JUSTICE

John Ashcroft wants to mobilize the Justice Department to fight terror. Is
he going too far?

Most attorneys general embody only the first half of what their title
promises, but not John Ashcroft. Last week he announced a sweeping "wartime
reorganization and mobilization" of his law-enforcement troops, converting
the Department of Justice into something more like a Department of
Antiterrorism. Fewer FBI agents will fight local crimes and the drug war;
they will walk the al-Qaeda beat instead. Hundreds of crime fighters at
headquarters will be transferred to field offices on America's "front
lines." And 10% of the budget-$2.5 billion-will be redirected to
counterterrorism.

The creaky, lumbering contraption that is the American criminal-justice
system could use some streamlining, especially now that the Justice
Department has one overriding mission, to prevent terrorism. But Ashcroft's
plans raise plenty of questions. For one thing, if he reallocates agents
and money to find future Mohamed Attas, other priorities-from civil rights
enforcement to antitrust efforts-may wither. Last week Ashcroft ensured
that one conservative cause wouldn't be forgotten: reversing a Clinton
Administration ruling, he allowed his department's drug agents to go after
Oregon doctors who prescribe narcotics for suicide under that state's Death
with Dignity law. (On Thursday a federal judge in Oregon put Ashcroft's new
rule on hold pending a court battle.)

One aspect of Ashcroft's antiterror campaign has already irked civil
libertarians. Two weeks ago the Attorney General quietly rewrote federal
rules to allow feds to monitor communications between inmates and their
lawyers. To trigger the eavesdropping, the Attorney General need have only
a "reasonable suspicion" that an inmate may try to transmit terrorism
instructions through his attorney. Justice Department officials pointed out
that the fruits of the eavesdropping would be used only to prevent imminent
attacks and that the information could not be used in court-at least not
without a judge's approval. But civil libertarians and defense lawyers were
furious anyway; attorney-client privacy has long been a sacrosanct
privilege of common law. "This essentially allows the Attorney General to
overrule [that] privilege whenever he chooses without judicial
supervision," says Steve Shapiro of the A.C.L.U. A court challenge is assured.

The Justice Department is considering other ways to get around due-process
requirements. Capitol Hill sources tell TIME that the department's Office
of Legal Counsel is looking into the possibility of setting up a military
court to try terrorism suspects who wind up being charged, thus enabling
prosecutors to avoid many of the niceties of the regular court system. In
1942 the Supreme Court allowed an American military commission to try eight
Germans who had landed by submarine in Florida and New York with plans of
sabotage. The men were found guilty and six of them were executed.

But for now military courts are just a terrorism prosecutor's fantasy. In
the meantime, Ashcroft must win the approval of Congress for his less
radical proposals. Some will not be controversial. It makes sense to split
the Immigration and Naturalization Service so that border protection and
immigrant services are independent. That will allow the border patrol to
focus all its attention on keeping shady characters out. No one will argue
against updating the Justice Department's computer system, which is so bad
that many employees work from ancient terminals that can't access the
Internet. Even the focus on counterterrorism began before Sept. 11. The FBI
had already handed over most bank-robbery probes to local authorities. Many
agents have been saying for a long time that fugitive investigations can be
taken over by the U.S. marshals and that the Drug Enforcement
Administration is better at nailing major traffickers.

But lawmakers may object when spending more for counterterrorism means
losing an FBi agent in their hometown who works on an antidrug task force.
Other shuffling could incite a revolt in Congress. "If you try in any
significant way to hinder the civil-rights division, that would be over the
bodies of Senators on the Judiciary Committee," says a former Justice
Department official. Which sounds like fightin' words-- perfect for someone
who seems more a general than an attorney.

[IMAGE PHOTOGRAPH] Captioned as: "We cannot do everything we once did,
because lives now depend on doing a few things very well."