U.S. Civil Liberties Endangered After Sept. 11 Terrorist Strike

Interview by Between The Lines' Scott Harris

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks in New York City and Washington, the Bush administration proposed a package of anti-terrorism laws now being considered by Congress. Attorney General John Ashcroft, stating that the legislation was essential to detecting and preventing future acts of terrorism, asked that the House and Senate quickly pass the measures.

But a coalition of progressive and conservative legislators have balked at some key provisions that civil libertarians warn could erode our constitutional rights. The measures receiving Congressional scrutiny include proposals that would expand government authority to: detain immigrants suspected of terrorist activity indefinitely without charges, initiate roving telephone wiretaps and monitor suspects electronic communications without a search warrant. Many observers have also criticized the administration's definition of "who is a terrorist" as being overly broad -- possibly permitting those engaged in lawful dissent to be targets of federal prosecution. Congress is expected to scale back the legislation, but public opinion will play a critical role.

Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with Michael Ratner, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, who takes a critical look at the Bush administration's proposed anti-terrorism legislation in the context of previous crises that led to the erosion of civil liberties.

Call the Center for Constitutional Rights at (212) 614-6464 or visit their Web site at: www.humanrightsnow.org

ithink the attacks on america is very depressing. I would just like to say to the people who are suffering

i giveall of my hope and gratitude to them

Among our liberties in this nation is the right to LIVE.

Over 6000 Americans had this right denied to them on 9/11, not by the US government, by foreign terrorist.

The Government's HIGHEST duty is to protect the LIVES of the citizens.

In order to do so, the Constitution gives the government the authority to suspend certain liberties during times of emergency.

Obviously, this creates a possibility of abuse.

But lets not lose perspective here. We don't want another 70,000 people to die because people are upset about being frisked in an airport, etc.

The state of emergency must be addressed, and addressed quickly, so that the issue of restricting rights may be dissipated.

Steveo, when you look around you today do you get the idea that perhaps our fears are being manipulated? I mean, the 27/7 CNN coverage immediatly following the events off S11 had frequent reports of car bombs placed here, another building evacuated ther, etc. ALL of which were proven afterwards to be totally FALSE. Even here in LA they had to shut down the Metro as a result of a bomb threat. I know that all kinds of govenment facilities recieve empty threats on an almost daily basis (I used to have to triage these). But after S11 all these threats are being taken seriously. My point is this, that FEAR has taken on a different dimension these days, even as all other circumstances remain the same. The primary thing that has changed is fear. Taking action to restrict our civil liberties in such a climate is not advisable. History illustrates that you don't get them back afterwards. Besides which, if we start limiting our freedoms then it is apparent that the terrorists have won - they have inspired fear and caused disruption of our lives.

If either ATA or Patriot bills go through without revisions, we are talking about more then being frisked at airports, which isnt so onorous.

The problem lies in regulations that crank down to much on our democratic principals of allowing dissent. If these bills lead to that, and politcians and judges interpret them in said manner, what sort of democracy do we have left? Yes, I know, many ifs, but not a laughing matter.

first with your historical analysis. History has shown that after each major US war, we have gotten our freedoms back.

The Japanese Americans were released from the camps.

Restrictions on travel and commerce that existed during WWII were relinquished (you've heard, I assume, of ration cards -- but you've never had one).

Restrictions on speech were also lifted after both WWII and WWI.

In fact, African American's sacrifices during WWII, Korea and Viet Nam were major factors in the movement to ensure that the Civil Rights of all Americans were extended to African Americans.

But more to the point, I think that the fear we are experiencing now is a. rational and b. not the result of the media or the government -- but the result of 20 lunatics killing 7,000 people in broad daylight!

Unfortunately, a previous historical precident is not insurance for a present reality. Just because the Yankees won last year doesnt mean they will win this year. Though it is calming somewhat to read your history lesson, it does not negate the fact that as Thomas Jefferson said (king of0 we have to be ever vigilant of our freedoms.

PS. how do you know I never experienced rationing? and what is its relevance of this otherwise interesting exchange?

And I understand the CIA was a creation of WWII war time hysteria. Boy I am gald that now the war is over we don't have to worry about them anymore and that our beloved freedoms are safe and sound. Thanks Steveo, I'll sleep better tonight, safe and secure as an idiot baby who knows no better.

The CIA was not formed until after WWII.

The rational for the creation of the CIA did come out of post war time fear. I think you can make the same case for McCarthy-ism. Would this be yet another example were we give up rights for the greater good? History does not look kindly upon war time excesses. Why should today be any different?