Should we sacrifice some of our civil liberties to help fight the war on terror (e.g. through warrantless wiretapping or provisions of the Patriot Act)? In a Nutshell
- Terrorists often don't commit crimes until they carry out the terrorist act itself.
- Thousands or millions could potentially be killed if we fail in our efforts.
- The economic damage of attacks can put many people out of work and destroy wealth.
- Intelligence and circumstantial evidence can lead agents to the identification of a likely terrorist, but they may not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- We would have additional tools for fighting non-terrorism related crimes such as drug trafficking and racketeering.
- A certain amount of trust has to be put in the hands of the government if we are to accomplish anything.
- Terrorists will be forced to re-organize and plan around all the new anti-terror methods, which can be expensive and time-consuming.
- New methods of data collection can help law enforcement increase the probability of zoning in on the guilty people and avoiding harassment of the innocent ones.
- Our American system of checks-n-balances prevents the government from going too far.
- Taking away civil rights essentially destroys the very definition of what it means to be an American, which in effect gives the terrorists a victory.
- Constitutional protections are being violated.
- There is a potential for abuse by this administration or future administrations.
- It could lead to racial profiling and other methods of discrimination & harassment.
- The government could use the information for non-terror political purposes (e.g. blackmail, embarrassment of rivals, etc.).
- Abusing the rights of moderate Muslims and certain other groups may push them to the side of extremists, possibly taking away a source of tips on finding existing terrorists and also possibly creating new terrorist recruits.
The large scale of the 9/11 attacks exposed some obvious security flaws in our system. Terrorists slipped through immigration and airport checks and managed to live, train, and plan in the U.S. for several years. Fears were justifiably raised of several other groups of terrorists (called sleeper cells) waiting and planning for the order to commit their designated terrorist attack. Congress almost
immediately passed the Patriot Act, which gave the government substantially more powers to track down these terrorists. Security has been tightened at airports, ports, borders, etc. and a Department of Homeland Security has been created to oversee the efforts.
As more government power has been added,
many have charged that our privacy and civil rights are being slowly taken away. For example, people are being locked up without a trial or access to a lawyer. Another example is the integrated system, called Total Information Awareness
(TIA), which is in the process of being created to track data on everyone in the country, including credit card purchases, library book checkouts, group
affiliations, cell phone records, and gun ownership. Also, the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, undertook certain domestic NSA spy operations on Americans without court oversight. Civil rights advocates say a dangerous form of government "Big Brother" is being established that threatens to destroy the American way of life. Dubious wartime efforts throughout our
history, such as Japanese internment, the Palmer raids, and Cold War McCarthyism, have been cited as justifiable reasons for these fears. Many of the policies continued under President Obama, including other techniques such as setting up wiretaps without a court warrant.
The question remains, how much
should our civil rights and privacy be reduced to fight the war on terror? What is the proper balance?
Terrorists often don't commit crimes until they carry out the terrorist act itself. In our current system of justice, people must commit a crime before they can be arrested. Unfortunately, the first time a terrorist commits a crime may result in thousands of deaths (as we saw so vividly on 9/11). Many
terrorists are so fanatical that they will sacrifice their lives for their cause. When that's the case, we don't have much of a deterrent. Al Qaeda manuals even describe how to blend into society as a "law-abiding" citizen.
