|
Is It Possible to Be Safe and Free?
By Mary-Kate Smith
Recently, one of Connecticut’s local TV stations conducted an unscientific poll asking whether or not Americans would be willing to give up some of their liberties for a "sense" of security. Nearly half of those who responded answered in the affirmative. But before answering such a question, citizens must examine the consequences and consider what it is that we are being asked to give up. Are we willing to relinquish our longstanding civil liberties, which have been secured through hard-fought battles? If freedom for safety becomes the new mantra, then we must determine whether relinquishing our rights will actually make us safer.
The poll question itself is overly simplistic. It assumes that liberty and safety are mutually exclusive. The poll question also assumes that the government will only eliminate a few unimportant liberties such as the freedom to travel freely. Finally, it assumes that we will be safer if we do give up some liberties and give the executive branch more power. (The judiciary and the legislature do not gain vast powers in the Bush/ Ashcroft initiatives.) Critical scrutiny of the administration’s actions is required to sort out answers to difficult questions.
Increasing security at national airports is probably necessary, acceptable to travelers and a popular short-term solution. It is also a highly publicized solution. But the Bush administration is doing much more than this measured response. Due process and privacy are especially vulnerable rights that are continually being eroded. The FBI and other intelligence agencies already had broad authority to conduct investigations and surveillance. Indeed, evidence is accumulating that demonstrates that the FBI and CIA had warnings and other evidence about the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Now, instead of examining the deficiencies in their own systems, they want to expand their powers.
Is it necessary for the FBI to spy on anyone when there isn’t a shred of evidence of wrongdoing? Will this make us safer? Will it make you safer if your credit card and Internet use, the books you read, and the prescriptions you fill can be monitored? Will you be more secure because the government can spy on you because of your religious, political or social activity?
The ACLU, which calls on the government to ensure safety and freedom, poses some intelligent questions that should be examined against every new act the administration proposes. The ACLU says that every proposal to restrict civil liberties must pass a "necessary and defensible" test. It suggests that we examine whether the government already has sufficient means to combat the problem and whether the proposal is narrowly tailored to avoid trampling on civil liberties. Most importantly we must ask whether the proposal is actually designed to deter terrorism or is just a change in the law that has nothing to do with ending terrorism and merely expands the power of the administration.
What is an alternative to automatically expanding executive powers and reducing civil liberties? Promote a thriving democracy and increase the power of the people. Improve upon and establish efficient checks and balances of power. Encourage public debate and a knowledgeable citizenry. Exploiting citizens’ reasonable fear of terrorism is no way to make a country stronger and safer. Relaxing restraints on government’s actions only allows for more possibility of abuse of power and therefore makes citizens more vulnerable and less safe.
No matter what security measures are instituted there will be crime and there will be acts of terrorism. But to reduce the threat of terrorism we must examine the objections and accusations behind the crimes. In his eye-opening and candid new book, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Gore Vidal argues that, "Once we meditate upon the unremitting violence of the United States against the rest of the world, while relying upon pretexts, … one begins to understand why Osama struck at us from abroad in the name of one billion Muslims whom we have encouraged, through our own preemptive acts of war as well as relentless demonization of them through media, to regard us in–how shall I put it?–less than an amiable light."
Examining and understanding terrorism is not the same as giving in to terrorists. Instead, it is acknowledging that we need to think in more refined and nuanced ways in order to deal with a worldwide problem. Black and white or good versus evil only perpetuates a system of violence.
Furthermore, we should practice what we preach. We preach the rule of law and civility, yet we often do not follow lawful methods in combating terrorism. The administration should deter terrorism through lawful methods, such as through the United States judicial system, an international tribunal or the UN Security Council. Instead, the administration has stridently refused to support the International Criminal Court (ICC), which went into effect on July 1, 2002. In fact, the Bush administration threatens that if the U.S. is not exempt from prosecution under the ICC, the U.S. will terminate its "peacekeeping" activities. And today, the administration has announced its plans to invade Iraq. Thus the administration is seen avoiding the rule of law and making its own laws in defiance of the Constitution–and this aids the terrorists.
There are already ample means the administration and the government can employ to protect us, especially when they are used effectively and thoughtfully. If additional means or changes to the existing system are necessary, they can be proficiently established so that they do not destroy civil liberties and civil rights.
As Gore Vidal sates in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, all citizens must remain vigilant and challenge their local, state and national governments so that our liberties are not completely lost, because "Once alienated, an ‘unalienable right’ is apt to be forever lost, in which case we are no longer even remotely the last best hope of earth but merely a seedy imperial state whose citizens are kept in line by SWAT teams …"
To rescue our civil liberties, contact the ACLU at <www.aclu.org> and click on the "act now" button for action letters to your government officials. Contact Governor John L. Rowland by mail at the Governor’s Office, State Capitol, 210 Capitol Ave., Hartford, CT 06101. Write to your congresspersons: Representative Nancy Johnson at 2113 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515; Senator Joseph Lieberman at 706 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-0703; and Senator Christopher Dodd at 448 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-0702. Send a letter to President George W. Bush at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500; or even the U.S. Department of Justice at 950 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20530-0001. For information on all your government officials, visit <mygov.governmentguide.com>.
Ms. Smith is an intern at the Office of the Community Lawyer in Winsted, and a student at UConn Law School.
| 
