9/11 and the War on Terrorism

The devastating events of September 11, 2001, jolted most Americans to the realization that our nation is the target of terrorist violence. In response to the tragic deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, an overwhelming majority of the American public has supported the Bush Administration's efforts to punish those responsible for the attacks and to prevent future terrorist incidents in the United States. Inevitably, these efforts have raised questions about the appropriate balance between civil liberties and national security.

In October 2001, Congress passed the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act," otherwise known by its acronym, the "USA-PATRIOT" Act.

Enacted shortly after Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had received a letter containing spores of the deadly anthrax virus, this anti-terrorism legislation:

• Restricts judicial ability to monitor the use of electronic surveillance by law-enforcement agencies in ordinary criminal investigations as well as in anti-terrorism investigations
• Allows criminal investigations of American citizens without probable cause if done under the guise of "intelligence purposes"
• Loosens restrictions on domestic surveillance by the Central Intelligence Agency
• Subjects non-citizens to the possibility of indefinite detention without judicial review if the attorney general determines that an individual is a potential threat to national security
• Expands the definition of "domestic terrorism" to include acts previously regarded as instances of civil disobedience

Less than three weeks after signing the USA-PATRIOT Act into law, President George W. Bush issued an executive order providing for the establishment of military tribunals to be used to try non-citizens accused of engaging in terrorism-related activity. Under the terms of the order, which the president issued without consulting Congress, the proceedings of the tribunals can be kept secret and are not subject to judicial review. Around the same time, the Justice Department issued a regulation enabling the attorney general, without first obtaining a court order, to authorize the monitoring of all communication between individuals detained for terrorism investigations and their lawyers.

These are just some of the measures adopted in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. While many Americans regard these as legitimate and necessary steps to provide greater "homeland security," others are concerned that they represent a dangerous erosion of civil liberties that go beyond what is necessary to protect the public from terrorism. What do you think?