|
........................... Nov. 16 - Nov. 29, 2001
OTHER ISSUES .................... |
||
| [Cover] [A & E] [Editorial] [Features] [News] [Sport] [Student Government] [Events] [Help] | ||
| Bill of Rights under fire? | |
| . |
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
A changed nation has found itself united in its battle against an enemy that has threatened our long-valued civil rights. Meanwhile, Congress is trying to preserve those very rights without endangering the security of American lives. Is it possible to find a compromise without destroying the Bill of Rights or sabotaging our own country in the name of civil rights?
Democrats and Republicans have suddenly bonded by a show of numbers in the wake of the Sept. 11 atrocities by passing the Patriot Act; 98 votes to 1 in the Senate, and 356 votes to 66 in the House.
Despite the overwhelming majority, the recent legislation signed by Bush has civil rights activists up in arms.
Congress and the Bush administration, however, claim that the bill never begins to infringe on our constitutional rights, but puts freedom in the driver's seat.
"The anti-terrorism bill is an essential step in defeating terrorism, while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans," Bush said after he signed the bill.
With the passage of the new legislation on Saturday, Oct. 27, the FBI now has expanded wiretapping and electronic surveillance abilities. This includes roving wiretaps, where officials are now allowed to tap all phones owned by a suspect instead of just wiring one at a time.
The bill also gives police more leeway in combating terrorism by widening their ability to secretly search a suspects home and business records, along with eavesdropping on telephone and computer conversations. Finally, it toughens the penalty for harboring or supporting a terrorist or committing terrorism.
But civil rights activists see the bill as a crime against Americans and have taken a negative view (by default) towards the new legislation, accusing the government of infringing on the Bill of Rights.
"While we all want our government to prevent future tragedies, we cannot allow our outrage to serve as justification for laws that trespass on our rights under the Constitution," said Executive Director of the ACLU Anthony D. Romero.
Romero has a point, if only the Patriot Act was indeed "trespassing" on our constitutional rights. If they were, all nine members of the Supreme Court would be banging on the office doors of every congressman and congresswoman in Washington D.C. The whole idea of checks and balances gives the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to restrict any constitutional abridgement unless Congress passes a constitutional amendment - which the Patriot Act was not.
Still, others see the bill leaning too far toward the side of restricting rights on the broad spectrum that the Bill of Rights allows the Supreme Court to interpret for us.
"It is a dangerous legislation," said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People For the American Way group. "Unfortunately there are still too many weaknesses in the bill that could end up curbing and infringing fundamental civil rights and liberties."
Though Neas doesn't even like the idea of the Patriot Act in the first place, he should be happy with the compromise Congress reached: After four years, Congress will review the history of the bill and decide whether it should continue to be part of legislation.
The Bush administration, however, appeared to be reluctant at allowing the bill to be reviewed in four years, perhaps wishing to take advantage of this time when the government has finally rallied behind national security as a vital issue. But supporters of the bill were forced to attach the four-year-review requirement for lack of backing if they did not.
The review seems reasonable, despite our national crisis. Perhaps Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said it best.
"The four-year cap gives us the time to investigate whether there were any outrageous abuses of the bill."
With any luck, the issue of national security will not have been buried beneath a pile of "priorities," like it has so many times after a war. Bush and others who wanted to see the bill indefinitely enacted must have looked at history and figured that it was either now or never. However, it seems important that we should be sure that we don't go to extremes, forever enforcing certain details about our civil rights without leaving any room for inspection and analysis.
Extremists who would like to see the United States react to the Sept. 11 tragedy with a straightjacket upon civil rights and severe racial profiling (similar to what happened to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor) have only to look at Singapore to understand the results of a society with excessively restrained civil rights.
In the Republic of Singapore, there is no jury for trial courts, chewing gum is illegal, and littering and smoking in public areas have a $1000 fine and a $5000 fine respectively.
But in Singapore there is very little crime. The results of Singapore's constraint on domestic disobedience and many civil rights is a criminal justice utopia, but is far from a free society.
Now even in a time of war, we should make a conscious effort to not brush aside our individual rights in the name of national security. Or as Benjamin Franklin put it, "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
At the same time, our duty as Americans and as protectors of future generations should encourage us from drifting toward tyranny or toward a terrorist utopia by letting down our guard. Our borders still need to be watched, our airlines still need to be secured, and our streets still need to be kept safe.
Now in a time of war, it's our government's role to enforce and reinforce laws that preserve this free nation. "The Patriot Act," as Bush puts it, "will give intelligence and law enforcement officials new tools to fight a present danger."
For now, most Americans see terrorism as a greater threat than the threat of government encroachment on our rights.
"I don't know anybody in this country who's afraid of their law enforcement people at this time," said Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. "They're afraid of terrorism."
But is it possible to firmly and justly eliminate an evil without resorting to the uncivilized methods like those practiced in Japanese internment camps?
The patriotic surge America has experienced won't be leaving soon, and what our patriotism embodies should be a willingness to defend two great privileges; our country and it's freedoms.
|
| by Chris Collins | |
"The anti-terrorism bill is an essential step in defeating terrorism, while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans."
| [Cover] [A & E] [Editorial] [Features] [News] [Sport] [Student Government] [Events] [Help] |
wEbbtide Webmaster: Henry Lai