In the wake of the attacks of Sept. 11, the United States Congress hurriedly passed a series of measures aimed at increasing the government's capability to monitor and respond to terrorist threats. Collectively termed the "Patriot Act," the measures provided for enhanced surveillance--wire taps, interception of electronic communications--,closer monitoring of international monetary movements, increased border security and the removal of judicial obstacles to investigating terrorism. The Patriot Act was passed in the interest of national security, despite concerns that its provisions laid the groundwork for a gross perversion of civil liberties.
In recent days, the Bush administration has put before lawmakers a second anti-terrorism proposal--the "Patriot Act II." While this bill aims at further adding to American law enforcement agencies' power to locate and punish individuals involved in terrorist acts, it crosses the line in terms of violating civil liberties, and Congress should not hesitate to vote each of its provisions down.
The first of plan's three points would allow federal agents to demand private records and main documents and garner testimony from terror suspects without first seeking approval from a judge, federal prosecutor or grand jury. This would, in effect, give the Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies sweeping powers without any system of oversight or checks and balances. This is dangerous because it grants an undue amount of responsibility and freedom to individual federal agents, many of whom would have the discretion to violate an individual's civil liberties, without first consulting superiors or civilian authorities. The process of obtaining a subpoena from civilian authorities before taking action exists to protect the often fragile civil liberties this country was founded upon.
The second primary component of the plan involves making financial sponsors of terrorism eligible for the death penalty. While such individuals deserve harsh punishment, the country is clearly not ready to authorize state-sponsored termination of life. Heated debates on the morality and practicality of the death penalty rage among Americans on a regular basis, and America must decide on its merits alone before allowing it to become a sanctioned punishment for terrorism.
The final point concerns holding terror suspects without the possibility of bail. While there is a legitimate concern that suspects might flee or commit further atrocities if released, the American judicial system has its cornerstone in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," and the judge should be able to exercise his or her discretion in determining the threat posed by a particular suspect. Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the prosecution must prove that these individuals pose a real threat if released on bail--not the other way around.
It is understandable that during times of fear and terrorism, many Americans desire increased measures for security and law enforcement. However, history has taught us--through the Alien and Sedition Acts and Japanese internment in WWII--that the violation of civil liberties, regardless of the circumstances or the threat posed to our nation, stands against the principles upon which our country and democracy in general are grounded.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.