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