Military

DATE=09/20/01

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=CIVIL LIBERTIES/TERRORIST HUNT

NUMBER=6-12467

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in suburban Washington, a growing debate is focusing on this question: how you deal most effectively with terrorists in an open and democratic society. In other words, how much new power do federal agents need and how much will it infringe on constitutional freedoms.

Congress will soon be debating whether to allow agents to more broadly monitor telephone calls, computer mail, to detain illegal a n d legal immigrants without charges for longer periods of time, and other measures. Civil libertarians are worried that surrendering some constitutional privacy guarantees would be both dangerous for the public at large, and would constitute another victory for the terrorists. We get an editorial sampling of this debate now from V-O-A's ____________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: On the one hand, many papers are saying that in times of crisis, some increased power for law enforcement, especially against domestic terrorists is called for. Those opposed worry that powers given to the federal government, that infringe on the constitution, are very hard to take away when the crisis ends. And, they argue, these powers in the hands of overzealous agents, can easily be abused.

We begin our sampling far out in the Pacific Ocean, where Hawaii's Honolulu Advertiser exclaims: "Security measures must not ruin [our] freedoms."

VOICE: In the wake of last week's terrorist attacks Americans have - - quite willingly for the most part - - surrendered certain small liberties and conveniences for the sake of security. We wait patiently in lines at security checkpoints. We gladly show our identification when asked. We accept with only minor reservations the presence of armed military security [in]... civilian environments. ... Americans have always been willing to sacrifice some of their personal freedoms when there is a greater good to be served. [Other security] changes are coming, certainly. But Congress should insist that [they] ...are made with care and due deliberation. We cannot give the terrorists the satisfaction of knowing that one of their legacies is the loss of freedoms that make America strong.

TEXT: The views of Hawaii's Honolulu Advertiser. In South Florida, speaking in dissent, The [Miami] Herald says as regards the "anti-terrorism battle..." Don't Rush to Overdo Policing Powers.

VOICE: The desire of lawmakers to take an immediate and forceful stand against terrorism... can be overpowering. But Congress and the president must resist the temptation to enact anti-terrorism measures so stringent that they choke civil liberties. Yes, some changes are needed, but they must be specific and demonstrably effective.

... Perhaps Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi [Senate Minority Leader] best typifies Congress's overzealous "Take no prisoners" mood when he stated: "When you're in this type of conflict, when you're at war, civil liberties are treated differently." We disagree. In Washington's warlike atmosphere, this view may seem like heresy, but it is instead the truest form of patriotism. The president and Congress are rushing to cast the anti-terrorism net too wide, and in so doing, they threaten precious civil liberties and principles of law that embody this nation.

TEXT: Editorial excerpts from The [Miami] Herald. In the Midwest, Ohio's Columbus Dispatch says striking a balance is very important.

VOICE: Soon... the Bush administration will send a package of proposed legislation to Congress ... designed to give law-enforcement agencies better tools with which to root out terrorism. [They'll]... contain broader powers to conduct wiretaps, [Editors: "wiretapping" means listening in on, and usually recording, landline and mobile telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of either party] detain foreigners and track suspected money-laundering. ... Congress should examine them with all due speed. If a proposal appears useful ... and does not infringe constitutional rights, that should be incentive enough for approval.

TEXT: Still in Ohio, Akron's Beacon Journal, reminding of the anti-Communist scares in this country of the 1920s, that it says resulted in "more harm than help," pleads: "Get the terrorists. [But] Don't jeopardize liberties and hand them even the slightest victory." The San Diego Union Tribune says "Intelligence groups need new powers," and the Chicago Tribune seconds that idea.

VOICE: ...civil libertarians have good reason to be wary of proposals to expand the government's power to go after suspected terrorists. In wartime, some people consider basic rights a luxury we can do without. But civil libertarians ...also need to recognize that in a genuine crisis, some steps may be necessary that ordinarily might not be permitted.

TEXT: The San Francisco Chronicle does not accept that rational.

VOICE: In the heat of rightful, red-hot anger, this country may take actions it will later regret. Congress is weighing a terrorist surveillance package that clashes with personal liberty and encroaches on some of our fundamental rights. This country is eager to move fast and hard in response to the murderous attacks in New York and Washington. No question, payback is due for the deaths and destruction ... Yet members of Congress must keep their heads in this moment of frustration and outrage. They need to ask tough questions about each proposed expansion of law-enforcement powers. They need to realize that the U-S Constitution is worth defending too.

Look what's on the table: more wiretaps and surveillance, assassination of overseas leaders, laws that fail to distinguish between information leaks that imperil national security and those that do not, and more jailing of foreigners ... Nothing close to a debate has taken place yet. No hearings, no discussion, no lawmakers asking probing questions. ... A dangerous groupthink is developing.

TEXT: A dissent from The San Francisco Chronicle.

In North Carolina, the Fayetteville Observer, which says the changes will result in "domestic spying", is urging that an expiration date be put on them if they are granted. In the nation's capital, The Washington Post is also contemplating the delicate balance involved.

VOICE: Some of the proposals seem quite sensible. It is not clear that others are either necessary or constitutional. Attorney General John Ashcroft called the other day for enactment of the entire package this week. Such a timetable makes no sense. This is complex legislation that, as Mr. Ashcroft himself has noted, would affect civil liberties as well as law enforcement. The purpose should be not to rush and rubber-stamp but to get the balance right. That's particularly true of the proposals that would infringe on traditional liberties.

... Other aspects of the [proposed] legislation deal with intelligence gathering, including wiretapping, criminal law and financial regulation. Many of the changes may be good policy, and overdue, but they too need careful vetting. ... Mr. Ashcroft ... owes ... a stronger showing than he has made thus far that these [Editors: understood here "most extreme"] proposals would not endanger civil liberties - - and would work.

TEXT: On that apprehensive note from The Washington Post, we conclude this sampling of editorial debate on the struggle between better anti-terrorist law enforcement and protection of personal, constitutional, freedoms.

NEB/ANG/RH