THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
The threat of terrorism has generated a national debate between security and liberty in an insecure world. The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has required a reexamination of the balance between national security and civil liberties to accomplish the dual goals of preventing future attack and maintaining our commitment to the U.S. Constitution.
A conference on dealing with homeland security in June 2004 at the University of Pennsylvania Law School brought together experts from diverse organization to examine national security issues related to civil liberties, immigration policy, privacy issues, First Amendment rights and the balance of executive and judicial power in relation to civil liberties and national security.
There was widespread agreement among the conference speakers that there are determined people in the world, intent on bringing ruin to the U.S. At the same time speakers agreed that in the wake of September 11 many civil liberties have been curtailed or suspended. The question is how much risk to national security or civil liberties should be taken. Aggressive prosecution of the GWOT may compromise the principles that define a liberal democracy.
The duration of a potential compromise or suspension of civil liberties is of great concern when the global terrorism appears to be open ended. The new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) represents the most extensive restructuring of the U.S. Government since 1947, the year the Department of War was combined with the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and Air Force to create the Department of Defense. The new Department of Homeland Security combines over one hundred separate entities of the executive branch, including the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and the Border Patrol, among others. The long-term implications on the day-to-day lives of average Americans is unknown.
As Parts of Homeland Security, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 allows the government increased and unprecedented access to the lives of American citizens. Roving wiretaps allow law enforcement officials to tap any phone that a suspect uses, instead of having to obtain a separate warrant for each phone. Roving wiretaps have been allowed in some form since 1986; the PATRIOT Act makes them easier to obtain in terrorism investigations.
Investigators may subpoena the addresses and times of email messages after certifying to the judge that the email transmissions are "relevant to a criminal investigation." Critics argue that these expanded measures violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which dictates that search warrants must be issued on "probable cause" and must designate a specific place to be searched.
Detainees can be denied the right to legal representation or the right to private counsel when they are allowed to meet with their attorneys. The Bureau of Prisons may monitor attorney-client conversations whenever the attorney general finds "reasonable suspicion" that the discussion might "further or facilitate acts of violence or terrorism." Critics of the rule maintain that listening in on attorney-client conversations violates the attorney-client privilege as well as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and is thus unconstitutional.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects ownership and use of many forms of privileged material and speech. However, certain materials and activities may be potential evidence as instruments of criminal activity. Excluding this evidence based on the First Amendment may incur costs; e.g. not preventing an incident that could have been stopped. One view of the First Amendment issue is that once we acknowledge that there is a cost to society in either preserving or abridging First Amendment rights while fighting the GWOT, then society must decide how to allocate that cost, either through legislation or the courts.
Another concern voiced by many is whether the balance of power between the legislature and the executive branches remains true to the intent of the Founding Fathers, given recent events. One perspective maintains that the nation is currently at war, and the President, as Commander in Chief, should be free to exercise his Constitutional powers to their fullest extent to protect the nation. Opponents to the interpretation of the Commander in Chief clause fear that the clause could swallow up the war-making powers allocated in the Constitution to the legislative branch.
The National League of Women Voters Education Fund has launched a program entitled "Local Voices: Citizen Conversations on Civil Liberties and Secure Communities," an eight-month initiative that will foster public dialogue about the balance between civil liberties and homeland security. Ten select cities will be the focus of the LWVEF work on Local Voices. Representing ethnic, economic, and geographically diverse locations, the outcomes of the conversations will be gathered, analyzed, and compared with larger national trends. A final report will be released in Fall 2005 to coincide with the national debate about the sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
While continued public and private debate on these critical issues is necessary, Americans, and of course all Leaguers, hold civil liberties to be the guiding principle for all human interaction.
--Nancy Green, Copresident, LWVMP
