No Rush on Rights

Thursday, September 20, 2001; Page A34

THE ADMINISTRATION has hastily drafted legislation that would greatly expand the already considerable powers of law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism. Some of the proposals seem quite sensible. It is not clear that others are either necessary or constitutional. Attorney General John Ashcroft called the other day for enactment of the entire package this week. Such a timetable makes no sense. This is complex legislation that, as Mr. Ashcroft himself has noted, would affect civil liberties as well as law enforcement. The purpose should be not to rush and rubber-stamp but to get the balance right. That's particularly true of the proposals that would infringe on traditional liberties.

The Justice Department has, now, a limited right to detain aliens who are living here and who it believes have violated immigration rules or other laws. The previous rule was that such people could be detained without being charged for 24 hours. Mr. Ashcroft Monday ordered that extended to 48 hours and longer if necessary in emergencies, so long as the time remained "reasonable." That's the right response to current circumstances. The FBI has about 75 people in custody in connection with last week's attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, many of them non-citizens. It seeks to question about 200 more. Those totals are likely to rise as the complicated investigation proceeds; the agency needs time to sort through what happened without the risk that possible suspects and witnesses will flee.

But a section of the proposed legislation would appear to go far beyond this -- allowing indefinite detention and possible deportation of aliens on the strength of no more than certification by the attorney general that he had reason to believe they might "commit, further or facilitate" terrorist acts or "engage in any other activity that endangers . . . national security." The measure would allow only the most limited judicial review of such decisions. That's plainly wrong. The government may well need more power than it currently has to deal with people suspected of terrorist activity; Mr. Ashcroft spoke earlier this week of the government's "belief" that people with "ties to terrorist organizations" have become "a continuing presence" in the country. But the power to deal with any such threat must be hedged and subject to full judicial review or the terrorists will have succeeded already in forcing the country to retreat from its most basic principles.

Other aspects of the draft legislation deal with intelligence gathering, including wiretapping, criminal law and financial regulation. Many of the changes may be good policy, and overdue, but they too need careful vetting. Members of Congress are loath to say no to presidential proposals -- or even appear to be resisting -- in the midst of the crisis. Democrats in particular fear being accused of obstructing what amounts to a war effort. But when proposals as important as some of these are wrong, what the critics owe is vigorous dissent, not blind approval. What Mr. Ashcroft meanwhile owes is a stronger showing than he has made thus far that these proposals would not endanger civil liberties -- and would work.