I’m willing to allow it in the wake of the terrible tragedy of Sept. 11, but I don’t like it one bit. Neither should any of us who believe that this country is different, a radical experiment that has blossomed into something magnificent.

I’m talking about the new anti-terrorism bill that George Bush signed into law last week and most every legislator was tripping over themselves to support. It gives law enforcement authorities sweeping new powers to search, seize, detain and eavesdrop as they pursue suspected terrorists. They can now randomly listen in on phone calls and intercept emails without having to obtain permission about a specific person’s suspected ties to terrorism.

I know that reporters nationwide are relaying in their stories the concerns of the American Civil Liberties Union, quoting that organization’s leaders as saying the new powers go beyond what is needed to fight terrorism.

But I think that more Ameri-cans than just those involved with the ACLU should be concerned about this law and what it says about the road we may be taking.

You see, I am not afraid of the terrorists, not yet. They haven’t come to my neck of the woods, and we haven’t had any anthrax showing up at any post offices or newspaper officers in Western North Carolina. It could happen today, but so far it hasn’t. So while I refuse to give in to the fear, refuse to surrender to the terrorists, I will still concede the need to give police more power to head off new and potentially deadly attacks. In fact, most of us are now counting on police and federal agencies to have learned enough since Sept. 11 that they will take the necessary steps to protect us.

What I do fear, however, is giving in — as a people — to the mania that the Sept. 11 attacks has a real potential to spread. In seeking protection, we can give away too much. Americans are insurance-happy people. We have this tendency to seek guarantees for the unforeseen, a tendency that is written into our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. We have made it clear that government can go only so far.

But that tendency can have negative consequences. Many American families will squeak by from paycheck to paycheck yet have every kind of insurance imaginable — auto, health, life, mortgage, liability, renters, travel, etc., etc., etc. And now, to prevent ourselves from becoming a victim like the thousands who died Sept. 11, we are trying to buy insurance against it by allowing police to assume powers that go against many of the basic principles upon which we founded this country.

Giving in to all different kinds of surveillance is about the same as allowing police to enter our homes and set up camp. It puts them there, monitoring our activities. As long as law enforcement personnel and politicians are above board and without prejudice, all this will work fine. But we will quickly, I suspect, hear of violations, of over-reaching and overzealous federal authorities or local police who used the new powers in ways not even imagined.

Soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, there was a public outcry in many circles to throw out all Middle Eastern natives, to cancel student and work visas, to seal off our borders to those who hailed from any Arab state. In many ways that argument made sense. It would provide insurance, guaranteed, that the same heinous acts could not be committed again by the same people.

But it also would have changed us. America is an idea that has flourished. That idea, in my mind, is this — give people as much freedom as possible to achieve to the best of their ability, and a fair and just society will flourish. Of course there have to be restrictions on those freedoms, but they must be minimized.

As we head into this new millennium and seek new kinds of protections, we must remain true to this ideal. Perhaps we can’t completely win this war, can’t completely insulate ourselves from the danger that comes from suicide terrorists and biological weapons.

If we have to admit that, then the debate changes. Are we better off living in a dangerous world with freedoms intact, or are we more comfortable giving up freedoms to try and insure our own protection. Perhaps these short-term measures (some provisions of this anti-terrorism bill expire in 2005) will solve this current crisis and we won’t have to answer this question.

It is time, though, to begin thinking about the choice we will make in that kind of future.

(Scott McLeod can be reached at info@smokymountainnews.com)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News