Dragnet

Thursday, September 27, 2001; Page A26

THE GOVERNMENT has rounded up hundreds of people in its investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Many are being held on technical immigration violations or minor charges unrelated to the probe, or as material witnesses -- people who are not charged with anything but whose testimony is considered essential and who may flee if released. Such a massive dragnet, particularly when so concentrated among Arabs and Muslims, raises civil liberties anxieties. The overwhelming number of these people are probably innocent of any involvement in the attacks, yet whatever else happens as the investigation proceeds, many will be deported. The danger is heightened because many of the names of those detained are being kept secret, so it isn't clear who is being held for what or with what kind of evidence.

Everyone wants the FBI to be aggressive -- to use every lawful tool to find anyone who assisted in the attacks and to uncover other cells that may be lying in wait. To hold potentially vital witnesses for periods of time is legal. So is detaining immigrants who have violated visa laws, while seeking their deportation, and using minor charges as a basis to hold people suspected of greater wrongdoing while making the broader case. None of these tactics is unprecedented, and given the danger, investigators would be derelict not to use powers Congress has given them.

But no matter how dastardly the crime, investigators must keep to the rules. In certain instances, defense lawyers have alleged that their access to clients has been impaired. One lawyer claimed that his client, Albader Al-Hazmi, was held incommunicado and could not be reached by lawyers for six days. Another attorney says the Immigration and Naturalization Service would not provide him access to a detainee named Hussein al-Attas because he did not have a signed form identifying himself as counsel -- a form he could not get without such access. Defense lawyers frequently raise alarms about prosecutorial conduct, but if such allegations prove true, they are not harmless excesses.

It is easy at a time like this to see procedural rights as a luxury, and the public may be forgiving. But judges will not be so forgiving if serious violations are brought before them. Observing the rules now is the best way to ensure that investigators' efforts bear fruit. Even more important: Fair play is what separates law enforcement here from that in police states. If the rule of law is honored almost all of the time -- always except when the temptation to ignore it is very strong -- it isn't the rule of law at all.