BOSTON—Standing before a painting of Daniel Webster’s famous speech in defense of the power of federal laws, Attorney General John Ashcroft told an audience of Massachusetts law enforcement agents in historic Fanueil Hall yesterday that America is “winning the war on terrorism” thanks to the tools granted by the USA Patriot Act.

Outside, however, roughly a thousand protesters—including about 20 Harvard students—held signs and shouted chants that accused Ashcroft and the anti-terrorism legislation of being anything but patriotic.

Just days before the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Ashcroft vowed that “our final tribute to the dead of Sept. 11 is to fulfill our responsibility to protect...the lives and liberty of those yet to come.”

But those who turned out for yesterday’s protest expressed a concern that protecting the U.S. from another terrorist attack has come at too high a price.

“It’s the wrong way to go about fighting terrorism,” said Somerville, Mass., resident Carl Takei. “We need to protect the country by doing things that are consistent with our national values.”

“I feel one of the most important things in this country is our civil liberties, and John Ashcroft—both personally and as part of this administration—is systematically dismantling them,” said Alex Edelman ’07, one of several first-years among the College students who met up in Harvard Square at 7:30 a.m. yesterday morning to head over to the rally.

Protesters cited as concerns sections of the legislation that allow the extension of the amount of time individuals may be detained, a gag rule on librarians and bookstore owners that prohibits them from telling patrons that federal agents have requested their records, and the right to delay notification of search warrants—dubbed by critics the “sneak and peak” provision.

Backlash against the legislation has grown particularly strong in recent months, as civil liberties groups launched legal challenges to the act and both houses of Congress discussed repealing its more controversial aspects. At least 150 communities around the country have also reportedly passed resolutions against the law.

The Justice Department launched a campaign this summer to try to quethis criticism.

Efforts have included the creation of a website—www.lifeandliberty.com—aimed at “dispelling some of the major myths perpetuated as part of the disinformation campaign” and a nationwide tour to allow Ashcroft the chance to defend its merits.

Yesterday’s speech, in which Ashcroft mentioned the words “life and liberty” at least seven times, was essentially the same one he has used in several other speeches he has given as part the tour, which some critics are calling a Patriot Act “road show.”

According to Ashcroft, the Patriot Act took tools that have historically been available to law enforcement agents to crack down on drug dealers and made them available for fighting terrorists.

He named the search warrant notification delay, the access to business records and so-called roving wiretaps—the right of law enforcement agents to continue to tap a suspect’s phone even if he or she crosses into a different jurisdiction with obtaining another warrant—as some of the most useful of these tools.

As Ashcroft spoke, the chanting and drum-beating of more than a thousand protestors could be heard faintly in the background.

The protesters chanted “Let the people in”—in anger over the fact that the speech was closed to the public—and “Hey hey, ho ho, Patriot Act has got to go.”

According to two of the students present, the rally grew violent at one point, when a group of protesters dressed all in black stormed the barricades.

Yesterday’s rally was the first protest of the year for several Harvard students.

“We can go to the protests and give out protest information to the media and show them that not everyone is of a single mind on this,” Benjamin Goldman-Huertas ’05 said.

—Staff writer Kate L. Rakoczy can be reached at rakoczy@fas.harvard.edu.