Justice: General on the March

Most Attorneys General embody only the first half of what their title promises, but not John Ashcroft. Last week he announced a sweeping "wartime reorganization and mobilization" of his law-enforcement troops, converting the Department of Justice into something more like a Department of Antiterrorism. Fewer FBI agents will fight local crimes and the drug war; they will walk the al-Qaeda beat instead. Hundreds of crime fighters at headquarters will be transferred to field offices on America's "front lines." And 10% of the budget--$2.5 billion--will be redirected to counterterrorism.

The creaky, lumbering contraption that is the American criminal-justice system could use some streamlining, especially now that the Justice Department has one overriding mission, to prevent terrorism. But Ashcroft's plans raise plenty of questions. For one thing, if he reallocates agents and money to find future Mohamed Attas, other priorities--from civil-rights enforcement to antitrust efforts--may wither. Last week Ashcroft ensured that one conservative cause wouldn't be forgotten: reversing a Clinton Administration ruling, he allowed his department's drug agents to go after Oregon doctors who prescribe narcotics for suicide under that state's Death with Dignity law. (On Thursday a federal judge in Oregon put Ashcroft's new rule on hold pending a court battle.)

One aspect of Ashcroft's antiterror campaign has already irked civil libertarians. Two weeks ago the Attorney General quietly rewrote federal rules to allow feds to monitor communications between inmates and their lawyers. To trigger the eavesdropping, the Attorney General need have only a "reasonable suspicion" that an inmate may try to transmit terrorism instructions through his attorney. Justice Department officials pointed out that the fruits of the eavesdropping would be used only to prevent imminent attacks and that the information could not be used in court--at least not without a judge's approval. But civil libertarians and defense lawyers were furious anyway; attorney-client privacy has long been a sacrosanct privilege of common law. "This essentially allows the Attorney General to overrule [that] privilege whenever he chooses without judicial supervision," says Steve Shapiro of the A.C.L.U. A court challenge is assured.

The Justice Department is considering other ways to get around due-process requirements. Capitol Hill sources tell TIME that the department's Office of Legal Counsel is looking into the possibility of setting up a military court to try terrorism suspects who wind up being charged, thus enabling prosecutors to avoid many of the niceties of the regular court system. In 1942 the Supreme Court allowed an American military commission to try eight Germans who had landed by submarine in Florida and New York with plans of sabotage. The men were found guilty and six of them were executed.