LAWMAKERS TEMPER BUSH'S PROPOSALS

Kansas City Star: U.S. House members have made a good start this week on the job of approving reasonable anti-terrorism legislation that won't trample American civil liberties.
A Senate committee is expected to bring its own bill up for a vote next week. Both panels are making significant changes in the proposals that the administration recommended shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee gave initial support to expanded wiretapping powers for law-enforcement authorities, who could get permission to wiretap all phones used by a particular terrorism suspect, including cell phones. This is a reasonable change. Currently, law enforcement authorities can get permission to wiretap only specific telephone numbers.
The House panel placed two-year sunset provisions on parts of its anti-terrorism package rather than making the changes permanent, as had been requested by the Bush administration. The sunset provisions are a good idea because they will encourage Congress and the country to review how well these laws are actually working out.
In another important change, the House committee proposed that noncitizens suspected of terrorist acts could be held for up to seven days without being charged with a crime, up from the current limit of two days. This could make it easier for authorities to derail terrorist plots.
Oppression: Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, however, went too far in suggesting that the government should be able to detain noncitizens indefinitely. Even visitors to this country should not be tossed in jail for months on end without ever being charged. That smacks of how oppressive, undemocratic governments operate.
Less controversial measures proposed by the administration appear to be headed for approval in the House. They include making it easier to seize terrorists' financial assets, increasing penalties for crimes by terrorists, and eliminating the statute of limitations for terrorist acts.
A few of the administration proposals on electronic eavesdropping require further study. Authorities might have a legitimate need for information on e-mail activity of suspected terrorists, for example. But there are concerns that the administration's proposals in this area are too sweeping.
It has been encouraging to see Republican and Democratic members take seriously their responsibility to carefully review such legislation. Some lawmakers have also added important context to this work by pointing out that federal agencies in many cases have failed to use existing laws well enough to battle terrorism.
Prosecutors do need new tools to protect the country from more terrorist attacks, some potentially even worse than what happened on Sept. 11. But Americans also need protection from unnecessary infringements on their privacy and legal protections. Congress must continue to carefully balance these competing goals.