Question of Resources, Not of Authority : Thoughtful work by Senate on anti-terrorism measures

From the fear, confusion and rage surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing now comes a welcome measure of sanity and clearheadedness. Last Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on anti-terrorism--a hearing remarkable for its lack of bipartisan bickering and its reluctance to enhance police powers impulsively. The event was ostensibly about legislation, but it was really about the most basic question facing any democracy: How much personal freedom must be sacrificed for the larger community’s safety?

The Oklahoma bombers cannot be permitted to upset the United States’ remarkable ability to walk the tightrope between anarchy and a police state. But they have revealed our vulnerability in an age of powerful explosives, easy travel and instant communications.

Even so, the hearing produced no emotional pleas for Draconian measures. Indeed, both Oklahoma senators, Don Nickles and James M. Inhofe, conservative Republicans, counseled deliberate action, saying they feared violations of civil liberties. Similar sentiments came from such diverse sources as Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who chairs the terrorism subcommittee, Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). As Dole put it, “Be careful--there is no big rush.”

The public appears to share this caution, to judge from a Los Angeles Times Poll, which found that 70% of Americans feared losing civil liberties if anti-terrorism laws must be strengthened.

The Clinton Administration responded with comparable restraint. It proposed a $1.5-billion package of mostly sensible steps: 1,000 new FBI agents, prosecutors and other personnel; tagging of explosives for later identification; a single counterterrorism center; a special FBI terrorism fund; use of military experts when chemical or biological weapons are thought to be involved,(current law allows the use of these experts only in cases involving nuclear weapons), and enhanced penalties for movement of firearms and explosives for terrorist aims. And, mainly to track foreign terrorists operating in the United States, the Administration asked for added authority in tracing numbers called from a particular phone, in gaining access to credit reports and travel records and in prohibiting financial support of terrorist groups.

Notably, neither Deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick nor FBI Director Louis J. Freeh called for liberalizing Justice Department guidelines for penetrating domestic terrorism groups. Freeh said the FBI was “entirely comfortable” with its authority, which he said was “very powerful, very effective” as long as the guidelines were “interpreted broadly.” Sen. Specter was surprised to learn that the FBI could conduct extensive preliminary inquiries into extremist groups without any criminal predicate or even probable cause, only a “reasonable indication” of criminal activity. He raised legitimate questions about such proposals as one to allow “roving” wiretaps when a phone number is not known.

Left unanswered were questions about the legal difference between dealing with foreign and domestic terrorists. And although some senators’ proposals to limit habeas corpus rights to speed imposition of criminal penalties are worth looking into, Thursday’s hearing was not the time for such a discussion. The issue now is a clear and present danger of irrational terrorism. Our government has the authority to combat it. We must see that it also has the resources.