Maine is missing from Attorney General John Ashcroft’s 16-state itinerary as he tours the country to defend the USA Patriot Act, a law that gave the government new powers to conduct searches and surveillance in terrorism investigations. From Mr. Ashcroft’s point of view, it’s probably a good thing. Maine’s two congressmen, both Democrats, voted in July to repeal a key provision of the anti-terrorism act. And groups throughout the state, including especially librarians, have been attacking the law as an unjustified abridgement of constitutional rights.

The lengthy and complicated Patriot Act was passed overwhelmingly in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, before hardly anyone had been able to read its hundreds of pages. Many have had second thoughts since then, including Rep. Tom Allen, a Portland Democrat, who voted for the original bill.

Both sides are playing hardball over Section 213, which allows the government to delay notifying citizens when it searches their homes or businesses or seizes their papers. Opponents call it the “sneak and peek” provision. The Justice Department has fired back, calling the bill repealing that section the “Terrorist Tip-off Amendment.” Rep. Allen, of Maine’s first district, and Rep. Michael Michaud, of the second district, both voted for an amendment introduced by Rep. C.L. “Butch” Otter, an Idaho Republican, to cut off funding for “sneak and peek” warrants in terrorism cases. The House approved the amendment 309 to 118. Ashcroft’s office promptly sent out a memo to all 93 U.S. attorneys asking them “to call personally or meet with … congressional representatives” to discuss “the potentially deleterious effects” of the Otter amendment.

Attached was a list of U.S. representatives with an asterisk next to each who had voted for Mr. Otter’s repeal measure. Maine got two asterisks. The memo also asked the U.S. attorneys to hold community meetings to press the virtues of the Patriot Act.

Maine’s U.S. attorney, Paula Silsby, had already discussed the issue with Rep. Allen, in a public-access cable television panel on Aug. 1. She has arranged to telephone Rep. Michaud shortly after Labor Day. And she has scheduled a public meeting today on the Patriot Act at the Bangor Public Library from noon to 1 p.m. or longer if necessary.

Both legislators rightly have serious reservations about the anti-terrorist legislation. Mr. Allen’s spokesman, Mark Sullivan, concedes that new legislation was needed to bring the Justice Department up to speed in a high-tech age and that the law will come up for reconsideration in 2005 under a sunset provision. But he says the congressman questions the manner in which Attorney General Ashcroft is invoking the law. Beyond that, says Mr. Sullivan, directing U.S. attorneys to perform a political act – lobbying embers of Congress – is objectionable.

In his barnstorming tour, Mr. Ashcroft has mentioned favorably a Republican proposal to allow investigators to obtain administrative subpoenas in terrorism cases without the approval of a judge. The change is part of a broad package now being drafted to strengthen the Patriot Act powers.

The attorney general is probably wasting his time, considering the widespread objection to his department’s excesses under the extraordinary law passed in the post- 9-11 trauma. He could better occupy his energy in planning how to safeguard traditional liberties while protecting the national security.