DON'T ALLOW ACTS OF TERROR TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOMS

It has been said many times since Sept. 11, but it bears repeating: If we
surrender our rights and liberties in this country in hasty reaction to
terrorism, the terrorists win.

That is not to say that the FBI, CIA and other law officers should be
denied the reasonable tools necessary to track, apprehend and severely
punish terroristic criminals and those who wittingly aid them.

But Congress must not rush to pass a sweeping expansion of surveillance,
search and seizure powers. Instead, its members should pause to consider
whether each of the measures is both reasonable and truly useful. Some,
such as an update of wiretapping rules, will probably pass muster quickly.
Others that could result in surveillance and detention even of innocent
people should be the subject of at least a few hours' hearing before coming
up for a vote.

A war on terrorism is likely to continue for as long as there are aggrieved
groups with the depravity and the means to inflict their own suffering upon
innocents. In other words, a long, long time. That being the case, we
should only allow those increased law enforcement powers that we are
willing to live with indefinitely.

And we must not forget lessons from previous campaigns. As with the war on
drugs, racial profiling is likely to become a commonly used technique in
attempting to identify terrorists. Ironically, this country had only
recently begun to rethink the use of racial profiling, which subjects
thousands of innocent black and brown citizens to unwarranted traffic stops
and searches. Given that law officers now will eye with suspicion virtually
anyone who appears to be Arab or Muslim, how do we protect law-abiding
citizens from incessant harassment?

Wiretapping, too, has been problematic in the past, when it was abused for
political purposes. Here, though, the administration's request seems
reasonable. Wiretaps still would require a court order, but would follow
the individual rather than a particular phone or device. That would seem to
be necessary in this age of virtually disposable cellphones. It also makes
sense to allow one court sign-off to cover all states, rather than to force
the FBI to gain approval in each jurisdiction.

Rules governing the actions of our agents abroad also deserve debate. Some
in Congress are calling on President Bush to lift a 1976 executive order
prohibiting assassinations, which was another attempt to address past
excesses. It's not entirely clear what this would do for the terrorism fight.

Current rules allow for the CIA to obtain a "lethal finding," with the
approval of the president and congressional leaders, that permits agents to
take lives if necessary, short of plotting to assassinate a head of state.
Indeed, former President Clinton had reportedly authorized deadly force
against Osama bin Laden in 1998. A presidential sign-off on any
assassination order seems a reasonable requirement to keep in place.

We can battle terrorism vigorously and still adhere to the cherished notion
of checks and balances. We must do so, if we are to remain America.

We should only allow those increased law enforcement powers that we are
willing to live with indefinitely.