Pubdate: Mon, 19 Nov 2001
Source: Time Magazine (US)
Issue: Volume 158, Issue 22, Page 63
Website: http://www.time.com/time/
Address: Time Magazine Letters, Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, NY, 
NY 10020
Contact:  2001 Time Inc
Fax: (212) 522-8949
Author: John Cloud

JUSTICE

John Ashcroft wants to mobilize the Justice Department to fight terror. Is 
he going too far?

Most attorneys general embody only the first half of what their title 
promises, but not John Ashcroft. Last week he announced a sweeping "wartime 
reorganization and mobilization" of his law-enforcement troops, converting 
the Department of Justice into something more like a Department of 
Antiterrorism. Fewer FBI agents will fight local crimes and the drug war; 
they will walk the al-Qaeda beat instead. Hundreds of crime fighters at 
headquarters will be transferred to field offices on America's "front 
lines." And 10% of the budget-$2.5 billion-will be redirected to 
counterterrorism.

The creaky, lumbering contraption that is the American criminal-justice 
system could use some streamlining, especially now that the Justice 
Department has one overriding mission, to prevent terrorism. But Ashcroft's 
plans raise plenty of questions. For one thing, if he reallocates agents 
and money to find future Mohamed Attas, other priorities-from civil rights 
enforcement to antitrust efforts-may wither. Last week Ashcroft ensured 
that one conservative cause wouldn't be forgotten: reversing a Clinton 
Administration ruling, he allowed his department's drug agents to go after 
Oregon doctors who prescribe narcotics for suicide under that state's Death 
with Dignity law. (On Thursday a federal judge in Oregon put Ashcroft's new 
rule on hold pending a court battle.)

One aspect of Ashcroft's antiterror campaign has already irked civil 
libertarians. Two weeks ago the Attorney General quietly rewrote federal 
rules to allow feds to monitor communications between inmates and their 
lawyers. To trigger the eavesdropping, the Attorney General need have only 
a "reasonable suspicion" that an inmate may try to transmit terrorism 
instructions through his attorney. Justice Department officials pointed out 
that the fruits of the eavesdropping would be used only to prevent imminent 
attacks and that the information could not be used in court-at least not 
without a judge's approval. But civil libertarians and defense lawyers were 
furious anyway; attorney-client privacy has long been a sacrosanct 
privilege of common law. "This essentially allows the Attorney General to 
overrule [that] privilege whenever he chooses without judicial 
supervision," says Steve Shapiro of the A.C.L.U. A court challenge is assured.

The Justice Department is considering other ways to get around due-process 
requirements. Capitol Hill sources tell TIME that the department's Office 
of Legal Counsel is looking into the possibility of setting up a military 
court to try terrorism suspects who wind up being charged, thus enabling 
prosecutors to avoid many of the niceties of the regular court system. In 
1942 the Supreme Court allowed an American military commission to try eight 
Germans who had landed by submarine in Florida and New York with plans of 
sabotage. The men were found guilty and six of them were executed.

But for now military courts are just a terrorism prosecutor's fantasy. In 
the meantime, Ashcroft must win the approval of Congress for his less 
radical proposals. Some will not be controversial. It makes sense to split 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service so that border protection and 
immigrant services are independent. That will allow the border patrol to 
focus all its attention on keeping shady characters out. No one will argue 
against updating the Justice Department's computer system, which is so bad 
that many employees work from ancient terminals that can't access the 
Internet. Even the focus on counterterrorism began before Sept. 11. The FBI 
had already handed over most bank-robbery probes to local authorities. Many 
agents have been saying for a long time that fugitive investigations can be 
taken over by the U.S. marshals and that the Drug Enforcement 
Administration is better at nailing major traffickers.

But lawmakers may object when spending more for counterterrorism means 
losing an FBi agent in their hometown who works on an antidrug task force. 
Other shuffling could incite a revolt in Congress. "If you try in any 
significant way to hinder the civil-rights division, that would be over the 
bodies of Senators on the Judiciary Committee," says a former Justice 
Department official. Which sounds like fightin' words-- perfect for someone 
who seems more a general than an attorney.

[IMAGE PHOTOGRAPH] Captioned as: "We cannot do everything we once did, 
because lives now depend on doing a few things very well."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth