CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE HILL

John Ashcroft's antiterrorist package will face resistance from more than
just liberal Democrats.

When Phyllis Schlafly and the ACLU agree, Attorney General John Ashcroft
might want to pay attention.

Groups on the right and the left want Congress to slow down in granting
expanded law-enforcement powers to the federal government in the wake of
the attacks on New York and Washington. With dozens of Osama bin Laden's
associates still at large in the United States and the country on a war
footing, it takes a brave soul to stand in the way of anything that might
make the country feel more secure.

Ashcroft initially wanted Congress to pass his anti-terrorism package by
week's end, but it wasn't only liberal Democrats who had objections. House
Republican leader Dick Armey emerged from a midweek meeting with Ashcroft
and other congressional leaders openly cool to the rushed timetable.

When reporters asked how long it would take to reach consensus for passage,
Armey said several weeks.

Ashcroft will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to
lobby for his proposals.

The notion that the Senate would pass his package without debate, or even
holding a hearing, is not the way Congress does business.

Ashcroft can be forgiven for thinking he could skip the normal legislative
process given the enormity of the events he is dealing with as the nation's
chief law-enforcement officer.

But the coalition of groups and lawmakers who see themselves as protectors
of civil liberties also got a wake-up call on that fateful Tuesday, and
that is that they must maintain their vigilance in the face of almost
overwhelming pressure to do otherwise in the name of national security.

There are some things the administration and even staunch
civil-libertarians in the Congress can agree upon. Topping the list is the
need to update wiretap laws to accommodate cyberspace. The FBI already has
the right to conduct "roving" wiretaps in criminal cases, meaning one court
order allows them to tap not just one phone but a variety of telephonic and
computer communications connected to an individual. Expanding that to
intelligence gathering even when there is no evidence of a crime is a
"no-brainer," says an aide to Sen. Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary
Committee.

The more problematic area of Ashcroft's proposal has to do with immigrants
who may be in violation of the law and what rights they have when they are
taken in for questioning. Ashcroft has already under existing legal
authority extended the time that the government can hold such people from
24 hours to 48 hours--and longer in an emergency.

This is relevant today because the FBI has some 75 people in custody for
questioning in connection with the attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon. How long before they break down and reveal a crucial piece of
information that could save American lives in the future?

Conversely, what if they're innocent?

Ashcroft would like authority for the government to indefinitely detain and
possibly deport immigrants if there's any suspicion they are linked to
terrorist activity.

The broad language stirs memories of how Japanese-Americans were herded
into camps during World War II, and has echoes today in the way some
Americans are taking out their anger on Muslims living in their
communities. One provision favored by Ashcroft would give the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) rather than a judge, as under current law,
the power to declare someone a terrorist.

That is one of several areas that unite right and left, and where Ashcroft
will almost certainly not get what he wants.

A Terrorism Czar?

More than 40 government agencies have some jurisdiction over terrorism, and
the result is that sometimes it feels like nobody's in charge. A former
Justice Department official finds it "appalling" that the U.S. "devotes
more resources to defending our interests in the Pacific than in defending
New York." That's about to change. "Homeland defense" is the new buzzword
on Capitol Hill. For starters, Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham of
Florida has a bill that would establish a terrorism czar appointed by the
president and confirmed by the Senate. In theory at least this person would
ease the turf problems that currently exist between the FBI, CIA and
Defense Departments, and treat terrorism more holistically. "When something
blows up in the U.S., the natural response is for Justice and the FBI to
step in, and it's a crime scene," says an Intelligence Committee aide.
"Well, what if it's a war scene?

Did Scotland Yard investigate every bombing in London during World War II
and put tape around it and declare it a crime scene?

No."

'Dirty People'

The spirit of unity on Capitol Hill has had a few cracks, among them
lawmakers ridiculing the Clinton administration for a 1995 CIA guideline
restricting the recruitment of informers who are known felons or who have
committed human-rights violations. The 1995 rule was in response to the
revelation of a Guatemalan colonel on the CIA payroll being implicated in
the murder of an American, and the cover-up that ensued.

But contrary to the way this "dirty assets" guidelines have been portrayed,
the CIA didn't forbid employing unsavory characters to spy in foreign
countries. It did ask that field agents get an OK from the higher-ups at
Langley, in part for their own bureaucratic protection should questions
arise later.

A CIA spokesman says no request has ever been turned down in the area of
counterterrorism. "It's an urban legend that we only deal with the Little
Sisters of the Poor," he says. "We deal with lots of dirty people." Still,
critics contend the guidelines have had a chilling effect, and they are
likely to be overturned or modified.