What Price for Security?: Will the Fight Against Terrorism chip away at our Civil Rights? (Special).

How do you catch a terrorist? And how do you keep terrorists from striking again? Police and law-enforcement agencies are working around the clock to answer those questions. So far, agents have arrested dozens of people and questioned hundreds more in connection with last month's deadly acts.

Now the U.S. Justice Department has asked Congress for more power to spy on, and lock up, people who might be involved with terrorism. "The American people do not have the luxury of unlimited time in erecting the necessary defenses to future terrorist acts," Attorney General John Ashcroft warned a congressional committee.

Many Americans were shocked by the September 11 terrorist attacks and remain fearful of new ones. Some citizens agree that the police should have more power-if that's what it takes to protect us from terrorism.

Other Americans are not so sure. They fear that we may have to pay too high a price for security. They worry we may risk our privacy and the right to live our lives the way we want. "As we fight terrorism," says Representative John Conyers Jr., "we must ensure that we do not become the enemy ourselves. It is essential that we do not let this horrendous act destroy our fundamental [basic] freedoms."

What Are Civil Liberties?

"Civil liberties include the right to privacy, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and freedom from racial discrimination," says legal scholar Jeffrey Shaman of DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. "Basically, it's the right to live our lives without undue or improper [unfair] interference from the government," he told JS.

Historically, says Shaman, these rights have been more tightly controlled during wars and other national crises. During World War II (1941-1945), the U.S. interned (confined) 120,000 Japanese-Americans in camps. In peacetime, courts would have ruled that such acts were huge violations of Americans' rights.

Although Shaman believes that some laws must be adjusted to fight terrorism, he's worried that the government may go too far. "The Japanese internment was a terrible mistake and a terrible injustice," says Shaman. "It's at terrible moments like this when some serious mistakes can be made in regard to civil liberties."

For Safety's Sake

What good is freedom if you're not safe? That's the argument of national security expert Stephen Gale, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "Sometimes, things have to change for safety's sake," he told JS. "There may come a time when you enter a mall and you'll be stopped and have your backpack searched." Gale says that we should welcome those kinds of measures to help thwart terrorist attacks. "During time of war, we've changed our understanding of civil liberties."

To stop terrorists, Attorney General John Ashcroft seeks more authority to tap people's telephones. He wants fewer restrictions on searching suspects' homes. He is asking for more power to arrest and deport (send out of the country) immigrants suspected of terrorist activity.

Critics worry that these actions could be used unfairly on innocent people. They want to make sure that judges and other legal authorities carefully monitor any increase in police powers. "I'm comfortable with wiretapping and police searches," says Shaman. "As long as they follow the rules and the case is supervised by the courts."

Biggest Concern

Shaman's biggest concern is "profiling." That's the practice of investigating someone because they belong to a certain group. This thinking led to the internment of Japanese-Americans after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. And since September 11, it has caused some Americans to regard innocent Arab- and Muslim-Americans with suspicion. "We've got to be sure our efforts against terrorism aren't fueled by racial discrimination," Shaman says.

Even without new laws, Americans face more invasions of privacy as communities put new security measures in place. Imagine having every corner of your school monitored by TV cameras. Or being required to carry an identity card wherever you go. Or having the FBI question you just because one of your parents was born in a foreign country. These are just some of the possibilities that have been discussed since last month's terrorist attacks.

Are we willing to give up some freedom for more security? How much security will we sacrifice for the sake of freedom? These are important questions. As President Bush said. "If we give up our basic freedoms, then the terrorists win."