Lawmakers Say Bill Raises Concerns for Civil Liberties

Lawmakers from both parties expressed deep concerns Monday with anti-terrorism legislation proposed by the White House, telling Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that many of the provisions would undermine Americans’ civil liberties and privacy rights.

In the first congressional hearing on the measure, members of the House Judiciary Committee made it clear that unless the package is altered or pared back, it is unlikely to earn the swift passage sought by the White House.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, told Ashcroft that Congress was behind the administration in its efforts “to get those guys” who planned the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

But, Conyers continued, he and other Democrats were “deeply troubled” by provisions to give the government expanded wiretapping authority and the power to detain non-U.S. citizens indefinitely. A number of Republicans, including Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), raised similar objections.

The session marked a visible departure from the remarkable unity and largely uncritical support of the administration that lawmakers have shown since the attacks.

Ashcroft defended the package, saying every provision was crafted to safeguard civil liberties and pass constitutional muster. The ability of law enforcement to combat terrorism, he said, is hamstrung by laws that not only fail to recognize the new seriousness of the threat but also have been rendered obsolete by the advance of technology.

“Every day that passes with outdated statutes and the old rules of engagement is a day that terrorists have a competitive advantage,” Ashcroft said. “We are today sending our troops into the modern field of battle with antique weapons.”

Ashcroft offered lawmakers a brief update on the investigation of the attacks, saying that authorities have arrested or detained 352 suspects or witnesses and conducted 324 searches. Authorities still are trying to track down nearly 400 individuals who “may have information helpful to the investigation,” he said. He did not elaborate.

Wiretapping Authority Proposed for Expansion

In the midst of this burgeoning probe--which Ashcroft has described as the largest in the nation’s history--Justice Department officials also have been drafting the anti-terrorism bill, a critical part of the post-Sept. 11 congressional agenda. Much of the legislation is designed to streamline the government’s ability to place terrorist suspects under surveillance.

The White House wants investigators to be able to obtain court orders for electronic surveillance that would apply across multiple jurisdictions, supplanting a time-consuming system that requires authorities to file separate requests for each jurisdiction.

The administration also is seeking “roving wiretap” authority, which would allow investigators to place individuals--rather than specific devices, such as a telephone--under electronic surveillance.

Ashcroft has argued that the current restrictions put investigators at a deep disadvantage in an age when suspects might use numerous devices, from computers to disposable cell phones, to evade law enforcement.

Many lawmakers have said they agree that such statutes are out of date. But on Monday, a number of House members questioned the scope of the White House’s proposed expansion of wiretapping authority.

Barr, a conservative Republican and staunch privacy advocate, complained that the bill would give law enforcement sweeping new powers even in investigations that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Barr asked whether the Justice Department was seeking “to take advantage of what is obviously an emergency situation.” The department, he said, “has sought many of these authorities on other occasions and has been unsuccessful in obtaining them.”

Ashcroft had left the hearing by the time Barr raised his question. But earlier, the attorney general had stressed that the bill “is not a wish list; it is a modest set of essentials.”

“There is no absolute guarantee that these safeguards would have avoided the Sept. 11 occurrences,” Ashcroft said. “But I believe these are each constructive, valuable tools in the fight against terrorism.”

Committee members also heaped criticism on another provision that would give the attorney general the authority to “certify” non-U.S. citizens as terrorist suspects and detain them indefinitely--without providing evidence or submitting the case to judicial review.

“The attorney general under this provision has carte blanche [to require] a suspect to stay in jail forever,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)

Privacy and civil liberties groups also appeared on Capitol Hill on Monday to oppose elements of the administration’s proposals, which they fear are being rushed through the legislative process.

Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Democracy and Technology warned that the legislation would give the FBI and other law enforcement agencies broad new powers to spy on Americans and would roll back many of the protections passed in the 1960s and ‘70s amid the Vietnam War and Watergate.

“Why the rush?” asked Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. “This is not the way to deal with our constitutional liberties.”

But Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, vowed to press forward on the anti-terrorism bill. The committee plans to begin reviewing the legislation today.

Improved Sharing of Data Sought

Many of the bill’s proposals have broad bipartisan support, including provisions that would stiffen criminal penalties for terrorist activity and require federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to improve their data-sharing capabilities.

At a separate hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, CIA general counsel Robert McNamara Jr. called upon Congress to break down the “artificial barriers” that prevent the FBI and the CIA from sharing information.

Under current law, the sharing of information is limited to protect the rights and privacy of suspects. The need to share information is particularly urgent in the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, which involves thousands of FBI and intelligence agents working worldwide.

“When you have an investigation of this size, you need to have coordination,” said David Kris, an assistant deputy attorney general. “It would be very helpful to have the information-sharing provisions.”