighting to change provisions to protect American and immigrant rights, and local bookstores are challenging the constitutionality of the act.

"It extends the power of the government to deport and incarcerate non-citizens," said Henry Silverman, president of the Lansing Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU.

Federal investigators, however, say the act is necessary in combating terrorism.

Michigan citizens are divided on the issue of freedom vs. protection.

According to a study partially sponsored by the MSU College of Social Science, as of March 2004, 52 percent of Michigan residents said civil liberties are more important and 46 percent said protection takes priority.

Silverman said although he disagrees with many parts of the act, the idea of protecting Americans is one he doesn't dispute.

"We can be safe and we can be free at the same time," he said.

The act interpreted

Under the Patriot Act, intelligence agents can now tap multiple phones with a single warrant, search library records and bookstore purchase records more easily and obtain search warrants with reasonable suspicion.

The act was passed in October 2001, in the shadows of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

The Patriot Act also gives a new power to the courts themselves. Under the legislation, a judge can enact a gag order on the entire court. This prevents the plaintiff's lawyers from identifying anything other than the basic complaint at hand, Silverman said. Even the person challenging the act in court can be required to remain unknown.

Many of the powers granted under the Patriot Act were already given to investigators by judicial decisions, but the legislation turned these into law.

Bush has said his goal for the act was to keep the country safe and help the intelligence agencies communicate more efficiently.

Challenges

The Patriot Act recently came under attack by groups such as the ACLU for not being constitutional.

In a late September ruling, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero declared a provision of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. The provision allowed the FBI to require Internet service providers and phone companies to disclose customer records.

The ACLU has several methods to fight the act, such as lobbying and educating the public.

The group is encouraging members of the U.S. Congress to amend the Patriot Act next year, when some sections are due to be renewed.

Despite standing by the act, Bush has acknowledged the need for possible changes and updates.

"The Patriot Act needs to be renewed, and the Patriot Act needs to be enhanced," he said in April.

However, Rich Licht, acting assistant special agent in charge for the Detroit division of the FBI, said overturning the Patriot Act will hurt the effectiveness of bureau intelligence gathering.

"If it's not working, then the American public deserves to have the government find something that does," Licht said. "But it is working."

Searches

Under the Patriot Act, federal investigators can search a person's workplace, home or financial and medical records without their prior or later knowledge.

Silverman said he supports the decision against electronic record "secret searches," which was brought to court by the ACLU.

"It's that you do it in the secret way without proper judicial oversight," Silverman said. "You can't do these secret searches unless you have probable cause and convince a judge about that."

Although Silverman said portions of the act violate the Fourth Amendment, U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, said the legislation does not conflict with the constitution.

"If you believe in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S., the Patriot Act is no different - there are checks and balances in the system to prevent abuse," said Rogers, a former FBI agent.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects United States citizens from "unreasonable" search and seizures without warrants issued with probable cause.

In many of the sections found controversial, the Patriot Acts refers to protecting the First Amendment, which includes free speech and the right to assembly, but does not address the Fourth Amendment.

Hagan Frank, a U.S. Attorney, said the Patriot Act changes surveillance in several ways. First, it breaks down the law about information sharing within and between intelligence agencies, and second, it updates surveillance laws to allow for technology innovations.

"The constitution recognizes a whole spectrum of different expectations of privacy. There are a lot of things we were able to do before the Patriot Act without probable cause," Frank said.

But Silverman said the Patriot Act was pushed through Congress using fear from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and many provisions would not have been included otherwise.

"They felt pressured to do something about the acts of Sept. 11," Silverman said. "There are some things in there that are good and probably necessary,"

Licht said average citizens should not worry about the bureau searching their houses and not informing them. In order to prosecute people, he said, the warrant must be brought into the open, and the FBI does not have the time to investigate people who do not pose grave threats.

"We can now be more efficient with our investigations, and more reasonable," Licht said. "We have our hands filled with legitimate threats."

Surveillance

One of the controversial issues is a roving wire phone tap, which allows the FBI to follow a specific person when they change phone lines.

The bureau can also tap phone lines of people who might know information about the person under investigation.

Licht said the ability to follow the person is important because of the new availability of cell phones. Terrorists can easily dump known numbers by picking up new cell phones at big-box retail stores, he said.

Under the old law, new warrants were required for each new phone that suspected terrorists used.

Now, one warrant covers all the phones used by a single person.

Another issue is the shrinking need for law enforcement to have probable cause. A warrant can be issued if a person is suspected of possible terrorist actions which might have occurred.

"With the idea that your privacy can be invaded and you can lose due process rights, the Patriot Act went too far," Silverman said. "They shouldn't be able to invade our privacy simply because they think you might be connected to terrorism."

