WASHINGTON -- Few would have predicted it in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, but Congress is not rushing to enact sweeping anti-terrorism laws.
Instead of acquiescing to Attorney General John Ashcroft's request for such laws immediately -- Ashcroft was hoping for final votes by last Saturday -- legislators seem to be carefully weighing how new laws will affect Americans' liberties.
On Monday afternoon, Ashcroft received a cordial but critical reception when he showed up in front of the House Judiciary committee to ask that members increase telephone and Internet wiretapping and permit police to indefinitely detain immigrants who are suspected terrorists.
"There are a number of provisions in your measure that give us constitutional trouble," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the panel's senior Democrat. "Our lawyers are troubled, for example, that indefinite detention is unconstitutional."
Conyers also said of Ashcroft's Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001: "Some have said it's unconstitutional. I'll be more polite and say we're deeply troubled."
Capitol Hill's apparent sensitivity to civil liberties represents not a partisan split -- politicos from both major parties are saying the same thing -- but rather a response to a slew of newspaper editorials urging caution as well as an event last week where over 100 political groups asked Congress not to rush to legislate.
Another example: The House Judiciary committee was scheduled to vote on the Bush administration's bill Tuesday morning. But in response to an outcry -- and a quick alert sent out by the organizers -- the vote now is set to take place next week.
That's a far cry from what happened two days after the catastrophic attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. At that time, the Senate voted on anti-terrorist legislation -- which also increased Internet surveillance -- after senators were given just 30 minutes to read the measure.
For his part, Ashcroft said the FBI needed additional surveillance and enforcement powers immediately.
"The American people do not have the luxury of unlimited time in erecting the necessary defenses to future terrorist acts," Ashcroft said. "The danger that darkened the United States of America and the civilized world on Sept. 11 did not pass with the atrocities committed that day. It requires that we provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to identify, dismantle, disrupt and punish terrorist organizations, before they strike again."
Warned the attorney general: "Every day that passes with outdated statutes and the old rules of engagement is a day that terrorists have a competitive advantage."
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a conservative Republican from Virginia, said he strongly supports Ashcroft's bill but has "concerns" about some portions.
Goodlatte wondered whether a section that allows the FBI to deploy its Carnivore Net-surveillance system without a court order in some situations was too broad. He said it would be more privacy-invasive -- by leaking "more substantive information" -- than its analog-telephone equivalent.
An arch-liberal, Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, raised similar points: "I think we need to upgrade the tools for law enforcement, but we need to be aware of our own fallibility. In the past there have been releases of information by the government used against its citizens. For example, (former FBI Director J. Edgar) Hoover used information he gathered against Martin Luther King, Jr."
Arch-liberal Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) wondered if the proposed law would lump anti-globalization protesters in with terrorists.
"Young people who care about globalization and the WTO -- are they going to be caught up in this web?" Waters said.
"What is the time cutoff for wiretapping: Six weeks? Six months? Six years? ... The attorney general talked about the laws as they relate to the War on Drugs -- they're not working."
As Congress weighs President Bush's anti-terrorism bill, some politicians and business leaders have suggested a national ID card as a solution.
Take what Oracle chief executive Larry Ellison said in a recent interview with KPIX-TV of San Francisco: "We need a national ID card with our photograph and thumbprint digitized and embedded in the ID card."
Rep. Mary Bono (R-California), had endorsed that approach, mentioning national ID cards in a newspaper interview and saying that Americans must be prepared to sacrifice some of their "conveniences" for greater security. After being savaged by conservative activists, she said in a statement that she had been misunderstood.
The Senate Judiciary committee has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday morning at 11 a.m. EST and has invited Ashcroft to testify. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the panel's chairman, has drafted his own proposal that he hopes to persuade his colleagues to adopt.
In response to a query from Wired News, a spokesman for Leahy said Monday that the senator "would not support such a proposal" for a national ID card. An FBI spokesman said the agency had no position on the topic, saying it was an issue for Congress to decide.
**
Ben Polen contributed to this report.
