Pubdate: Sat, 13 Oct 2001
Source: Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (TX)
Copyright: 2001 Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas
Contact:  http://www.star-telegram.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/162

NEW WAR, OLD TACTICS

How many times in the past month have Americans been told that their nation 
is engaged in a conflict unlike any they have ever seen? That is the 
justification spurring Congress to rapidly adopt new anti-terrorism 
statutes to expand law enforcement authority.

In truth, this "war on terrorism" is not unlike the nation's "war on 
drugs." The enemy is well-financed yet shadowy and elusive. The strategy 
for bringing him down? Go after financial assets while passing new laws to 
make it easier to cripple his operations and catch his operatives.

In the case of drug suspects, Congress passed asset forfeiture laws in the 
mid-1970s that allowed law enforcement officials to seize people's property 
before criminal charges were brought against them.

The question about the constitutionality of that practice was raised early 
and often. Yet it took Congress more than 25 years to revisit the 
incredibly low "probable-cause" hurdle that the police had to clear in 
order to seize someone's property, even when no formal charges had been 
filed and the suspect later was cleared.

In the 1980s, Congress responded quickly to what was considered an epidemic 
of crack cocaine by increasing penalties for crack possession - without 
initiating a corresponding increase in penalties for the powdered form of 
the narcotic. The passage of time brought into focus the enforcement 
inequities that this decision imposed against black urban youth.

Fast-forward to post-Sept. 11. The target now is terrorism. The 
administration issued an executive order to freeze bank accounts of 
terrorism suspects and sympathizers and then went to Congress for expanded 
law enforcement authority.

Congress is justified in wanting to give the Justice Department new tools 
to move quickly and surely against suspects. But it is imperative that 
those tools properly balance the competing interests of national security 
and individual rights.

Key elements of the proposed legislation, such as allowing extended 
detention of suspects without charges and requiring colleges to turn over 
certain foreign students' records, should prompt congressional members of 
both political stripes to move carefully.

In its desire to track down individuals who are abusing their student 
visas, Congress should not hastily trample on the rights of thousands of 
foreign students who are in America only because they are seeking the best 
education available.

If the United States ultimately convicts individuals of terrorism under 
these new provisions, Americans will want them to stay convicted. If down 
the road they end up being set free because the laws used to garner their 
convictions are found unconstitutional, what has the nation gained?

If Congress has learned any lesson from the war on drugs, it should be that 
such new laws must include review provisions and expiration dates. The 
House version of the counterterrorism bill called for the expanded 
wiretapping powers to expire after five years; the version passed by the 
Senate includes no such limitation.

The conference committee will be the last opportunity for the House to 
inject the sunset provision into the legislation. At the very least, that 
restriction needs to be included.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Rebel