A BILL THAT AIMS AT DRUGLORDS BUT WOUNDS RIGHTS

WASHINGTON - Fresh evidence that drugs fry the brain can be found in the
unnaturally bright eyes and crazed passions of your Congress.

In an effort to crack down on foreign druglords, the House has rammed
through a bill to let the President secretly designate certain foreigners
as narcotics kingpins.

Upon such designation, the kingpin's U.S. assets -- bank accounts, real
estate, financial holdings -- would be blocked. He or she would not be
allowed so much as a credit card or a checkbook.

In addition, he or she and all family members would be barred from entry to
this country. Children could not attend U.S. schools or colleges.

And any U.S. citizen who did business with such a designated kingpin would
be subject to 10 years in prison and a $10 million fine.

It sounds tough -- and it is. But what's screwy about it is that everything
is done in secret, and the law specifically bars the courts from reviewing
the President's secret decision.

"Suppose the President makes a mistake," says Rep. Jerrold Nadler
(D-Manhattan), who unsuccessfully opposed passage Tuesday night. "The
President decides Mr. X is a foreign narcotics kingpin. There is no public
airing of the evidence. All Mr. X's assets are frozen. His lawyers can't
defend him in court. There is no due process. This is pre-Magna Carta."

Nadler is not voicing sympathy for drug kingpins. He is trying to defend
basic U.S. rights -- especially for American citizens who might get caught
up, unknowingly, in business deals with someone hit with a kingpin
designation.

"If you're arrested and prosecuted for doing business with a designated
drug kingpin or a subsidiary, you can't defend yourself by proving that
he's not a kingpin," Nadler said. "The designation is not reviewable by the
courts."

Theoretically, the mistakenly designated kingpin himself could appeal the
designation -- but how could he pay his lawyers? All his assets would be
frozen. And if the lawyers try to represent a designated but unconvicted
druglord, are they, too, liable to 10 years in prison and a $10 million fine?

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) backed the bill because he wants to see
druglords punished at least as much as local dealers, who get 20 or 30
years in prison. Fair enough.

But mistaken designation is not a theoretical problem. In June, the
National Drug Intelligence Center accused a Mexican shipping company,
Transportacion Maritima Mexicana -- falsely, according to its reputable
American lawyers -- of involvement in drug trafficking. If the House-passed
bill had been in effect, the company and its U.S. investors could have seen
their assets frozen without notice and with no right to go to court.

In the Senate, Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) is trying to add a provision for
judicial review, but Congress is gripped by anti-drug hysteria.

When Transportacion Maritima's law firm, Verner Liipfert, which has such
members as former Sens. Bob Dole and George Mitchell, tried to point out
flaws in the legislation, Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) denounced the firm as
a "narco lobbyist." Even defending basic U.S. rights now risks a smear.

"This bill is an embarrassment to the House," Nadler said. "If we declare
something a war, some people think that we can suspend the Constitution in
order to fight that war. We did that to our regret with communism in the
1950s. We may have done that with terrorism. And now we are being asked to
do that with the war on drugs."