TARGETING TERRORISTS

President Bush last Friday signed into law a hastily passed anti-terrorism
bill that expands federal law-enforcement powers.

Perhaps one day the nation will find out just how much.

The complex legislation was rushed through Congress, with few lawmakers
getting an opportunity to digest its contents before being voting on it.
Corners were cut to speed passage, further eroding opportunities for
skeptics to throw up yellow caution flags.

For example, earlier this month the House Judiciary Committee unanimously
passed an anti-terrorism bill that was awaiting House floor action. But the
House leadership, bowing to demands from the Bush administration to speed
the process, had a brand-new bill written and brought to the floor of the
full House. Although few representatives had time to consider every
provision, the measure passed.

That bill was quite different from a Senate version. But rather than hash
out the differences in a conference committee that would take weeks,
negotiators met informally over several days before crafting a compromise.
The new bill was dumped on both chambers last week amid the anthrax
confusion on Capitol Hill. The House approved it 357-66 Wednesday, the
Senate passed it on a 98-1 vote Thursday and President Bush signed it less
than 24 hours later.

It's unfortunate -- and unsettling -- that on legislation impacting
Americans' civil rights, speed of passage was given a higher priority than
content.

Granted, the terrorist threat America faces demands swift action. Law
enforcement must be given the tools to ferret out and bring to justice
terrorists, both domestic and foreign, plotting attacks on American soil.

But the war on terrorism will be for naught if it involves waging a war on
Americans' civil liberties. There is a fine line between freedom and
security that must be tread carefully. Alas, the process that concluded
last week had all the subtlety of an elephant careening down a tightrope.

That's not to say that what passed was all bad. On the contrary, most of
what is generally known about the legislation appears sensible, although in
most bills the fine print contains the truly devilish stuff.

Still, it makes sense to increase federal penalties for acts of terrorism
and enhance data sharing between U.S. government agencies and foreign
governments in terrorism investigations.

The law eliminates the requirement to show to a special court that the
target of a wiretap is in contact with an "agent of a foreign power." This
repeals a part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 which
last August prevented FBI agents from obtaining a search warrant for the
computer files of one Zacarias Moussaoui.

It seems Mr. Moussaoui was taking Boeing 747 flying lessons in Minnesota
and showed a great interest in airliner security procedures, which raised
the suspicions of his instructors. But the Justice Department, following
the 1978 law, didn't permit the FBI search on the grounds that the suspect
was not working directly for an overseas government.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, agents raided Mr. Moussaoui's
apartment and found information tying him to the hijackers and Osama bin
Laden. Had the 1978 law not existed, the FBI might very well have prevented
the Sept. 11 attacks.

The new anti-terrorism measure also properly adapts federal surveillance
laws to the digital age. The old laws were aimed at suspects using rotary
phones on static lines, when today they can communicate with multiple and
disposable cellular phones and wireless Internet. The goal is to track the
individual, not the device.

Lawmakers compromised with the administration on how long authorities can
detain foreign suspects. Attorney General John Ashcroft wanted to be able
to hold them indefinitely. The new law allows the government to hold them
for up to seven days, by which time they must be charged with a crime,
deported or released.

Indefinitely may be too long and open to abuse; is a week sufficient? This
may have to be revisited if officials find they need more time to
interrogate suspects who know they need only clam up for seven days before
going free.

More troubling is the provision that allows the government, without a
warrant, to monitor every e-mail that a person sends and receives. Any
state, local, or federal law enforcement officer could use the e-mail
surveillance. And there is no requirement that this surveillance be
connected to a terrorism investigation. Why should that be different than
searches of postal mail that require warrants?

The new law also allows authorities to search suspects' homes without
notification, which raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns.

The anti-terrorism measures will demand thorough judicial and congressional
oversight to ensure that abuses aren't occurring. Law enforcement's new
surveillance powers must be limited to the war on terrorism and not broadly
employed on such targets as drug dealers or deadbeat parents.

Perhaps the best part of the package is that it comes with an expiration
date: Everything ends Dec. 31, 2005, unless Congress re-authorizes it.

That's an explicit acknowledgement that the nation is operating under
extraordinary, wartime circumstances. Previous wartime administrations
imposed even tougher restrictions, some good and some bad, to protect
national security. They were revoked once the crisis ended.

Will the threat of terrorism ever subside? We'll know better in four years,
not just whether the new measures are effective, but if they go too far and
wind up punishing non-terrorists.