Thursday, Jan. 10, 2002 | 8:49 a.m.
There was a considerable amount of fanfare in October when President Bush signed into law an anti-terrorism bill that gave police and intelligence agencies sweeping new powers. The president said the federal law, which includes an expansion of the FBI's wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority, was essential to "counter a threat like no other our nation has ever faced." The nation should be leery of granting the police more powers, especially an expansion of wiretaps, a type of surveillance that can infringe on civil liberties. But in this instance the Patriot Act's expansion of wiretap powers for federal prosecutors could be justified, principally because fighting terrorism involves the protection of our national security.
The Patriot Act was popular with the public, so it was only a matter of time before the states would get in on the act -- and that day has come sooner rather than later. This week Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn and Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa called for an expansion of the state's wiretap law to include investigations into terrorism, a move also made by our neighbor to the west, California Gov. Gray Davis.
Despite the contention that wiretaps would be a valuable tool for the states in the war against terrorism, the negatives outweigh any benefits. For starters, if our national security is threatened by terrorism, it no longer is a local concern. The matter then becomes a situation that requires the attention of experts from the federal government. In addition, providing the same wiretap authority to the states is a dangerous step, because you'll have 50 different standards applied with no consistency. In the existing climate of fear, it wouldn't be surprising to see terrorism loosely defined, allowing the investigation of individuals who have no link to terrorism whatsoever.
Wiretaps do offer the police a shortcut if they're investigating someone suspected of a crime, but it is the kind of surveillance that is a terrible invasion of privacy. We're also concerned that some local law enforcement agencies might embrace too warmly a statement that President Bush made when he signed the anti-terrorism legislation into law: "This government will enforce the law with all the urgency of a nation at war." That is the kind of invitation that could spell trouble for civil liberties.
The Nevada Legislature doesn't meet for another year, and we hope that the crisis-like atmosphere which exists now will have gone away by then. The Legislature should reject an expansion of wiretap authority for local and state officials. It may make legislators feel like they're part of the international war on terrorism, but the expansion of state wiretap laws is unnecessary and could shortchange the civil liberty protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
archive
