Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com
Tuesday October 2, 2001

"We gather here today at a moment of grave crisis in our nation's history," said Ron Daniels of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "We are concerned that democracy, in all of its fullness, not be a casualty of the tragic events of September 11."

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) is also troubled by many of the anti-terrorism proposals.

"Whenever there is a time of crisis, frequently the civil liberties, the constitutional safeguards, if we rush too rapidly, get compromised," said Conyers.

Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before the House Judiciary Committee, of which Conyers is the ranking Democratic member, last Monday. He told committee members that all of the provisions of the "Mobilization Against Terrorism Act" fall well within constitutional limits.

"Just as American rights and freedoms have been preserved throughout previous law enforcement campaigns," he remarked, "they must be preserved throughout this war on terrorism."

The legislation proposed by Ashcroft seeks to expand wiretapping authority and to give the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) broader power to deport aliens for knowingly supporting terrorist activities or organizations. Current law allows only the deportation of aliens who directly participate in a terrorist act.

The proposal would also eliminate the statute of limitations for terrorist acts, expand the range of possible sentences to include life without parole, and provide criminal sanctions against individuals who support terrorists or who help them conceal their activities. A final provision would allow the federal government to seize the assets of terrorist organizations and those who financially support them.

"As we do in each and every law enforcement mission we undertake," Ashcroft told committee members, "we are conducting this effort with a total commitment to protect the rights and privacy of all Americans and the constitutional protections we all hold dear."

CCR's legal director, William Goodman, is skeptical. He says protecting constitutional rights is equally important to protecting against terrorist assaults.

"What is the purpose of struggling to preserve a democratic system," Goodman asked, "if, in the course of preserving that system, we sacrifice those very rights upon which this country and this system are supposed to be built?"

Goodman says the list of threats includes summary detention of illegal aliens, unreasonable searches and seizures, and loss of habeas corpus rights. He says those caught up in the dragnet cast by officials investigating the terrorist attacks also face attempts to coerce testimony, deny access to attorneys and even deny fair trials.

First Amendment rights are also under attack, Goodman claims, in the form of attempts to punish both whistle blowing by government employees and anti-war protests.

Kit Gage, with the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, believes laws and policies can be changed in response to the attacks, "where the government can show us that those needs are not being filled by current law and policy."

She added, "Right now, however, we clearly aren't in that position."

Gage believes current laws are sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat without endangering civil liberties through an expansion of government power.

Howard University Law School Professor N'Kechi Taifa feels many of the questionable proposals may be simply the result of the rush to "do something" in response to the terrorist attacks. But she says proper legislation, which targets terrorists without diminishing civil rights, cannot be rushed.

"A mere two to three weeks have passed," she remarked, "Too short a time to draft, consider, and pass such sweeping enactments of police power."

To the contrary, Ashcroft feels speed is of the essence.

"The American people do not have the luxury of unlimited time in erecting the necessary defenses to future terrorist attacks," he said. "We cannot wait for terrorists to strike to begin investigations and make arrests. The death tolls are too high, the consequences too great."

Conyers acknowledges that the legislation has been improved since Ashcroft's September 24 testimony. Thirty major changes have been proposed during negotiations over the bill, including a sunset provision on all new wiretapping and domestic intelligence gathering provisions, exclusion of evidence illegally obtained from U.S. citizens overseas, and limitations on e-mail wiretaps.

"I report to you, with optimism that we're doing what we have not done before in our history, even our recent history," he said, referring to the negotiations, "and I feel that we've made a lot of progress."

Copyright CNSNews.com All Rights Reserved