The Struggle for Civil Liberties after the September 11 Tragedy
|
Contact the author. April 25, 2002. There is no philosophical, moral, or political justification for the occurrences of September 11. Indeed all victims of that attack on America had their lives unjustly and maliciously ended without justification or explanation. But at the same time, it is apparent that Americans look at the aftermath of September 11, specifically in relation to American civil liberties. Issues Americans thought had been erased from public consciousness have once again cropped up for debate: issues near and dear to the hearts of civil liberty activists. Now, in the aftermath of the unfortunate tragedy that was September 11, the U.S. government has once again raised the possibility of the draft (creating a "one-size fits all" America), the potential of a new de facto national identification card (destroying American privacy), and creating an atmosphere of panic and pressure among citizens. Civil libertarians should be alarmed; civil Americans should ask why the government always returns to ineffective instruments which have been defeated by public opinion or defeated by physical failure. But too few Americans are asking questions; instead, passive citizens are putting their faith in government to bail them out of crisis. September 11 has changed everything -- from the draft to the driver’s license. The dynamics of our economy shifted from promise to panic within a single week. A bill, HR 3598, introduced late last year by Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) and sponsored by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) would mandate military conscription for male U.S. residents between their eighteen and twenty-second birthdays, with exceptions few and far between. Conscientious objectors (of which I am one) would likewise be forced to go through military training, although they would be exempt from weapons training (how nice of the bill author). After basic training, the Conscientious Objectors would be transferred to another federal or state agency to complete their time of national service. The bill mandates that one finishes one’s high school education before enlistment. But once secondary education is complete, it’s off to the draft you go, as though the United States is a militarized nation. But I repeat myself. Okay, seriously, though, the draft was out of the minds of Americans. My generation thought we would never have to deal with the draft. Now it’s back, thanks to Rep. Smith and his war-mongering colleagues. Sen. John McCain is supporting a similar national service bill lacking conscription in the Senate. These bills have an increased level of support because of September 11. Constitutionally, Congress can do that which is "necessary and proper" in order to "raise and support Armies" (article I, second 8) and “to provide for calling forth the Militia” (article I, second 8) (Woll 461). The draft began originally in 1862, was reemphasized with the passing of The Selective Service Act (1940), and continued until 1975, when the registration mandate was repealed (Burns 445). The registration was re-instituted in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter and has remained since. All males must report at age eighteen by federal law. Congressman Ron Paul, as usual, said it best on the House floor when he said, "As we work through this difficult task, let us resist the temptation to invoke the most authoritarian of all notions that, not too many years ago, tore this nation apart; the military draft. The country is now unified against the enemy. The military draft does nothing to contribute to unity nor, as the Pentagon again has confirmed, does it promote an efficient military" (Burns 445). As if sending young, naïve, taxpaying teenagers off to war before they can even indulge in an alcoholic beverage isn’t bad enough, the national identification debate has been renewed with vigor. The Chairman and CEO of Oracle Corporation, Larry Ellison, recently called for the creation of a national ID system and offered to provide the software for it free of charge. Most Americans probably don’t want their names in a government database. That is precisely what a National ID is. No longer would citizens be dependent upon their friends and loved ones to know their whereabouts. It’s a system of government dependence similar to that of Sweden or Canada. And it’s a dangerous step down a slippery slope of increased government regulation and knowledge of who you are and what you do. Once again, Congressman Ron Paul is the voice of reason on the issue. He acknowledges he problem, but he seeks a different solution that doesn’t violate anyone’s liberty: "Precise identification of all travelers on all our air flights is a desired goal. A national ID issued by the federal government would prove to be disastrous to our civil liberties and should not be considered. This type of surveillance power should never be given to an intrusive overbearing government, no matter how well intentioned the motives. The same results can be better achieved by the marketplace. Passenger IDs voluntarily issued by the airlines could be counterfeit-proof; and loss or theft of an ID could be immediately reported to the proper authorities. An