Security vs. American freedoms

This wasn't supposed to happen here

[Reprinted from Issues & Views November 12, 2001]

As coalitions of organizations and individuals, representing a cross-section of political ideologies, come together to examine government strategies being undertaken in the name of security, more and more Americans are expressing their concerns.

In a statement, the coalition called In Defense of Freedom, composed of liberals, libertarians, conservatives and independents, claims, "We can, as we have in the past, in times of war and of peace, reconcile the requirements of security with the demands of liberty." With the recent passage by Congress of the "USA Patriot Act," only time will tell if such reconciliation is feasible. Already we hear cautions and alarms coming from all quarters.

In an editorial entitled "Disappearing in America," the New York Times writes:

Thousands of detainees being held in secret by the government; wiretaps on prisoners' conversations with their lawyers; public debate about the advisability of using torture to make suspects talk. Two months into the war against terrorism, the nation is sliding toward the trap that we entered this conflict vowing to avoid. Civil liberties are eroding, and there is no evidence that the reason is anything more profound than fear and frustration.

Jim McGee, in the Washington Post,writes about the USA Patriot Act, which he claims was "passed a week and a half ago in furious haste":

The new anti-terrorism bill lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess, according to both supporters and critics of the legislation. . . . Known as the U.S.A. Patriot Act, the law empowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence. In addition, the Treasury Department has been charged with building a financial intelligence-gathering system whose data can be accessed by the CIA.

Most significantly, the CIA will have the authority for the first time to influence FBI surveillance operations inside the United States and to obtain evidence gathered by federal grand juries and criminal wiretaps.

The Washington Post's George Lardner, Jr. tells more:

The Justice Department has decided to listen in on the conversations of lawyers with clients in federal custody, including people who have been detained but not charged with any crime, whenever that is deemed necessary to prevent violence or terrorism.

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft approved the eavesdropping rule on an emergency basis last week, without the usual waiting period for public comment. It went into effect immediately, permitting the government to monitor conversations and intercept mail between people in custody and their attorneys for up to a year at a time.

The move, which the Justice Department said was necessary "in view of the immediacy of the dangers to the public," stunned defense lawyers and civil libertarians. They assailed it as an unconstitutional attack on the right to counsel and, in the words of American Civil Liberties Union official Laura W. Murphy, "a terrifying precedent."

England's Guardian reports on the secrecy surrounding the arrests of more than 1,000 people in the United States. Several civil liberties groups have filed requests for information, in order to learn why these people have not been given access to lawyers or why they are denied the right to contact their families. These groups and others are asking questions that seem more relevant in a South American dictatorship: What are the identities of the people being held? Where are they being held? Who are their lawyers, if they have any? Why were they arrested?

From Insight magazine, we learn the grievances of two Congressmen:

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas [who voted against the USA Patriot Act] is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it--and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote--at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." . . .

Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI began to take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions. A handful of companies have reported visits from federal agents demanding private business records. Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter of Idaho, another of the three GOP lawmakers who found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would be a problem. "Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property."

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views