ACT IN HASTE REPENT IN LEISURE:
Safety versus Privacy

By Judith Haney

(USNewsLink)/ September 17, 2001

When Congress votes on Attorney General John Ashcroft's request for an expansion of the Justice Department's ability to use wiretaps in cases of suspected terrorism or espionage (New Powers Sought For Surveillance) it must weigh in on the side of privacy.

Specifically, if Congress allows federal law enforcement to expand its authority under a 1978 law to conduct roving searches of people suspected of terrorism, espionage or sabotage through the use of electronic surveillance of individual suspects rather than of specific telephones or computer terminals, it will violate the essence and rule of law which preserves the privacy of law abiding Americans.

Therefore, how do we preserve our privacy and maintain our safety?

The 1978 law Ashcroft is seeking to expand established a secret federal court to handle wiretap requests. Presently, when the court grants a request, it allows taps to be placed only on specific telephones or computer terminals.

Under the proposal outlined to members of Congress, law enforcement agents could ask a secret court to allow them to monitor whatever telephone or computer terminal is used by a suspect.

The Justice Department also wants to make it easier to detain and deport people suspected of involvement in terrorism.

And, in addition, the government may seek to remove any statute of limitations on crimes committed in connection with terrorist acts.

Under Ashcroft's proposal, evidence collected by the department which demonstrates the transmission of funds to a designated terrorist organization can be used to prosecute a suspect for money laundering.

Concerned civil libertarians, are worried that the Bush administration is using Tuesday's tragedy to erode constitutional protections.

David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University, said there is no evidence that legal restrictions on the FBI, CIA or other federal agencies helped the hijackers evade detection. Two of the hijackers were on an FBI "watch list" for two weeks before the attacks, and most of the 19 men reportedly purchased their tickets in their own names through the Internet.

"The reality is that the FBI already has tremendous power," Cole said. "We have to be careful about giving the FBI or INS or anyone else greater powers unless they can show they really need those powers."

Terrorism is by definition opportunistic. And our government, through its failure to secure our borders, provided the opportunity for Tuesday's attacks.

In lieu of Tuesday's attacks, government wants to expedite the process of securing our borders and make up for lost time by catching up with the terrorists before they strike again. That is understandable, even admirable.

But as we work to secure our borders we must not violate our constitutional safeguards to protect privacy. 

If Congress acts in haste, Americans will repent in leisure.