Hatch agrees USA Patriot Act may need some clarification

WASHINGTON — Law enforcement officials love a law written by Sen. Orrin Hatch that allows jailing people who help terrorist groups.

However, they say new court rulings may force rewriting it to help withstand challenges that it is unconstitutional.

Some sections of the USA Patriot Act, written by Hatch, R-Utah, after the 9/11 attacks, outlaw providing such things as personnel, training and expert advice or assistance to terrorists. But some courts have said the law is too vague and could allow law enforcement to jail some people merely for using First Amendment free speech to support radical groups.

In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Hatch, the senator and Justice Department officials argued the law is sufficiently clear, but they conceded it may be wise to amend it anyway to make it even more clear to prevent problems.

"The Department of Justice respectfully disagrees with these decisions holding key terms in the definition of 'material support or resources' to be unconstitutionally vague," testified Daniel J. Bryant, assistant U.S. attorney general over legal policy.

However, he said, Congress may want to tighten definitions anyway to "help allay concerns that the material support or resources statutes pose a threat to the exercise of First Amendment rights."

Christopher A. Wray, assistant U.S. attorney general over the criminal division, added that the administration is not interested in prosecuting people because of beliefs.

"It is only when someone crosses the line between advocacy and action on behalf of terrorists or a designated foreign terrorist group that they can and should be prosecuted," he said.

However, Georgetown University law professor David Cole said a greater problem with the law is that it allows the administration to deem any group it dislikes a "terrorist organization" without much proof, and then to prosecute anyone who gives it any aid.

"These statutes impose guilt by association, in violation of both the First and Fifth Amendments, because they hold individuals responsible not for their own terrorist conduct, not even for support of terrorist conduct, but for support of groups that in turn have engaged in terrorist conduct," he said.

However, Hatch defended the track record of the "material support" statutes and said they have been key to stopping several terrorist plots.