RESPECT RIGHTS OF PROTEST GROUPS

It is indeed a slippery slope when some on the right say that vandalism carried
out by destructive environmental activists be defined as acts of terrorism.

Congress hastily passed the anti-terrorist Patriot Act in October 2001 during a
time when it was under siege by a real bio-terror anthrax attack. Many members
of Congress, on both the left and right, now regret not examining closely the
long-term effect of the Patriot Act on the constitutional rights of Americans.

Following an arson attack against a condominium under construction in San
Diego, the vandalism of sport utility vehicles at four Los Angeles area auto
dealerships and the freeing of 10,000 minks from a farm near Seattle, the
Justice Department is labeling such attacks ``eco terrorism.''

There are calls by some in Congress, particularly Rep. Scott McInnis, R- Colo.,
that ''eco-terrorists'' be treated in the same manner as members of al Qaeda.
To expand the Draconian Patriot Act and the proposed future ''Patriot II'' and
''Victory'' acts to cover arson, vandalism, destruction of private property and
trespassing would propel the United States dangerously closer to the type of
society envisaged by George Orwell in 1984.

It is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes around the world to elevate simple
crimes to ''crimes against the state.'' In many lands, those who merely
practice their religion or join a labor union are labeled national security
threats by the authorities and are tossed into jail. It is clear that Attorney
General John Ashcroft and his zealous allies in Congress have environmental
activist groups such as the Earth Liberation Front, Earth First and the Animal
Liberation Front in their gun sights.

But to argue that these groups pose the same level of threat as al Qaeda and
Jemaah Islamiya is ludicrous. The environmental vandals are not in the category
of worldwide networks that aim to kill thousands by setting off bombs and
releasing dangerous toxins.

Enemy Combatants

If Ashcroft and his friends get their way and pass new anti-terrorist
legislation, American citizens who support environmental causes could find
themselves detained as ''enemy combatants,'' thrown into the brig without
having the right to see a lawyer and, according to one provision in a version
of the proposed Patriot II, could have their U.S. citizenship taken away, even
if they are native born.

The word ''terrorism'' is now being used as cavalierly to describe opponents of
the current administration as much as ''communist'' was used to describe
liberals and the left in the 1950s and '60s.

Congress must be on guard against attempts by Ashcroft and his colleagues to
tip the scales of justice to enable the government to brand as ''terrorists''
those who commit lesser crimes or who commit no crimes at all but are merely
exercising First Amendment rights.

Ashcroft has already used anti-terror powers to bust a prostitution ring in
Louisiana and a cigarette smuggling operation in North Carolina. Those who
spray-paint cars are not terrorists. There are state and local laws on the
books to deal with vandalism.

Setting buildings on fire is arson, and we have plenty of laws to deal with
arsonists. Freeing minks that then go about eating pet parakeets and chickens,
although abhorrent, does not constitute terrorism.

The United States is a nation of laws, not a land of dictates, decrees and
fiats.