Need for Anti-Terrorism Chief Debated

A proposal to assign a military commander to oversee domestic defense in the event of terrorist attack has gained visibility in recent years, yet critics contend it risks trampling individual liberties without offering much real organizational benefit.

The proposal, now under consideration by President Clinton as part of a broadened counter-terrorism program unveiled Friday, promises a more efficient way to organize the Pentagon’s resources for responding to chemical, biological and even computer-warfare attacks.

This single commander in chief would have the know-how and authority to quickly dispatch technicians and troops who could help deal with terrorist attacks that officials fear could inflict thousands of casualties and disrupt whole cities, advocates argue. This leader would presumably have authority to deploy troops from any of the services.

The notion has gained momentum as the government and outside experts have grown more alarmed at the possibilities of a catastrophic attack on the civilian population.

It won general support from a congressionally mandated study committee, called the National Defense Panel, that recommended reforms of the Pentagon in December 1997. The panel believed that the welter of programs that had been developed to handle the mounting terrorist threat were poorly coordinated.

Frank Cilluffo, a counter-terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said in congressional testimony that such a “commander in chief USA” to oversee a single budget and provide a single contact for other agencies would offer “a more systematic and integrative approach.”

The proposal may be the most novel ingredient offered in connection with a $2.8-billion package to fight terrorist attacks. Clinton discussed details of the plan in a speech Friday at the National Academy of Science.

David Leavy, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the government “needs to have a more organized response” to the threat and noted that the White House has already taken a variety of steps to centralize oversight, beginning with the appointment of a national counter-terrorism coordinator.

“We’ll take a look at this idea,” Leavy said.

But critics say it violates an American tradition of keeping the military out of civilian enforcement matters. This principle was put into statute in 1878 with a federal posse comitatus law providing that the military can be assigned such special duties only with a special request from the president.

“The Clinton administration has had a lot of bad ideas, but this is up there with the worst of them,” said Gregory Nojeim, legislative counsel in the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union. “We don’t need a national commandante; tanks on the streets is a scene from Kosovo, not Cleveland.

“Soldiers are trained to kill, not to handle allegations in a way that protects people’s civil liberties.”

Other analysts question whether such an arrangement would offer much organizational benefit.

One military command, Atlantic Command based in Norfolk, Va., already has nominal responsibility for homeland defense issues. But it has kept its role limited.

While the notion of a homeland defense commander has apparently won some advocates in the Pentagon, the leadership there has traditionally been cool toward the idea.

“We may need new missions now, with the Cold War over,” said one defense official. “I’m not sure this is one of them.”