Judiciary Committee Balks at Proposed Antiterrorism Act

9/25/01 - By Brandon Spun

from Insight Magazine
http://www.insightmag.com/cgi-bin/ViewNews.cfm?Item=305

Attorney General John Ashcroft, during his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, Sept. 24, pressed Congress to pass the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act (MATA). “The American people do not have the luxury of unlimited time in erecting the necessary defenses to future terrorism attacks,” said Ashcroft. The goals of MATA, as outlined by Ashcroft at the hearing are twofold: to prevent future terrorist attacks and to bring terrorists to justice.

A draft of MATA, also called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, a multiprovisionary revision to current justice procedure, was met by both the Senate and and the House of Representatives with mixed emotions. The bill focuses on with intelligence gathering, immigration and criminal justice. As eager as Congress is to ensure justice and future security, the bill while promising some advancements in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) capability to prevent terrorism has unnerved constitutionally wary congressmen.

As reported at the hearing, the Senate already expects several weeks of deliberation over MATA, preventing any expedient validation of the bill. The Judiciary Committee, equally unsure of MATA’s implications, seemed unconvinced by Ashcroft’s assurances that this bill will provide “careful regard for the constitutional rights of Americans and respect for all human beings.”

The DOJ’s reply to foreseeable delays was that “We are vulnerable, and our vulnerability is elevated without the tools needed.” Ashcroft cited the government’s failure to make terrorism a priority as one of its faults, claiming that the drug trade and organized crime are higher up on the agenda. He also warned the committee: “Technology has outpaced the statutes. Terrorists have a competitive advantage.” He concluded that sending troops into the field with antique weaponry is not a prescription for victory.

Of 744 suspects in cases of terrorism, the DOJ and Immigration and Naturalization Service have detained or arrested 352. Along with making the harboring of a terrorist a crime (just as harboring those involved in espionage is), Ashcroft explained the need for technologically relevant intelligence-gathering laws. The DOJ requires the ability to continue surveillance on a specified individual and not simply a phone, he said. Today, with virtually “disposable” cell phones readily available and e-mail as such a convenient form of communication, past wiretap laws and communication-interception policy may be crippling federal investigations, Ashcroft said.

Republicans and Democrats alike, uncomfortable with MATA’s detainment implications, found Title II of the draft, the section on immigration, to contain some of the bill’s most objectional text. Reps. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) shared their concern that such stipulations may allow for the indefinite and discriminatory detainment of aliens. Conyers made sure to point out that, up to this day, indefinite detention has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) was unwilling to give an attorney general “carte blanche” in deciding whether an already detained alien posed a threat to national security and how long the detainment of such an individual, if determined dangerous, could last. The current draft provides no protocol for a hearing to be held for the detainee, indirectly providing DOJ with the power of indefinite detention.

Members of the Judiciary Committee found problems in the draft serious enough to merit time for revision. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that much had been accomplished in the reworking of the draft during the last few days but that “another week” is necessary. He expressed concern about the possibility of “inappropriate release of information,” referring to findings about relatively private matters concerning the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that were later leaked to the public through the FBI. He concluded that the DOJ must “build in departmental incentives to be more careful.”

Judiciary Committee members Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Bob Barr (R-Ga.) said that the committee could not be rushed. Barr expressed skepticism that the need to push this bill through without the proper hearings and deliberation was there. “Why do we need to change a general law to get at terrorism law?” he asked. Inclusions in the draft such as the increased allowance of computer surveillance provoked such hesitation, as well as the fact that many of the bill’s provisions previously were rejected by the committee.

These faults coupled with Ashcroft’s inability to say that such measures could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks left the committee unwilling to sign on to what appears to be one of the DOJ’s old laundry lists.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]