Pubdate: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 Source: Savannah Morning News (GA) Copyright: 2001 Savannah Morning News Contact: http://www.savannahnow.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/401 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?203 (Terrorism) TARGETING TERRORISTS President Bush last Friday signed into law a hastily passed anti-terrorism bill that expands federal law-enforcement powers. Perhaps one day the nation will find out just how much. The complex legislation was rushed through Congress, with few lawmakers getting an opportunity to digest its contents before being voting on it. Corners were cut to speed passage, further eroding opportunities for skeptics to throw up yellow caution flags. For example, earlier this month the House Judiciary Committee unanimously passed an anti-terrorism bill that was awaiting House floor action. But the House leadership, bowing to demands from the Bush administration to speed the process, had a brand-new bill written and brought to the floor of the full House. Although few representatives had time to consider every provision, the measure passed. That bill was quite different from a Senate version. But rather than hash out the differences in a conference committee that would take weeks, negotiators met informally over several days before crafting a compromise. The new bill was dumped on both chambers last week amid the anthrax confusion on Capitol Hill. The House approved it 357-66 Wednesday, the Senate passed it on a 98-1 vote Thursday and President Bush signed it less than 24 hours later. It's unfortunate -- and unsettling -- that on legislation impacting Americans' civil rights, speed of passage was given a higher priority than content. Granted, the terrorist threat America faces demands swift action. Law enforcement must be given the tools to ferret out and bring to justice terrorists, both domestic and foreign, plotting attacks on American soil. But the war on terrorism will be for naught if it involves waging a war on Americans' civil liberties. There is a fine line between freedom and security that must be tread carefully. Alas, the process that concluded last week had all the subtlety of an elephant careening down a tightrope. That's not to say that what passed was all bad. On the contrary, most of what is generally known about the legislation appears sensible, although in most bills the fine print contains the truly devilish stuff. Still, it makes sense to increase federal penalties for acts of terrorism and enhance data sharing between U.S. government agencies and foreign governments in terrorism investigations. The law eliminates the requirement to show to a special court that the target of a wiretap is in contact with an "agent of a foreign power." This repeals a part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 which last August prevented FBI agents from obtaining a search warrant for the computer files of one Zacarias Moussaoui. It seems Mr. Moussaoui was taking Boeing 747 flying lessons in Minnesota and showed a great interest in airliner security procedures, which raised the suspicions of his instructors. But the Justice Department, following the 1978 law, didn't permit the FBI search on the grounds that the suspect was not working directly for an overseas government. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, agents raided Mr. Moussaoui's apartment and found information tying him to the hijackers and Osama bin Laden. Had the 1978 law not existed, the FBI might very well have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. The new anti-terrorism measure also properly adapts federal surveillance laws to the digital age. The old laws were aimed at suspects using rotary phones on static lines, when today they can communicate with multiple and disposable cellular phones and wireless Internet. The goal is to track the individual, not the device. Lawmakers compromised with the administration on how long authorities can detain foreign suspects. Attorney General John Ashcroft wanted to be able to hold them indefinitely. The new law allows the government to hold them for up to seven days, by which time they must be charged with a crime, deported or released. Indefinitely may be too long and open to abuse; is a week sufficient? This may have to be revisited if officials find they need more time to interrogate suspects who know they need only clam up for seven days before going free. More troubling is the provision that allows the government, without a warrant, to monitor every e-mail that a person sends and receives. Any state, local, or federal law enforcement officer could use the e-mail surveillance. And there is no requirement that this surveillance be connected to a terrorism investigation. Why should that be different than searches of postal mail that require warrants? The new law also allows authorities to search suspects' homes without notification, which raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns. The anti-terrorism measures will demand thorough judicial and congressional oversight to ensure that abuses aren't occurring. Law enforcement's new surveillance powers must be limited to the war on terrorism and not broadly employed on such targets as drug dealers or deadbeat parents. Perhaps the best part of the package is that it comes with an expiration date: Everything ends Dec. 31, 2005, unless Congress re-authorizes it. That's an explicit acknowledgement that the nation is operating under extraordinary, wartime circumstances. Previous wartime administrations imposed even tougher restrictions, some good and some bad, to protect national security. They were revoked once the crisis ended. Will the threat of terrorism ever subside? We'll know better in four years, not just whether the new measures are effective, but if they go too far and wind up punishing non-terrorists. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth