THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, April 27, 1995 TAG: 9504270011
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 61 lines
Republican Senate leader Bob Dole and Democrat Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota are promising swift passage of anti-terrorist legislation. Slow passage would be preferable.
There's no question law-enforcement agencies need to monitor, infiltrate and bring to justice terrorist organizations. But the power needs to be carefully controlled.
James Zogby of the Arab American Institute warns that when governments get zealous about security, they often ``do not go after dangerous groups. They go after unpopular groups.''
The often gung-ho Speaker Newt Gingrich is more restrained in this case. ``I don't think you can lightly just say we're going to give the FBI this power,'' he says. If investigators are going to be given greater latitude, Gingrich proposes oversight committees of Congress to watch the watchers.
Some safeguard is needed. Government has overstepped the line from the Palmer Raids of the '20s through McCarthy-era witch hunting to the notorious Cointelpro program during the Vietnam War. Not only did the FBI infiltrate and spy on nonviolent civil-rights and peace groups, it also trumped up charges, manufactured evidence and attempted to smear and frame dissenters. Such invasions of privacy, assaults on free speech and miscarriages of justice could happen again in the aftermath of Oklahoma City.
Some powers sought by the FBI and the Justice Department make sense. Anti-terrorism sections need bolstering. Some are at 50 percent strength. More funds are needed to gather information, recruit informants, and compile data bases. Some restrictions on investigations may now be too tight.
The FBI is sometimes constrained from pursuing leads if extremist groups portray themselves as religious, civil-rights or charitable organizations. It now has the ability to infiltrate groups or use informants only after the groups advocate crimes or violence. That may be too late.
On the other hand, the legislation being considered would make it considerably easier to tap phones, pry into bank, credit and travel records and read computer traffic. That needs to be approached with great caution.
One controversial provision in the administration bill would allow aliens to be deported on the basis of evidence shown only to a judge, not to the alleged suspect. That could infringe constitutional protections. Opposing terrorism shouldn't mean opening the door to the star chamber or the kangaroo court.
Another dubious provision of the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act would grant the president power to freeze assets or bar contributions to any organization he deems ``detrimental to the interests of the United States,'' and no judicial review would be permitted. The act would also allow permanent detention of aliens even if they had committed no crime.
Promises to enact legislation in a week do not allay fears of a threat to civil liberties, but heighten them. It's possible a good case can be made for anti-terrorist measures, but the case does need to be made - fully, openly and deliberately. The cause of law enforcement will be hurt, not helped, if extreme legislation is hastily enacted in the name of combatting extremism. by CNB