Thousands or millions could potentially be
killed if we fail in our efforts. Over 3000 people died on 9/11/01. This is a small number compared to the number that could die if a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack was carried out. Terrorists have made no secrets about their desire for such weapons. Is there any doubt they would use the weapons if they could? For example, Jose Padilla was arrested for planning to build and
disperse a nuclear "dirty bomb". He may not have technically committed a crime--yet. Does that mean we should have waited until he finished the bomb and used it against a city like New York? If we had information the 9/11 terrorists were about to strike, but they hadn't committed a crime, should we have arrested
The economic damage of attacks can put many people out of work and destroy wealth. The 9/11 attacks cost our economy untold billions. And since economic aid and the world economy is so dependent on the success of the U.S. economy, people around the
world suffered. There is more to consider than just number of lives saved or lost. You also have to consider quality of life. When the American economy weakens, thousands are put out of work. Thousands or millions around the world are brought closer to poverty/starvation levels. The costs of inaction are usually far higher than costs of
Intelligence and circumstantial evidence can lead agents to the identification of a likely terrorist, but they may not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Intelligence collection is a very inexact science. You get pieces of information here
and there, which individually don't mean much, but put together, identify very likely terrorist suspects. Most elite terrorists have become experts at avoiding any actions that could lead to arrest, and it's likely that agents will be unable to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt", especially when the terrorist acts haven't been committed. For example, consider a suspect who is from Iran,
regularly visits a militant Islamic mosque, has checked out books on chemical weapons, has sent e-mails mentioning the "next ground zero", and has been seen with Al Qaeda members now in custody. None of these suspicious activities constitute a crime, but shouldn't agents be able to at least watch or investigate such a
We would have additional tools for fighting non-terrorism related crimes such as drug trafficking and racketeering. Fighting the war on drugs, curbing organized crime, tracking kidnappers, etc. often necessitate the same tracking of information as the
war on terror. Thus, we would give law enforcement another tool in fighting these things. This is become extra important as the drug war in Mexico continues to spill over the border.
A certain amount of trust has to be put in the hands of the government if we are to
accomplish anything. Dubious actions and scandals from the past such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica-gate, Teapot Dome, etc. have weakened the trust in the U.S. government. Indeed, it's probably hard to find any government official that hasn't lied or misled at some point is his or her career. Still, things aren't like the past. There is so much media attention to everything officials do
or say that they can't get away with the same misdeeds. Government officials are people too and generally want to do the right thing. The media brings thunder-and-lightning attention to the slightest of government misdeeds, but these acts are only a small percentage of the total work done. We have to give officials a little trust in doing their jobs. Government officials need to be able to
concentrate on answering the question "How best do I get the job done?" rather than "What do I have to do to cover my butt?" or "What do I have to do to draw the least amount of criticism?"
Terrorists will be forced to re-organize and plan around all the new
anti-terror methods, which can be expensive and time-consuming. The terrorists that were able to carry out the 9/11 attacks and the ones that have been able to elude law enforcement up to this point are highly sophisticated. They probe for weaknesses and change as necessary. This causes delays and creates additional expenses. For example, when Osama bin Laden realized we were monitoring
his cell phone transmissions, he simply stopped using them and resorted to hand-delivered messages. This obviously takes more time and is more expensive. Advanced systems such as Total Information Awareness (TIA) would force a wave of changes and re-organization. For example, if TIA monitors library book checkouts, terrorists may start buying books instead of borrowing them. If we monitor
all credit card transactions, terrorists will start carrying more cash. If we monitor all Google searches, terrorists may start using Yahoo or Bing.
New methods of data collection can help law enforcement increase the probability of zoning in on the guilty people
and avoiding harassment of the innocent ones. The United States houses close to 300 million people. It's impossible for law enforcement to check out and monitor everything about everyone. Improved techniques of data collection such as TIA would allow officers to focus on the suspicious characters and not waste their time on innocent ones. For example, consider a database of 250 million
people. You do a search on Muslims over age 14 who are originally from a hostile Arab country (Iran, Syria, etc.). This may bring your total down to 500,000. Next, you do a search on people that have checked out books on weapons of mass destruction who are members of militant groups such as Nation of Islam. Now, you're down to 5,000. Law enforcement would continue similar searches until they have
a group of people who fit a likely profile for terrorism. Sure, there will be some innocent ones that turn up in the search, but more in-depth background checks and brief surveillance can easily establish a person's innocence. Bottom line--those that have done nothing wrong (and who don't plan to do wrong) have nothing to worry about; those who protest the loudest are often those with the most to
Our American system of checks-n-balances prevents the government from going too far. Giving the government unchecked power to invade privacy and spy is indeed a good reason for paranoia, but it doesn't sit with reality. Hysterics in the media cite
similar abuses of Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein, but there's a huge difference in the case of our country--our system of checks-n-balances. First of all, the courts can overrule any actions by the President or by Congress. Secondly, officials can be voted out of office for their abuse. Third, public opinion can raise an uproar that prompts the government to modify or overturn laws. Lastly, we have
an enthusiastic media that combs through every word and action of the people in power. Given all this oversight, the American people always have the ability to pull back the reins on the people in power.
