Civil liberties and homeland security. ("The Land of the Controlled and the Home of the Secure").

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration reacted swiftly and boldly, implementing programs it claimed would strengthen the security of the United States. President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John Ashcroft have all adopted a firm and unyielding stance in executing their focused reply to the menace of global terrorism. An unfortunate byproduct of these aggressive moves, however, is the erosion of civil liberties. The administration has gone beyond the legitimate needs of national security and is infringing on constitutional freedoms in the name of patriotism and security.

The Patriot Act (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) was signed into law by Bush on October 26, 2001, after being rushed through Congress without giving members time to properly read or interpret its provisions. According to Representative Ron Paul of Texas (one of only three Republicans in the House to vote against the bill), "The bill wasn't printed before the vote--at least I couldn't get it.... It was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

In an interview given to Insight, Paul further said, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it--and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

Ostensibly an anti-terrorist bill, the Patriot Act makes changes to over fifteen different statutes. Of particular concern, the legislation permits the government to arbitrarily detain or deport suspects; to eavesdrop on Internet communications, monitor financial transactions, and obtain individuals' electronic records; and to clandestinely survey records of religious and political organizations, whose privacy rights have usually been upheld in the courts. Critics of the act contend that these McCarthy-like tactics strip citizens of their fundamental rights while not being effective in--and often not having anything to do with--stopping terrorism.

The act even allows increased surveillance of church finances and bookstore records. For example, instead of being able to ask a court to quash a subpoena for customer information, booksellers may be required to turn records over immediately. The act allows surveillance through all types of electronic communications and affects telecommunications companies, Internet providers, cable companies--indeed anyone using this technology. Jim Dempsey, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, worries that investigators "will collect more information on innocent people and be distracted from the task of actually identifying those who may be planning future attacks."

Russ Feingold (Democrat--Wisconsin), the only dissenting voice in the Senate, addressed his colleagues in the Senate before the bill's passage, pointing out that the framers of the U.S. Constitution, even though they'd just been through a war with Britain, "wrote a Constitution of limited powers and an explicit Bill of Rights to protect liberty in times of war, as well as in times of peace." Feingold added:

   Of course there is no doubt that, if we lived in a police state, it would
   be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the
   police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a
   country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your
   phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in
   a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely
   based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are
   up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more
   terrorists.

      But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live.
   And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask
   our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.

      Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now
   engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing
   a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.

And sacrificing liberties is just what the Bush administration would do. It announced last fall that 5,000 men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-three were being rounded up by the FBI for questioning. The young men have been in the country for two years and are from "suspect" countries. The list was provided by Ashcroft, who emphasized that "the objective is to collect any information that the individuals on this list may have regarding terrorist elements in this country and abroad. These individuals were selected for interviews because they fit the criteria of persons who might have knowledge of foreign-based terrorists." This action was denounced by the Center for Constitutional Rights in a press release which stated: "Questioning individuals without any evidence of wrongdoing amounts to the very definitions of racial profiling.... Since September 11, we have already seen thousands of people who have been harassed by local authorities over immigration matters totally unrelated to the attacks."

In another disturbing development, Ashcroft approved a rule that permits eavesdropping by the Justice Department on the confidential conversations of inmates and uncharged detainees with their lawyers--communication that is supposed to be inviolate. Robert Hirshon, president of the American Bar Association stated: "Prior judicial approval and the establishment of probable cause ... are required if the government's surveillance is to be consistent with the Constitution and is to avoid abrogating the rights of innocent people." Ashcroft's rule, however, was pushed through as an emergency measure without a waiting period. Senator Patrick J. Leahy (Democrat--Vermont), in a letter to Congress said, "I am deeply troubled at what appears to be an executive effort to exercise new powers without judicial scrutiny or statutory authorization."

Indeed, unilateral executive action is becoming a trend of this administration. For instance, on November 13, Bush issued a military order directing Rumsfeld to be responsible for military tribunals to try noncitizens charged with terrorism. Secret trials without benefit of a jury or the requirement of a unanimous verdict, as well as nondisclosure of evidence for "national security reasons," would be authorized by the use of these tribunals. Representative John Conyers (Democrat--Michigan, and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee) called Bush's order "a civil liberties calamity in this country" that puts the "executive branch in the unattainable role of legislator, prosecutor, judge and jury." At a press conference, Conyers, other Democratic legislators, and Representative Bob Barr (Republican--Georgia) described the military tribunals as an abuse of executive power jeopardizing the nation's civil liberties. Immediate hearings were called for by Barr. Representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat--Ohio) said, "We should never be so fearful as to think somehow we can gain a great measure of security by being willing to set aside the Bill of Rights or any other hallowed legal principle that forms the bedrock of our society."

On December 6, Ashcroft appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a lengthy hearing on Bush's order to use military tribunals, the Justice Department's monitoring of phone conversations between suspects and their lawyers, and the questioning of thousands of people of Middle Eastern heritage. Ashcroft was defiant, denied these actions undermine civil liberties, and charged that accusations promoting fear of lost freedom aid terrorists. The next day, the American Humanist Association commented, "Our nation is built on diversity, not unanimity, and is not bolstered by governmental attempts to suppress dissent. We appeal to Congress and the president to halt Ashcroft's assault on America's civil liberties."

