A hobnail boot planted in the face of freedom - that's the new counterterrorism initiative the Clinton administration wants.
In February, the administration drafted a counterterrorism bill that gives the FBI and the federal government extraordinary police powers. If enacted, it will play havoc with liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.When a democratic nation focuses on terrorism with tunnel vision, it becomes blind to its tradition of civil liberties. And ends up stomping on those liberties.
It happened in England. And in Israel. Terror-narrowed vision constricts democracy. It could happen here.
England, the wellspring of our liberties with its Magna Carta, in its battle against IRA terrorism progressively limited freedom of the press, freedom of speech, an Englishman's right to be secure in his home and the right to remain silent.
The British press was not allowed to interview IRA terrorists to get their point of view. The IRA's ability to speak to the public at large was thereby confined.
Searches and seizures in England were expanded beyond the traditional protections. And Parliament debated and finally limited the right of a defendant to remain silent during trial.
Thus liberty was trampled to catch and jail a bomber.
Clinton's counterterrorism bill, misleadingly called the "Marking of Plastic Explosives for Detection Act," is 100 pages long - only four pages devoted to marking plastic explosives.
The rest of this nasty proposal slashes the right of due process, freedom of association, freedom of speech, the presumption of innocence, equal protection and the right to bail.
The "plastic explosives marking bill" would create a special court to hear secret evidence that could be used to deport immigrants.
These immigrants do not have to be charged with criminal activities but only suspected of being involved with a terrorist group. That is sufficient, under this bill, to immediately imprison the defendant without the possibility of bail. Permanent resident aliens would have to prove to the court that there is no reason for detention.
An attorney for such an accused immigrant would not be allowed to see any classified evidence used in the case. Only the judge would. And the government would be allowed to use information that was illegally obtained.
How's that for due process?
And if that doesn't handicap the defense sufficiently, the defendant cannot argue that the group, with which he is supposed to be affiliated, is not a terrorist organization. The listing of an organization as terrorist - correct or not - according to this bill, cannot be challenged in court.
And the defendant cannot argue that his support for the organization was purely humanitarian - that is, he gave or helped raise money for a hospital or to feed refugees. His affiliation is enough to get him deported.
David Cole, professor at Georgetown University Law Center, analyzed the bill. In that analysis, Cole wrote, "The administration's bill would reintroduce to federal law the very principle of guilt by association that defined the McCarthy era. . . . It triggers criminal penalties and even deportation not on individual culpability, but simply on a showing that those with whom one associates have engaged in illegal acts."
The bill's sweeping definition of terrorist organizations would include any foreign group that threatens the interests, national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.
The bill gives the president the authority to label any group "terrorist."
Fair-minded Americans who support democracy worldwide could be subject to fines of $50,000 and up to five years in prison.
Suppose for a moment you support an anti-abortion organization that has affiliates in France and Germany. The president could determine that organization is "terrorist" because one member of the group tossed a bomb in an empty clinic sometime in the past.
Your support, although principled and nonviolent, would make you a terrorist under this bill.
The bill also authorizes the FBI to investigate U.S. organizations and citizens to see whether they support or have been involved in terrorist activities - without any facts that might reasonably indicate such actions.
And the bill would allow the federal government to use the military to support police officials - "any statute, rule or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding."
A dangerous precedent. We maintain a strict separation between military and police functions for good reason - look at any dictatorship to understand why.
Even more darkly, this bill criminalizes politics. Support for unpopular political movements could, and no doubt would, become criminal. The McCarthy era returns with a vengeance - with this president's blessings.
Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., introduced the bill into the Senate as SB390. They are both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. You'd think they would know better. Don't they read the Constitution?
Reps. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Norman Dicks, D-Wash., introduced it into the House. Schumer is a member of the House Judiciary Committee - same blissful ignorance.
This doltish, Draconian proposal belongs in the bottom of the trash basket. We can deal with terrorism through our existing federal laws and with the abundant police powers the FBI already has.
International and domestic terrorism in the United States is rare, according to FBI statistics. We cannot let our Bill of Rights become the first victim of terrorism's threat. Liberty, our constitutional heritage, is the keystone for all seasons, stormy or calm. It holds fast the essence of our democracy.