Taking away civil rights essentially destroys the very definition of what it means to be an American, which in effect gives the terrorists a victory. One of the things that makes our country great is the ability to live a life free of government interference, whether or not you are in the majority and whether
or not you agree with the government. The erosion of civil rights breaks down the very essence of what it is to be an American. There is no better way to award the terrorist actions than to destroy our way of life.
Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Preserving our Liberties While Fighting Terror Patriot Act: A Chance to Commit to National
Security Slippery Arguments: Why Freedom Ain't Everything Taking
Liberties The Civil Liberties Crisis Department of Homeland Security Fight Total Information Awareness Freedom of Information Center: TIA
Is anything missing? Is any of the material inaccurate? Please let me know.
Constitutional protections are being
violated. The U.S. Constitution is one of the most enduring, intelligently-written documents of all time. It is the main reason our nation has become the most successful nation on Earth. It is the reason that people from all over the world long to emigrate here. Unfortunately, the War on Terror is eroding the force of the Constitution. People can be tracked at their place of worship (1st
Amendment violation); they can be held without a trial (7th Amendment violation); and they can be prevented from consulting a lawyer or facing the witnesses against them (6th Amendment violation). In addition, the right to privacy (long implied from amendments 1,3,4,9 and others) has been deeply violated. It has been said the U.S. Attorney General, in his fight against terror, has the U.S.
Constitution in one had and a scissors in the other.
There is a potential for abuse by this administration or future administrations. The "War on Terror" is a war that has potentially no end. Unlike nation-vs-nation wars, there will never be a cease fire or
peace treaty signed to officially end the war. To enhance government powers, various wartime emergency clauses have been cited as justification. Thus, normal rights like a trial-by-jury are being taken away, even for U.S. citizens, on the grounds of being a "time of danger". That leaves the door open for years of civil rights abuse. You may say "Fine, I trust the Obama administration to do the
right things", but what about future administrations? If we have more large-scale terrorist incidents, how bad are things going to get? Could we end up in the type of paranoid police state that many Middle Eastern countries live in?
It could lead to racial profiling
and other methods of discrimination & harassment. There are many Arab-Americans, nuclear scientists, Muslims, bioweapons experts, immigrants, etc. that are law-abiding loyal Americans. Should they be subject to abuse or harassment simply because they fall into a certain category? We've come a long way in correcting the many civil rights abuses of the past. We shouldn't go backwards by
singling out new minorities to discriminate against.
The government could use the information for non-terror political purposes (e.g. blackmail, embarrassment of rivals, etc.). While the War on Terror may be a good reason for implementing steps such as the
Total Information Awareness system, there's a lot of potential for the government to abuse the information they learn. For example, imagine the party in power learns a rival candidate used his credit card to buy admission to a homosexual movie theater. The government could somehow leak the information to help its members in the next election. Not only could information by used to embarrass or
blackmail political rivals, it could also be used to destroy anyone who decides to speak out against the country. Virtually all of us have something damaging from our past, especially when it may be taken out of context. The government could use their new powers to spy on anyone they don't like. This provides way too much potential for
Abusing the rights of moderate Muslims and certain other groups may push them to the side of extremists, possibly taking away a source of tips on finding existing terrorists and also possibly creating new terrorist recruits. There are plenty of Muslims
and other Americans who, while not exactly loyal citizens, don't believe in the vicious tactics taken by terrorists. These moderates are in the ideal position for providing tips to law enforcement officials on existing terrorist cells & plans. However, a wave of abuse of their civil rights may increase their dislike for the country to the point that they start to sympathize with the
terrorists. Thus, it may take away our best source of information, and at worst, create a new breed of terrorist recruits that will perpetrate more horrendous acts against innocent civilians.
Written by: Joe Messerli