Under the legislation, it is now easier for agents to receive a warrant for searches.

Warrants can be obtained using "reasonable suspicion" rather than probable cause, Licht said.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, created a court system, which prevails over intelligence cases replacing domestic courts and provides agents with warrants.

The Patriot Act includes the appointment of four more district court judges, an act which Frank said is in reflection of an expected workload.

The FISA courts originally had rights only to the same information as domestic courts, but the Patriot Act has expanded their ability, Frank said.

Licht said citizens should not worry about agents abusing the new powers of the legislation because of the highly bureaucratic watch-dog system.

But according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an FBI memo, revealed during a lawsuit in October 2002, discloses that wire-tap violations occurred. Problems such as an illegal videotaping of meetings and recording wrong phone conversations have been explained as a misinterpretation of orders.

Licht said the consequences of misconduct are very high, and since many agents work in the community they live in, they have no desire to invade their neighbors' privacy.

"I want to be safe, but I don't want to step on everybody's rights to get there," Licht said. "There's not articulate abuses of the Patriot Act."

Defining terrorism

One of the main concerns the ACLU has with the Patriot Act is the new definition of terrorism.

This includes an expanded definition of domestic terrorism, which now considers activities that appear to have the intention of coercing the population through fear as terrorist actions.

Silverman said he worries this new idea of terrorism will make people more hesitant to join in protests for fear of being labeled a terrorist. He said the Patriot Act has already been used against the environmental group Greenpeace.

However, U.S. attorney Hagan Frank said protesters do not have to worry about being apprehended as long as they hold to state and federal statutes.

"People can protest whatever they want to, but the First Amendment doesn't protect breaking the law," Frank said.

Libraries and bookstores

Locally, Schuler Books & Music is leading a campaign to strike down parts of the Patriot Act. Displays have been set up in each store, so customers can sign a petition to amend the act. Section 215 - the specific section each store is fighting - allows investigators to search library and bookstore records for books borrowed and purchased, sometimes without probable cause.

"Under the Patriot Act you have no choice but to give information to a federal investigator. You can't even call your lawyer. You can't even let our customers know they're being investigated," said Bill Fehsenfeld, co-owner of Schuler Books, from the Grand Rapids headquarters.

Investigators impose the gag orders on bookstores and libraries whose customers are under surveillance. Fehsenfeld said many purchases are never recorded.

National Barnes & Noble Booksellers officials declined comment.

Investigators might turn up a dead-end at a library or bookstore, said Sue Hill, director of Lansing's Capital Area District Library.

"Actually, there isn't anything to look at," she said. Most libraries keep tabs only on the books to be returned.

"Once they're returned, we don't have any records that you had those items," Hill said.

The chain of command at the library works so that if FBI or other law enforcement officials came to investigate a library user, the librarian at the checkout would talk to the library director, who would then consult with the library's lawyers.

"The gag order (during investigations) is unnecessary," Hill said. "It has a chilling effect on people using libraries."

Library record searches aren't efficient, Licht said. He said the practice was similar to digging through a phone book with no goal. The FBI rarely takes such measures, he said.

"I can't think of an instance when (the East Lansing field office) used library records," Licht said. "They're one of the last steps I want to take."

Even within Congress, portions of the Patriot Act continue to be disputed. Some people who originally voted for the act, such as U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, have since worked to amend it.

"He does not believe that (Section 215) of the act is necessary," Ehlers' spokesman Jon Brandt said. "It will always be possible for law enforcement officials to get that information, with or without the Patriot Act."

"There are people on both sides of the aisle who are concerned," Brandt said.

However, Rogers said he would like to see the Patriot Act expand.

"If we didn't have Section 215, we would be creating a safe haven for terrorists to conduct their operations," Rogers said.

Potentially, terrorists operating inside the United States could use library computers to contact al-Qaida leaders, so concerns over Section 215 are "unfounded and overblown," he said.

Communication

The one section of the Patriot Act that has not been contested is the provision which opens communication between and within different branches of the FBI.

Silverman said he believes this section of the act has a legitimate argument and is commendable.

Previously, judicial interpretations of FISA closed the lines of communication between intelligence and criminal investigations.

Licht said communication is important in the FBI because a terrorist can commit regular crimes, and the agencies' resources are wasted by having two investigators in different sectors tracking the same person.

It also makes sense, he said, because the regular crimes could be used to advance terrorist actions, such as gathering funds through credit card fraud.

Efforts to break down restrictions in the lines of communication in 1995 only served to further complicate interpretations of FISA and resulted in even lower levels of intelligence sharing.

Frank said communication between the FBI and CIA is very important and was inhibited before the Patriot Act.

"It's not that the federal government can get more information. It's that the information we got before, we don't have to keep it pigeonholed from other parts of the government," Frank said.