Liberty Versus Terror
By Deborah Baxtrom Voices cry out from newspaper editorials and TV and radio talk shows daily-demanding what most of us took for granted prior to September l1, 200l-the safety and security of ourselves and our families. This end must be achieved, the majority agrees, regardless of the Impact on civil liberties.
"I'm happy to give up some of my freedoms if it means I can fly safely with my 4-year-old daughter again;' states a Los Angeles man.
"What good are civil liberties if you're dead?" exclaims a woman on a radio talk show.
Such sentiments are understandable. After all, the world watched in horror as two hijacked passenger planes crashed into the World Trade Center and a third into the pentagon. We witnessed the deaths of thousands of innocent children, women, and men. The nation has rallied behind its flag and its leader in a display of patriotism unparalleled since World War II. But Americans are doing more than waving flag; we are demanding assurance that such a devastating tragedy will never happen again in this country.
President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress answered our call in the form of an antiterrorism bill that quickly made its way through the House and Senate and was signed into law on October 26, 2001. While the bill faced little opposition in Congress, its passage has not been completely without controversy. A minority of Americans have looked beyond their shock and grief and questioned our eagerness to scrap civil liberties that we've held inviolable since the inception of our nation; liberties that our forebears fought and died to secure for our collective benefit.
.
Many, however, readily agreed with a woman speaking on a CNN talk show who emphatically stated, "The people who oppose the antiterrorism bill make me sick. Ask any of those who lost loved ones on September 11 if they wouldn't willingly give up some of their civil liberties if it meant having those people back."
Of course they would, but the nation as a whole has a responsibility to act in a rational, nonreactionary manner for the benefit of all of its citizens. In the past when emotion or fear have prevailed in our country, the results haven't always been exemplary. In World War I America imprisoned anti-war protesters, most of whom were immigrants. During World War II thousands of patriotic Japanese Americans were interned in camps, not because they posed a realistic, threat to national security, but simply because of their ancestry
try. And in the I950s McCarthy's "Red Scare" ruined the careers, and often the lives, of many Americans who were accused, generally falsely, of having Communist leanings.
Could the antiterrorism bill potentially lead to similar injustices? At this writing it appears unlikely that America, will engage in seriously egregious acts based on the however, some of its dements remain controversial essence, the antiterrorism bill will:
• Allow the federal government to "trap" calls made f phones and cell phones throughout the U.S. as long as it secures an order from just one federal court. This al government authorities and law enforcement officer determine what telephone or electronic address a suspect called, but they cannot listen in on conversations without getting district authority in all 50 states.
• Broaden the powers of the special court that authorizes wiretaps on individuals thought to be foreign agents. II past the government could use wiretaps only if the gathering, of foreign intelligence was "the" specific purpose of investigation. Under the new bill its power has been extended to allow wiretaps if intelligence gathering is or significant part" 'of an investigation. The use of the 1 "significant" should, it is hoped, prevent the law from t used against citizens suspected of nonterrorist crimes. expanded wiretap authority will expire after two ;; unless renewed by Congress.
• Allow foreign intelligence gathered in the U.S. to be w shared among federal agencies.
• Prohibit private ownership of any biological agent could pose a threat to the nation's security unless it is cl intended for peaceful purposes.
• End all statute of limitations on terrorist prosecutions. the new bill federal courts can sentence convicted terror any term up to life in prison.
• Authorize the attorney general to detain "terrorist aliens" indefinitely (an expanded definition of what constitutes a terrorist alien is included in the bill), pending deportation hearings, these cases will be heard only in the district court of Washington, D.C. The bill also allows the government to a suspected immigrant for up to seven days without bringing charges if it has "reasonable grounds" to suspect the immigrant of terrorist activity. However, the government can indefinitely hold a terrorist alien or deport a legal alien for contributing to a group that may be determined to be a terrorist organization. In these instances the court can hear habeas corpus petitions that require the government to show cause as to why the alien is being held. How these contribution cases will be resolved remains unclear, but this is an important issue, because restricting such affiliations could upon the right to freedom of association.
Two of the most contestable portions of the bill are the minimization of judicial supervision over federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement, and ; that "secret searches" will be expanded. But cert makes sense to keep such searches covert, as it hardly be expedient to tell suspected terrorist --or the Mafia, for that matter-that they are being investigated. The objection is that this vast expansion of power will allow authorities to conduct secret s in all criminal investigations, potentially leading abuses of civil liberties.
Another aspect of the bill that makes some Americans uneasy is the indefinite detention of those who fit the definition of "terrorist aliens.” It's certainly possible that some individuals may be unfairly held. A related concern is that vulnerable immigrants will be held or deported simply for being a group that engaged in a violent act, as the bill does not require the government to show that the person's support contributed to the organization's illegal activities.
In light of the fact that any expansion of governmental and law enforcement power holds the potential for abuse of that power, 12 religious organizations sent a joint letter to Congress expressing concerns over the civil liberties, including religious freedoms, that they feel may be threatened by the antiterrorism bill. In the letter the organizations (including American Baptist Churches U. S. A. the American Muslim Council, and Presbyterian Church U. S. A.) stated:
"Throughout history, leaders from many faith traditions have spoken to moments of national crisis-words of comfort, hope, and healing. At other times religious people bring a prophetic voice of truth, dissent, and challenge into the public arena. It is a role preserved by the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and freedom 9f speech. To define domestic terrorism with such broad strokes will, in essence; eradicate the very freedoms that national security is to protect."
Such voices of Caution are clearly in the minority in America today. Most believe that "desperate times call for desperate measures." This may be true, but it is also important that the courts adequately supervise police inquiries and deportation proceedings to ensure that America does not lose focus and trample upon civil liberties as it has occasionally done in the past. And it will be up to the American public to insist on this accountability.
One of America's most eminent founders, Alexander Hamilton, once stated that the threat of war "will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length are willing to run the risk of being less free:' Words to ponder, particularly if future events require even further", desperate measures;' tempting Americans to discard hard-won civil liberties too quickly and willingly in an effort to gain security.
Deborah Baxtrom is a freelance journalist with a passion for religious liberty. She has contributed many articles for Liberty. She writes from Los Angeles, California.
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend