"Let's suppose you are not a terrorist but when the police search your apartment building looking for terrorists they see posters of Che Guevara on your wall and Marxist books on the shelves. It would be very tempting for them to make note of this even though they are not supposed to."
The words are those of a young Social Democrat parliamentarian who will vote today on a controversial package of new anti-terrorist laws put forward by the Social Democrat-Free Democrat coalition government of West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.
The great majority of legislators in the ruling coalition favor passage West Germany has a particularly tough problem with terrorists, and the proposed legal measures - even though controversial to some - are far milder than those proposed by the conservative opposition.
Nevertheless, a handful of legislators from Schmidt's party have announced their intention to vote against them because, in their view, they still intrude on individual rights despite a last-minute watering down at a party caucus last night.
The softening of a few provisions apparently reduced the number of dissenters to a level that will save the bill from a defeat that could have proved both embarrassing and politically costly to the government.
The two controversial proposals grow directly out of West Germany's recent experience with terrorist fanatics and with a small group of lawyers who are beleived by most people here to share the views of the terrorists.
One provision would give police the authority, under a judge's order, to go through an entire apartment building in the search for a terrorist, as opposed to current procedures which basically require a search warrant for each apartment.
This provision can be traced directly to the eventually fatal kidnapping of industrialist Hans-Martin Schleyer last September in which the kidnapers operated from a large apartment house in Cologne.
Police argue that in observing a large building, they still cannot really tell which apartment a suspect is going to, and thus they want authority to sweep through a building.
Perhaps coincidentally, a poll published this week by the respected Allensbacher organization reported that 62 percent of some 2,000 percents polled "would accept surveillance and house searches in order to fight terrorism and crime" and 60 percent said they would accept and respect restrictions on personal freedom.
One Social Democrat, who plans to vote for the bill, although reluctantly, says he does not think people really understand what they are saying when they answer opinion polls that way.
Although police are not supposed to use the broader terrorist search warrants to develop information in other areas, it is the temptation to record the Marxist books or the Che Guevara posters that is privately troublesome to some lawmakers.
The other controversial procedure, also strictly related to terrorist cases rather than other criminal proceedings, would make it possible to remove a lawyer from defense of terrorist clients if a judge felt there were sufficiently "grave suspicions, supported by certain facts," rather than actual evidence, that the lawyer was actually supporting the terrorist organization.
This, too, relates to a situation in which several former lawyers for terrorists are now in jail on charges ranging from accomplice to murder to helping jailed terrorists communicate with their comrades on the outside.
The dilemma for the Schmidt government is that these proposals were developed mostly as a compromise between the general feeling, supported by the public, that Bonn should do "something" legall in the face of a lingering and serious terrorist threat, and the desire to avoid passage of far more restrictive laws that have drawn the fire of law associations and civil
The conservative opposition, for example, has proposed monitoring all conversations between lawyers and their terrorist clients and keeping terrorists convicted for the first time in jail beyond their term if there is suspicion they will join the terrorist ranks again.
Ironically, the new bill may never actually become law, some politicians here believe, because it is certain to lose in the upper house of parliament which is controlled by the opposition.