Connecticut Civil Liberties in Center of Debate
WASHINGTON – The House Judiciary Committee reached an agreement Oct. 1 for an anti-terrorism package, dropping some of Attorney General John Ashcroft’s controversial provisions to increase law enforcement power, but the bill continues to stir up debate on civil liberties within the Connecticut Delegation as well as Congress.
Representative Nancy Johnson (R-6th) said that although she appreciates people’s concerns to protect civil liberties and having oversight on the bill, she felt Ashcroft’s proposal is more appropriate in the fight against terrorism.
“Ashcroft is right that we need unprecedented powers. I think he doesn’t provide enough detail as to standards and oversight,” Johnson said. “On the other hand, I think my colleagues are cutting back on his powers so much that he won’t to be able to prevent terrorist activities. áI’m worried about our unwillingness to recognize how pernicious these groups are, how hard they are to find, how hard they are to capture and stop.”
The new bill introduced by House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrener (R-WI) and ranking Democrat John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) would permit law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance on suspected terrorists, detain immigrants, and share intelligence information.
Representative James Maloney (D-5th) said he supported the Sensenbrenner-Conyers bill because it provides institutional protection for civil liberties. “I think that had the Congress adopted the Attorney General’s proposal, it would’ve been struck down by the Supreme Court anyway,” he said.
Civil liberties groups find the new measure an improvement and less severe than Ashcroft’s proposal but still believe it would infringe upon individual freedom. “It’s inadequate,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU’s national office in Washington, DC. “The potential for abuse is still great here.”
Most of the criticism from civil liberties groups focused on Ashcroft’s proposal of detaining non-citizens suspected of terrorism indefinitely. The Sensensbrenner-Conyers bill allows immigrants suspected of terrorism to be detained for only seven days before they are charged or released.
Gregory T. Nojeim, Associated Director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, D.C. disagreed with both proposals. “Even though it [Congress] says it has compromised on indefinite detention, under this legislation, the Administration still achieves the same result of being able to imprison someone indefinitely who has never been convicted of a crime.”
Maloney said he would not have objected to longer detention time for suspected terrorists, but not indefinitely. “Indefinite detention is just not a concept that is acceptable under the American approach of individual rights,” Maloney said. “That’s saying the State can make a decision about someone’s life without any recourse to due process.”
Although an indefinite detention is unsettling, Johnson said, seven-day detention would not be sufficient in identifying terrorists. “The proof of terrorist activity is harder to get, it’s longer to assemble. á There is a need for a longer detention period,” she said.
The new legislation also would permit law enforcement to track communications against multiple phone lines, cell phones and the Internet and no longer would be restricted to monitoring a specific telephone.
Johnson agreed that a “pen register,” the ability to tap-and trace all electronic devices for a particular person as opposed to a single communication device, is necessary to track down terrorists.
“In today’s world, a telephone is not how criminals work. They use all electronic media; they move from one to the other. áIf we’re going to root out terrorism, we have to follow terrorists,” Johnson said.
“And they move across the nation, and they communicate through a variety of mechanisms-all of them high tech and modern-and we have to be able to follow those communications, or we’ll never be able to identify terrorist patterns of action before they strike.”
According to Maloney, local and state governments can issue a court order to permit secret surveillance under “probable cause” that is a crime being committed or planned. With the new legislation, “instead of meeting that full standard for law enforcement purposes. áThe standard is reduced. They are able for that limited purpose to have broader wiretap authority,” he said.
“While we find wiretapping offensive, frankly, I don’t have a lot of sympathy with people who are using these freedoms to make a criminal attack on other people,” Johnson said.
The Sensenbrenner-Conyers bill did not include Ashcroft’s provision to allow “sneak-and-peak searches,” which could wiretap communication devices before notifying the suspects.
The ACLU opposes the legislation because it would give law enforcement too much power. Murphy said, “We are still deeply concerned that the compromise measure continues to weaken essential checks and balances on the authority of federal law enforcement in a manner that is unwarranted.”
Both Congressmen agree a “sunset date” in which Congress could review the provisions of the new surveillance is good. The bill would “set” or expire on Dec. 31, 2003, and would require the President to revise or expand any provisions by Aug. 31 of that year. Johnson said over the next couple of years the federal government will learn to handle terrorist situations. “Through oversight and experience, we’ll be able to tell what was too broad,” she said.
Maloney said the sunset review will protect the public. “It gives us an opportunity to evaluate whether we have drawn the line too far or too close.”
