By Noelle Straub and J.P. Cassidy
The Bush administration's anti-terrorism bill, which would expand the powers of law enforcement agencies, has run into opposition from congressional liberals and conservatives who fear it would erode civil liberties.
Democrats and libertarians seek to strip it of provisions they consider offensive, trusting that the new god of bipartisanship will protect them from political attacks.
Few expect a contentious debate when the bill hits the floor, since that would shatter the façade of unity, but Democrats, along with Republicans from the party's libertarian wing, think they have the leverage to force significant revisions at the committee level.
In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is hammering out the differences between his counterterrorism proposals and that of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who testified before the committee Tuesday.
At a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee Monday, Ashcroft faced a barrage of harsh questioning, not just from Democrats, but from a number of Republicans who think the bill expands police power far beyond what is necessary to combat terrorism.
At least six Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee want to see major elements of the bill eliminated or seriously revised.
Republican Reps. Bob Barr (Ga.), Chris Cannon (Utah), Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Darrell Issa (Calif.), along with Democrat Bobby Scott (Va.), wrote a letter to Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (Wis.) saying that 10 important sections of the bill ' dealing with, among other things, asset seizure, secret evidence, searches conducted without notification, and indefinite detention of noncitizens ' were fundamentally flawed, and another 10 were unacceptable as written.