If you are anywhere near a TV on Saturday nights at 7, Capital Gang is worth turning it on for—at least the weeks Kate O’Beirne is on (she alternates with Margaret Carlson). This weekend, it included an interview Kate did with John Ashcroft earlier in the week. Though the transcription leaves a little to be desired here and there, you’ll get the point.

O’BEIRNE: You believe that the attacks on 9/11 taught some lethal lessons. Like what?
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, that we need to be better prepared to fight against terror, that terrorists use this high technology, it uses disposable telephones, it uses modern communications techniques that, frankly, weren’t available in the fight against terror. And we needed to be prepared to stop additional terrorist attacks.
O’BEIRNE: How important has the PATRIOT Act been in preventing additional attacks?
ASHCROFT: Well, the PATRIOT Act did about three things. One, it took a number of authorities that we had against other kinds of criminal activities, say drugs and organized crime, and made those authorities available to fight against terror.
Number two, it gave us the ability to have the kind of technology against terror that would match the technology of the terrorists, so that we could use digital surveillance techniques to surveil digital communications.
And number three, it took down the wall of separation between the CIA intelligence capacity of the country and the FBI, the law enforcement capacity, so information we learned in the intelligence world could be used to prevent additional terrorist attacks.
O’BEIRNE: Now, the Patriot Act passed Congress six weeks after 9/11 by a vote of 98 to 1 in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the House. Why is it apparently more controversial now than it was back then?
ASHCROFT: Well, I really can’t say, unless it is that the country is less focused on the need to interrupt the kind of violent terrorist attacks that really galvanized our attention. There was a vigorous debate for the full six weeks we were focused on this. We had a proposed act ready to go within six days, but it took the kind of careful inspection to which the Congress (UNINTELLIGIBLE) gave the act in order to pass it in six weeks.
But I hope that we don’t lose our focus.
O’BEIRNE: Last month, a provision that permits delayed notification of warrants was effectively repealed by a large margin in the House, including over 100 Republicans. Does that tell you that even the president’s supporters have now become critics of the act?
ASHCROFT: No, that was a late-night amendment that hadn’t been debated, it hadn’t been before committee. There were people on the floor saying, I don’t know what this does. People were told that this was some kind of novel intrusion into the civil rights of Americans.
Judicially supervised delayed notification has been part of our law for decades. And it allows us to, under the supervision of a court, to make certain kinds of searches and delay giving notice, so that we don’t tip off the criminal or the person who is, who is, who is being examined.
This authority has been available against organized crime and against drug dealers and the like, certain kinds of fraud…
O’BEIRNE: Another specific. Under the act, can federal agents conduct wiretaps, seize property, or make arrests without warrants?
ASHCROFT: Absolutely not. Now, a warrant to get records under the PATRIOT Act has to be approved by a federal judge, so is that — there is that layer of case-specific examination by a federal judge to see to it that it’s proper and appropriate, and then, of course, ultimately, the twice-yearly reports by the Justice Department on the PATRIOT Act to the Congress, they provide another layer of oversight in the congressional branch…
O’BEIRNE: Can immigrants now be held indefinitely without the right to attorneys?
ASHCROFT: Absolutely not. Immigrants cannot be held without a reason to hold them. Now people who are in violation of the law can be held. They are always given notice of their right to an attorney.
O’BEIRNE: Do you have the necessary tools now, or do you need additional legislation to continue the success in preventing another attack? ASHCROFT: Well, I think we’re always going to have to be sensitive to the fact that the terrorist evolves. He changes his operation to try and avoid the techniques and the capacities we have. So we should always be open to finding ways to protect American lives, American liberties against terrorism.
Let me give you another example. People who commit violent crimes or people who are major drug dealers, there is a presumption that they should be detained while their case is being adjudicated. It’s not a — not automatic, but there is a presumption that they wouldn’t be sent out on bond.
We don’t have that presumption about terrorists.
O’BEIRNE: Some of these changes would fit into a PATRIOT II?
ASHCROFT: We know that there is a continuing threat, and that it’s an evolving threat, and that we ought to be sensitive to doing what’s necessary to protect the lives and liberty of Americans. And if it needs — if we need to ask the Congress to act again, I’m confident that the Congress will. They acted wisely, it’s been a success, it’s been a substantial part of our ability to protect America.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUNT: Kate, is Attorney General Ashcroft ignoring the now bipartisan reservations in Congress about the PATRIOT Act?
O’BEIRNE: No, he’s traveling in order to counter this disinformation campaign about the PATRIOT Act.
Look, I am as distrustful of the federal government and recognize federal law enforcement is a fearsome thing as the next card-carrying conservative. But there is so much misinformation about the PATRIOT Act.
The ACLU, fine, they object. They object when these tools are available against the Mafia and drug dealers. They’re certainly going to object to terrorists. Having the same tools now available with respect to terrorism, in some cases, even a higher burden investigating terrorism.
So, as I said, the attorney general, I wanted to give him an opportunity to answer the specific charges. These are commonsense provisions that have clearly (UNINTELLIGIBLE) us and made us safer in two and a half years, not a further attack, despite the fact that al Qaeda remains active here, and it remains overwhelmingly popular in the polls with the public.