◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R000100330001-5 SPECIAL EDITION -- TERRORISM -- 26 JUNE 1984 WASHINGTON POST 6 June 1984 Pg. 19 Terrorist Bill Called “McCarthy Throwback’ Associated Press Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) yesterday said a Reagan administration bill to combat terrorist. groups would “trample on our human rights,” and called the measure “a throwback to the McCarthy era.” While Metzenbaum told a Senate hearing that the bill was unconstitutional and unnecessary, even conservative Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Jeremiah Denton (R-Ala.), both supporters of the legislation, expressed concerns about its sweeping language. ; The controversy was over one bill in a four-measure anti-terrorism package. It would allow the secretary of state to designate a list of international terrorist groups or countries, and subject Americans to prosecution if they provide active support. In a provision that upset Metzenbaum the most, the bill would prohibit any defendant prosecuted under the measure to challenge, as part of his defense, the govern- ment’s inclusion of a particular group or nation. Hatch told two Justice Department witnesses that the bill lacks criteria for the secretary of state to use when designating the terrorist groups. “You would not be averse to putting standards in?” Hatch asked Mark Richard, deputy assistant attorney general. © . “That’s correct,” Richard said. Denton, chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommit- tee on security and terrorism, repeatedly assured Met- zenbaum, “The chairman has no interest in trampling on the Bill of Rights.” Denton said the bill “needs some further polish,” pointing out that it contains no requirement that the secretary consult with Congress before making his des- ignations. “We have no problem with consulting with Congress,” Richard said. An angry Metzenbaum said, “It’s a throwback to the McCarthy era,” referring to the late senator Joseph Mc- Carthy’s 1950s hunt for communists at the expense of Americans’ civil liberties. ...Continued counter-terrorist unit today that serves as the focal point for agency intelli- gence collection, analysis and covert action. Following the instructions of the new presidential directive, the interdepart- mental group led by the State Depart- ment is now reviewing whether addi- tional resources are needed. _In the course of the recent policy re- view, the officials said, members of the intelligence community generally shared the view that government-sup- ported terrorism was now a clear and established fact that required special treatment apart from group or individ- ual terrorism and that Moscow was at least indirectly involved. View of Soviet Role Few of the intelligence and policy- level officials interviewed argued that Moscow was actively controlling, di- recting or directly supplying terrorist activities. The prevailing judgment was that Moscow does not like to under- take high-risk ventures that it cannot control, and that such are the hail- marks of terrorism and terrorists. Robert H. Kupperman, an expert on terrorism at the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies, summed up the view often heard inside the Administration: ‘The Soviets sup- ANTITERRORIST MEASURES port a general destabilization program r terrorists, but they’re not going to get verv close’’ to actual ter- rorist operations. In 1983, officials said there were 71 major terrorist incidents probably sponsored and supported by govern- ments. The principal ones were said to be Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and possibly Cuba and Iraq. The evidence, which comes from a wide net of intelligence agents and paid informants and varies greatly in qual- ity, is almost entirely circumstantial, but officials say they believe it is sub- tantial and convincing nonetheless. Four Bills Sent to Congress The Administration’s major move so far was to send four bills to Congress in April that are designed to help detect and prosecute those involved in inter- national terrorism. The legislative package embraced prison terms and fines for people assisting terrorists, re- wards for information, and language that would broaden existing laws against kidnapping, hijacking and sabotage. This was a direct outgrowth of the President’s decision memoran- dum of early April. The memorandum also directed a continuation and expansion of meas- ures to protect American missions and people overseas and at home. . Intelligence operatives reported con- tinuing efforts to coordinate activities with anti-terrorist organizations in other governments. Consideration is also being given to amending the Vienna Convention of 1961. This set out procedures for diplo- matic immunity. The idea would be to check presently immune diplomatic baggage for arms and explosives and to withdraw diplomatic privileges from countries supporting terrorism. Practical and Moral Problems Officials said that these represented all the specific ideas being discussed, and that further actions raise treubling practical and moral problems. Some officials, for example, say they see rea] difficulties in the fact that the decision memorandum does not define terrorism, yet calls for condemning it in all its forms. These officials said it could be argued that Administration support for the rebels fighting the Nica- raguan Government or Afghan guerril- las could be construed as a form of ter- rorism. ‘‘One man’s freedom fighter is another's terrorist,’’ an official said. Other officials took strong exception to this, arguing that there was an im- ‘portant difference between terrorism and insurgency. In general, they said that insurgent groups supported co- vertly by the United States did not en- gage in indiscriminate acts of violence, and that these ups posed an alter- nate leadership for a country. To skeptical officials, this definition ‘of insurgency could apply to guerrillas fighting the American-backed Govern- ment of E! Salvador as well. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R000100330001-5