ID, fingerprints, birth certificates, or any other information can be required without any violations of anyone's personal liberty. This delicate information would not be placed in the hands of the government agents but could be made available to law enforcement officers like any other information obtained with probable cause and a warrant" (United States, Paul). The Congressman not only addresses the problem, but he also proposes viable solutions to the problem itself, increasing the credibility of his argument. Those defending the National ID only have one argument: More safety. But even that simplistic argument is flawed, as, logically and rationally, safety doesn’t usually increase when privacy disappears. Sean O’Connor, a Professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law, sums up the problem nicely: "Prior to 9/11, when new identification measures were proposed an emphasis had been on privacy and libertarian values such as the right/freedom to travel, associate, "re-invent" ourselves through aliases and new names/identities, or simply be anonymous. Any call for a mandatory national identification ("ID") card was usually an act of political suicide. Post 9/11, many new ID measures have been proposed: some have called for a mandatory national ID card, others for optional or service specific ID cards, and some for enhanced usage of existing types of ID cards. Most parties interested in a new ID card system would like it to contain biometric security features -– a set of technologies, such as finger imaging, face recognition or DNA fingerprinting, that digitally maps certain characteristics of an individual and then relies on that "template" to compare with the relevant characteristic of an individual who presents himself to the system at a later time" (O’Connor). Proposal after proposal must be met with questioning from common citizens and politicians alike. But in this time of crisis, don’t expect the politicians to resist signing new bills that won’t protect your civil liberties but will encroach upon it even further. As Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-VA) told the Washington Post, "When the president talks about fighting back to protect our freedom, that includes freedom from intrusion into innocent people's lives. We can't have our society go to one of Big Brother" (Cha-Krim E01). While increase for support of the draft and the National ID have climbed since September 11, a recent nationwide survey conducted by Michigan State University found that 55% of those asked would not allow the government the powers to combat terrorism if it meant limiting traditional Constitutional freedoms. Similarly, 66% of those polled opposed government regulation of e-mail or phone (Clinton Courier OnLine). In the aftermath of September 11, there have been numerous steps to limit the public from receiving information about U.S. government practices or U.S. enemies – the first of which began on September 11 itself. It was on that very day that the National Security Advisor called national media outlets to warn against printing full text of Osama bin-Laden’s statements on the news (Halperin). The American people will not be allowed to view the trial of accused terrorist Zachiarias Mussoui. And the government has provided information that only benefits the “War on Terror” crowd of cronies, totally ignoring civil discourse with conscientious objectors and peace activists. Open recollection of events and information as well as open dialogue and discourse should be the goal of our elected officials. Instead, it seems the goal is to keep Americans in the dark, propelling Dubya into another four-year term as Commander of the World. In this aftermath of crisis, remember, dear friends, to heed the advice of Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Safety is important, but how much safety can come from erosion of individual creativity, personal initiative, and citizen responsibility? If the growth of temporary safety yields permanent safety, then choose safety. But if temporary safety simply yields more government spending, more government erosion of your personal privacy, and more government regulation of your children, please choose permanent liberty over temporary safety. "Americans Want Civil Liberties." The Clinton Courier OnLine (24 Apr. 2002): Accessed 25 Apr. 2002. Burns, J.M. and J.W. Peltason and Thomas E. Cronin and David B. Magleby and David M. O’Brien, eds. Government by the People. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002. 445. Cha, Ariana Eunjung and Jonathan Krim. "Privacy Trade-Offs Reassessed." The Washington Post OnLine. 13 Sep. 2001. Accessed 25 Apr. 2002. Halperin, Morton H. "Protecting Civil Liberties at a Time of Crisis." Cyber Security OnLine 25 Oct. 2001. Accessed 25 Apr. 2002. O’Connor, Sean. "The National ID Card Debate." 05 Dec. 2001. Accessed 25 April 2002. United States. U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Ron Paul, M.D. (R-TX), “Foreign Interventionism.” 25 Sep. 2001. 25 Apr. 2002. United States. U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Ron Paul, M.D. (R-TX), "Foreign Interventionism." 25 Sep. 2001. 25 Apr. 2002. Woll, Peter, ed. American Government: Readings & Cases. Fourteenth Edition. Boston: Longman. 2002. 461. |
 |
Essays |