Unfortunately, the current crackdown on civil liberties is nothing new, and the Bush administration is using earlier infringements on freedoms to justify its new policies. In World War I there was press censorship. During World War II, Japanese-Americans and other foreign-born citizens were interned. The Cold War era had its McCarthyism with blacklisting of suspected communist sympathizers. During the Vietnam War, anti-war protest groups were infiltrated, harassed, and spied on. The Gulf War saw media coverage controlled through "pool reporting." As Feingold put it: "Wartime has sometimes brought us the greatest tests of our Bill of Rights."

In the first days and weeks immediately following the September 11 tragedies, a wave of nationalism swept across the United States the likes of which hadn't been seen since World War II. But with this wave of patriotism came a zeal threatening the very ideals the United States stands for.

In particular, the right to freedom of expression has been compromised. In one incident, the cartoon Boondocks was pulled from some newspapers in New York because it was deemed either "un-American" or too political. Rick Stromoski, cartoonist of Soup to Nutz and spokesperson for the National Cartoonists Society said, "I find that a little scary, that just because someone can take another point of view they're seen as unpatriotic or sympathetic to the terrorists.... Papers are afraid of offending their communities and losing even more readers."

The same could be said about television programs. Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect was dropped by fifteen stations after remarks he made after September 11 were deemed inappropriate--and most likely his contract won't be renewed in 2002.

Airport security has understandably been a prime concern since the terrorist attacks. But in the name of "national security" some passengers' civil liberties have been violated. Green Party USA coordinator Nancy Oden was stopped by government agents while trying to board an American Airlines flight in Bangor, Maine, in October. She wasn't arrested for anything--merely prevented from flying. Oden had been scheduled to speak at the Greens' national committee meeting in Chicago to work on details of a campaign against biochemical warfare and the party's peace agenda. According to Oden, "An official told me that my name had been flagged in the computer. ... I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan." Chicago Green activist Lionel Trepanier commented, "The attack on the right of association of an opposition political party is chilling. The harassment of peace activists is reprehensible."

On November 1 Circuit Court Judge James Stucky upheld the three-day suspension handed down by Sissonville High School officials against Charleston, West Virginia, student Katie Sierra for promoting an "Anarchy Club" and wearing anti-war T-shirts in school. In October, high-school student Aaron Pettit of Fairview Park, Ohio, was suspended for ten days for displaying anti-war posters on his locker--one depicting an eagle with a tear drop and others with bombers drawn on them with messages like "May God have mercy, because we will not." Pettit sued the school in federal court and was reinstated. Even teachers have been suspended for merely voicing their views about the military action and policies now enacted.

Websites have also been shut down. Hypervine, an Internet service provider, forced Cosmic Entertainment to pull three radio show sites on the Internet, among them Al Lewis Live, because they allegedly contained pro-terrorist materials. The sites were reportedly forced from the Net when Hypervine received calls from someone identifying himself as a federal agent and threatening seizure of Hypervine's assets if the sites weren't shut down. Al Lewis, who played Grandpa in the 1960s television show The Munsters, said, "I lived through the McCarthy period. It will get worse."

Apparently intimidated by developments immediately following the terrorist attacks, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council began voluntarily removing ad material that criticized Bush's environmental policies. The Sierra Club went so far as to remove material critical of Bush prior to September 11.

An October 4 article by Brook Shelby Biggs, contributing editor of MotherJones.com aptly sums up the clamp down on civil liberties:

   Far more surprising than government attempts to stifle criticism is the
   seeming willingness of the media, politicians, and activist
   groups--particularly those on the left--to censor themselves. Some may be
   backing off to avoid the kind of public crucifixion endured by Politically
   Incorrect's Bill Maher. Others, however, apparently truly believe that
   frank and vibrant discourse is damaging to the country's moral fiber.

The trauma of the terrorist attacks has caused many people to seek solace in religion--and religionists are taking advantage of it. The phrase "God Bless America" is everywhere these days. Besides the endless renditions of the song at sporting and other public events, there is a movement afoot in Congress to have the song declared a national hymn and to have the slogan "God Bless America" displayed in schools and public buildings. Moreover, a minister of the United Church of Christ has observed that the message implied by "God Bless America" is: "to be genuinely patriotic you must be conventionally religious."

Stefan Presser, legal director of the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union, referring to a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse in West Chester, Pennsylvania, eloquently summarized this issue by saying, "Even if 99 out of 100 people are in favor of keeping the plaque, the point of the Bill of Rights is that the majority does not rule when it comes to religious issues. Each person, in their own privacy, gets to make religious decisions." In our zeal to protect the country from the terrorist threat let us not forget the menace posed by religious excess.

Some of these encroachments on our civil liberties--those with sunset provisions--will expire automatically unless renewed by Congress. Others will be challenged in the courts as violations of the Constitution. Still others seem destined to become permanent encroachments--what Bush and his cronies believe are "necessary accommodations" to a changing world.

We would do well to remember the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who said many years ago, "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time ... have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed."

The question we must now ask ourselves is: how do we feel about the necessities of our time? You can be sure our laws are following close behind. If you don't agree with the laws curtailing your rights and the actions of your officials, this is the time to tell your legislators and your neighbors how you feel. It's the patriotic thing to do.

Valerie L. Demmer holds a degree in management from the University of Phoenix. She is an editorial consultant at the Humanist and lives in Middleport, New York.