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.