|
|
| Liberty: Antiterrorism Laws Must Honor Freedom |
|
Posted by FoM on September 22, 2001 at 18:08:56 PT Editorial Source: Rocky Mountain News 
When Congress takes up anti-terrorism legislation next week, it should not allow concern for the security of Americans to diminish their liberties. A surprisingly broad coalition of civic and religious groups has lined up to endorse a statement by the American Civil Liberties Union defending constitutional principles and urging Congress not to act rashly. Their concern, and ours, is not motivated by any inclination to treat the threat of terrorism with anything other than the utmost seriousness. Rather, it is based on the knowledge that laws enacted to deal with one emergency remain in place after the emergency has lessened, to be used in circumstances very different from those that inspired the law. The campaign against organized crime, for example, was the justification given for RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970. Organized crime was, and remains, a serious problem. But the law is so broadly drafted that it can even be used against a political campaign that trips inadvertently over the complicated rules of campaign finance. Many of the proposals drafted by the U.S. Department of Justice would extend to terrorism -- or in some cases, to all criminal activities -- the dubious legal tools crafted for the war on drugs. The forfeiture of property on mere suspicion, in cases where no one has ever been convicted of a crime, perhaps never even charged with one, is one example. Trafficking in illegal drugs is a serious problem, but the excesses of the War on Drugs are also a serious problem. We shouldn't be stampeded into expanding such tactics to vast additional areas of American life without clear and convincing evidence, for each proposed change in the law, that it is both necessary and effective. Fortunately, members of Congress appear to understand this. Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is working on an alternative package more respectful of civil liberties. "If the Constitution is shredded, the terrorists win," he said Thursday. We should also take seriously the possibility that if someone is convicted of terrorism-related acts on the basis of laws subsequently deemed unconstitutional, the courts would overturn the conviction. Provisions regarding immigrants are especially troubling. We already have a law allowing foreign nationals to be detained, and eventually deported, on the basis of "secret" evidence they are not allowed to see. Because of a few celebrated cases, we know that law has been abused, though not how often. Now the Justice Department proposes that the U.S. attorney general be authorized to do the same without presenting any evidence at all to a court. We understand the problem: presenting evidence could compromise an ongoing intelligence operation. But we also see the risk. Americans' privacy would also be eroded by expanding authority for warrantless searches of their communications equipment. The chief contribution to the tragedy of Sept. 11 was not the absence of these laws; it was the failure to carry out effectively the security precautions that could be implemented with no change in law at all. Act, but not in haste, or America will repent at length. OUR VIEW: It must protect Americans' freedoms. Source: Denver Rocky Mountain News (CO) Related Articles & Web Site: Holy Warriors Escalate an Old War The End of Liberty - Salon.com What Bush Didn't Say - Salon.com Civil Liberties and the Hill Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #2 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on September 23, 2001 at 06:53:34 PT:
|
| check out the story linked below. It as written 3 days after the attacks. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by freedom fighter on September 23, 2001 at 01:59:41 PT |
| To some extent,, It would make sense, that we do not have the freedom to kill, rob, or rape nor do we have the right to invade, snitchize, fosterize or orphanize anybody's child wither if you are in Afghanistian or in America. The terrorists did not win and the Consitution is already been shredded to pieces. There was no such a thing as right to privacy. I should know. While you were wasting time invading my house, trying to get my son to snitch all over a simple plant. So, do not tell me you are so worried about Freedom, Liberty or Justice or Privacy. So drug trafficking is a serious problem, yeah, it gave the money to the terrorists and while, Talibans who treat their dogs better than their women get the taxpayers' monies, and all along, you chased and invaded an American man who happened to grew a plant that you did not like. And you ask me to let my son fight in your dirty war while you tried to turn him to a snitch. No thanks! ff [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |