There's little doubt that our extraordinary war on terror demands unusual strategies for its success.
We face an enemy that is resourceful, determined and remarkably sophisticated when it comes to electronic technology. Many of the battles still to be fought are likely to hinge on which side is more computer savvy.

Already, U.S. counterterrorism experts have employed technology to freeze tens of millions of dollars intended to do us harm. Our electronic warriors monitor communication systems used by terrorists to help provide early alerts of threats.

That's as it should be, providing the work is conducted within the constraints of search-and-seizure laws.

But two aspects of electronic warfare are troubling and should give pause to all Americans who value civil liberties and personal freedom. They smack of Big Brother tactics and the likelihood of unrestrained intrusion into our lives and homes.

Last week, a federal court ruling gave Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department sweeping powers to track down suspected spies and terrorists.

The three-judge review panel struck down an earlier ruling that sought to impose restraints on how and when surveillance authority could be employed under the USA Patriot Act. Congress passed the act after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in New York and northern Virginia.

Last week's ruling allows Ashcroft and the FBI to continue to a virtual free hand to examine electronic communications, use wiretaps and conduct searches.

That's a chilling prospect.

Several government watchdog groups and members of Congress are alarmed by the ruling. They believe, with good reason, that the ruling will harm civil liberties and undermine due process protections, which already have been abused by the Justice Department in several cases involving U.S. citizens simply suspected of having links to terrorism.

"Piece by piece, this administration is dismantling the basic rights afforded to every American under the Constitution," U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said earlier this week. The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Conyers termed the ruling "despicable" and said it continues the Bush administration's sustained assault on civil liberties.

Predictably, U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, welcomed the ruling. He granted, however, that Congress should keep a close watch to guard against possible abuses.

Ashcroft, we believe, has been far too zealous in pursuit of remedies that infringe on civil rights. Our fear is that once those rights are modified or curtailed, they will never be restored.

We think Ashcroft's time and effort would be better spent on overhauling the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Its missteps and ineptitude allowed several of the Sept. 11 hijackers to roam the United States freely for months before the attacks. Fixing the INS would not require sidestepping a search warrant, only some hard and long-overdue decisions.

Consider, too, who has rejoined the federal government to help the Bush administration conduct its electronic war. Vice Adm. John Poindexter took charge last January of the Office of Information Awareness at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

DARPA would provide "intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant," a Nov. 9 story in The New York Times stated.

Students of government excesses will recall Poindexter from the Reagan administration and his part in the Iran-Contra mess of the late 1980s. The admiral was convicted in 1990 for his role in the secret arms-for-hostages fiasco. That his conviction was reversed in 1991 by a federal appeals court because he had been granted immunity for his testimony before Congress about the case does nothing to diminish his involvement in the affair.

The government should tread cautiously around the Constitution and civil liberties. They are the underpinnings of an unencumbered and enlightened society.

When talk turns to obtaining evidence surreptitiously or by circumventing search warrants, the public should respond with skepticism and suspicion.