RUSHING TO BASH OUTSIDERS

By Richard Lacayo

For a while last week, something in the national mood appeared to be turning darkly against Arab Americans--at least for as long as it was supposed that the Oklahoma blast might be the work of Islamic terrorists. In a replay of the harassment they suffered during the Gulf War, mosques reported receiving telephone threats. On Larry King Live, former Oklahoma Congressman Dave McCurdy pointed to an Islamic conference, full of fire-breathing rhetoric that was held in Oklahoma City in 1992. That was one reason, he said, that he knew terrorism "could happen here."

When it emerged that the first serious suspects in the bombing were not Arabs or Muslims, the threat of a backlash subsided. What did not change was the sudden momentum behind passage of an antiterrorism bill bitterly opposed by many Arab-American groups, as well as civil libertarians. On Capitol Hill, where the members of Congress are eager to show that they are doing something to prevent future outrages, the omnibus counterterrorism act of 1995 is now getting serious attention. Proposed by the Clinton Administration in the wake of the World Trade Center bombing, it would, among its many provisions, crack down on fund-raising activities in the U.S. that benefit organizations identified as terrorist and make some deportations easier. Though it was introduced in February and had bipartisan support--many of its ideas were first broached by Republican administrations--the bill was a low-profile initiative until the bombing. Within a day it had become a top priority, with Senate majority leader Bob Dole promising quick action.

"It will seriously erode civil liberties," complains James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. "I think it would be terrible if the legislation passed in this atmosphere." One provision that has angered the bill's opponents would permit the deportation of aliens who donate money to activities sponsored by groups that the President has determined are involved in terrorism, even if the money was earmarked for ostensibly peaceful purposes, such as schools or medical assistance. That could affect fund raising in the U.S. on behalf of nonviolent undertakings by Arab groups that also have paramilitary wings. That, says the American Civil Liberties Union, would be a violation of the First Amendment right of association.

Another part of the bill would change the rules for deportation hearings against aliens suspected of being linked to terrorists. It would allow the government to use evidence that it would not have to divulge in detail to the accused; only a government "summary" would be provided. Law-enforcement agencies want the rule change as a way to protect the identity of informers and government infiltrators who provide information. "It would set a dangerous precedent," says Charles Wheeler, director of the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles. "If they can [proceed against] foreigners based on secret information, they could do it to citizens."

Even one of the bill's sponsors in the Senate, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, disavowed the evidence provision, calling it "Kafkaesque." But by last week Biden was predicting that compromise language would be worked out. Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who sponsored the bill in the House, insists that the summary hearings would apply to a "very limited number of cases."

One reason pressure for the bill is likely to remain high is the ongoing trial in New York of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. He and 11 others have been accused of plotting to blow up the U.N. and a federal office building, as well as a bridge and two tunnels that connect Manhattan to New Jersey. In the second week of the trial, one of Rahman's co-defendants unexpectedly changed his plea to guilty and claimed that the sheik had offered the approval of Islamic law for the terror campaign. If the Administration's bill had been in place, it might have made it easier to expel Rahman and his associates. As for the Oklahoma bombing, if it was indeed entirely the work of Americans, Washington's new weapon against terrorism may be pointed in the wrong direction.

--By Richard Lacayo. Reported by Nina Burleigh/Washington and Adam Cohen/New York

With reporting by NINA BURLEIGH/WASHINGTON AND ADAM COHEN/ NEW YORK