National Security vs. Individaul Rights

National security has taken on a whole new dimension in the wake of September 11. As the nation struggles over the issues of wiretapping and censure, the question becomes increasingly clear: should our rights be the price for keeping ourselves safe? The same quandary will no doubt be challenged in the courts.
Recently Senator Russell Feingold has called for the censure, or public scolding, of President Bush for pushing the boundary of safety and liberty too far. In an interview on national television, he attacked the President’s wiretapping program for not first obtaining a required court order. According to Feingold’s political ally John Dean, who worked for the Nixon administration, the President’s transgression exceeds that of former president Nixon’s.

Not everyone is pleased about the Senators resolution, however. Senate Majority leader Bill Frist called Senator Feingold’s actions “dead wrong” in an interview on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” Congress is clearly divided on the boundary between freedom and defense.
The matter of “warrant-less” wiretapping, while important, is not the only instance of borders being pushed. The Patriot Act is another area of concern for some, yet comfort for others.

The First Amendment states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated.” This statement brings into question just what an “unreasonable search and seizure” may be. It would certainly be reasonable to search the documents and files of a suspected terrorist. But what, exactly, is reasonable? And what is the definition of a terrorist?

The Patriot Act enables the CIA and FBI to go from phone to phone or from computer to computer by way of a nationwide roving wiretap, without specifically identifying a target. This post 9/11 bill releases agents from the responsibility to demonstrate that the specified item is being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government has no need to prove to a court of law that the particular information or communication being investigated is relevant to a criminal investigation.

The second part of the Fourth Amendment states that “No warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It would appear that the Patriot Act disregards the Constitution on several points, mostly concerning the privacy of citizens. We cannot, however, deny the very real threat of a terrorist attack upon US soil. Since the enactment of the Patriot Act shortly after September 11, there have been no further attacks here in the United States. It is very doubtful that this respite stems from a lack of ambition on the part of al Qaeda or other terror groups.

However, some opponents think, understandably, that the increases in governmental power enacted by the Patriot Act have gone too far. We face a challenge completely unique in history. Perhaps looking back upon what past leaders have done in times of crises will help illuminate the situation.
Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest president in United States history, suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Habeas corpus gives citizens being held the right to challenge their detention. In doing so he helped keep the Union intact at the expense of its citizens’ rights. While World War II was being waged, Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese American citizens. They were forced from their homes, leaving everything, to live in concentration camps. The decision did not help win the war in any perceptible way. Instead it caused untold suffering to our Japanese American citizens. Only history can judge the merit of such sacrifices of freedom.

Currently America is waging a war on terror. It is a new kind of war, yet a war none-the-less. Special provisions must be made to ensure victory, or more American lives will be lost. The day will come when the cost of the extended powers recently obtained by the government will be weighed against our Constitutional protection. Without security, we are not safe, but without liberty, we are not Americans.