BOOST FBI'S POWER - FOR NOW

With drug use rising across the USA in 1984, Congress was under pressure to
tighten law enforcement, much as it is today in the fight against
terrorism. Then, as now, the price was weakened civil- liberties protections.

But knowledge borne of 2 decades' experience provides a cautionary tale
about the fallout that can result when laws tamper with bedrock liberties -
and the importance of guarding against such hazards.

In 1984, Congress began allowing law enforcement agencies to keep the
proceeds from property seized in drug cases. Viewed as a harmless way to
encourage police agencies to step up enforcement, the law proved a textbook
example of justice gone wrong. It mistakenly assumed that any seized
property came from illegal activity, a clear perversion of the
guilty-until-proved-innocent guarantee on which the nation's legal
underpinnings depend.

In one case that went to the Supreme Court, a family was fined $5,000 for
not reporting cash they were taking out of the country. But Customs agents
also confiscated the family's $300,000 life savings without alleging
another crime. In another case, a New Jersey sheriff caught a teenager
selling marijuana from his mom's car and seized the car. Neither injustice
was undone until years later, and only after costly court appeals.

Fast forward to 2001 and Congress' current efforts to fight terrorism
through a legislative package that increases the FBI's authority. The
agency says the proposals give it important powers needed to stave off new
terrorist attacks. It includes scores of them, many quite acceptable.

For instance, agents would be able to use one court order to tap the
cellphones of suspects who move across jurisdictional lines, or to get
wiretap orders against terrorist suspects under the same streamlined law
used now against foreign spies.

What's more, the most threatening parts of the original Bush-
administration proposal appear to be dropped. Among them, provisions
allowing the unlimited confinement of immigrants and U.S. courts'
acceptance of evidence that was illegally obtained by foreign intelligence
agents.

But the law grants other potentially dangerous new powers to federal law
enforcement. For instance, it restricts the authority of judges to oversee
police activities, stripping a key bulwark against abusive tactics.

Justice Department officials dismiss such fears, saying the vital new
powers won't be abused. But if time proves them wrong, rectifying the law
could be slow. It took 15 years to fix the assets-seizure law.

To protect against a replay of history, the House Judiciary Committee
proposes requiring the renewal of controversial provisions in 2 years, so
Congress is forced to re-evaluate.

Too bad the White House opposes the plan. It's based on the same
common-sense logic embraced by Republicans during the Cold War: Trust but
verify. More importantly, it sets an incentive for law enforcement: Use the
new powers wisely or lose them.