Pubdate: Mon, 27 Jun 1999 Source: Providence Journal-Bulletin (RI) Copyright: 1999 The Providence Journal Company Contact: http://projo.com/ Forum: http://projo.com/2cents/main.htm Author: Philip Terzian Note: Philip Terzian, the Journal's associate editor, writes a column from Washington. GOOD AND BAD BIPARTISANSHIP WHEN IT COMES to bipartisanship in Congress, I am reminded of the old bogus magician's line from my youth: "Pick a card, any card -- not that card!" The trouble with Congress, we have been told, is too much partisanship. In the good old days, wise legislators from both sides of the aisle crafted legislation in a cooperative spirit. Oh, they had their differences, to be sure; but when the sun went down, having resolved their arguments, they would produce perfect bills and retire from the Capitol for a friendly cocktail. Of course, this is nonsense, largely invented by wishful journalists. What is really being said is that there are two kinds of bipartisanship: There is Good Bipartisanship, in which Republicans concur with Democratic wishes; and there is Bad Bipartisanship, in which Democrats concur with Republican wishes. In the days when Democrats controlled Congress, there was lots of Good Bipartisanship. Now, as you might guess, it's mostly Bad. Last week saw a prime example of Bad Bipartisanship. When Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., offered a sensible alternative to the Senate gun-control measure, he was joined by 52 of his fellow Democrats and the vast majority of House Republicans. Because Dingell was seen as siding with the Republicans -- something no principled Democrat could do -- he was accused of all manner of political malfeasance, including truckling to the dreaded National Rifle Association. Of course, had the party positions been reversed, that would have been Good Bipartisanship: benighted Republicans coming to their senses. If this sounds too cynical, I offer my apologies -- not least because sometimes, and not terribly often, there are genuine examples of (lower case) good bipartisanship. In fact, there was one this past week. By an overwhelming majority, the House, prodded by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., voted 375-48 to limit federal power to seize the property of people who have never been charged, or convicted, of a crime. Civil forfeiture is one of those bright ideas from the war against drugs which has been transformed into a wholesale assault on civil liberties. Under current law, the federal government has the power to seize any property -- cash, houses, boats, cars, furniture -- suspected of being used in certain, almost exclusively drug-related, crimes. This power obtains whether the person whose assets have been seized is charged with a crime, is suspected of taking part in a crime, or is even aware that a crime has taken place. In fact, some 80 percent of the people whose assets are seized never face criminal charges: They are usually people whose houses or vehicles or businesses were used, without their knowledge, for criminal purposes. But that has not stopped the federal government from seizing property, nor does it prompt the government to return that property if people are cleared of suspicion by police and prosecutors. Indeed, contrary to the principles of criminal law, the burden of proof in these instances falls exclusively on the accused. While the government need only demonstrate "probable cause" that the property might be subject to forfeiture (an easy standard to establish) victims must prove their innocence, no simple task. As with any open-ended federal extension of the police power, this has been dangerously abused. There is the Nashville landscaper, Willie Jones, who went to the airport with $9,000 in cash to travel to Texas to buy materials. He was detained after buying his ticket, and his cash confiscated, because the police believed anyone traveling with such sums of money must be involved in drugs. Then there is the owner of a Red Carpet Motel in Houston. Nobody had ever accused him of doing anything illegal, but because he had failed to implement security measures dictated by police - -- such as raising room rates to discourage drug dealers from checking in - -- his motel was seized by federal officials. There are hundreds of such horror stories. While it is pleasant to report that this bill brought such erstwhile Semengate antagonists as Chairman Hyde, Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Robert Barr, R-Ga. and John Conyers, D-Mich., together, it must be noted that Janet Reno's Justice Department, which likes the money gained in civil forfeiture, violently opposed it, and President Clinton threatens a veto if the Senate should sign on. One of the great unreported stories from Washington has been the Clinton administration's wholesale assault on civil liberties since 1993. In his zeal to demonstrate that Democrats can be tough on crime, Bill Clinton has vastly expanded state and federal police powers, often at the expense of basic constitutional rights. Indeed, it would be nice if some of his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill joined such longtime congressional civil libertarians as Bob Barr and Henry Hyde to make this point. But that would be Bad Bipartisanship. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake