Civil defense vs. civil liberties Government says expanded
powers needed in fight against terrorism; critics say they have gone too
far
Sunday, July 6, 2003
BY TOM GANTERT News Staff
Reporter
Matthew Lawrence says it's scary to hear stories about the U.S.
government developing technology that will be able to track, record and
analyze the movement of every car in a foreign country.
But the Ann Arbor minister says he was also traumatized and will never
forget watching the Twin Towers' fiery collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.
Like many Americans, Lawrence is torn over a war on terrorism that some
say pits civil defense against civil liberties. He wants terrorism stamped
out. But he is concerned it may come at the expense of privacy and
constitutional rights.
"It is really tricky," Lawrence said. "It is true that there are people
out there trying to kill us. You don't want to diminish the government's
abilities to get the bad guys. But it's pretty scary when they have that
much information technology out there.
"My son is reading '1984' right now," Lawrence said, referring to
George Orwell's classic 1949 book about the idea of a "Big Brother"
government controlling its citizens. "Those issues are on our minds a
lot."
At the heart of the issue is how far should the government, in the name
of fighting terrorism, be allowed to go in monitoring e-mails,
intercepting phone calls, keeping information on people and conducting
secret arrests.
Civil libertarians have focused much of their criticism on the USA
Patriot Act, which was drawn up to expand governmental powers, including
domestic spying, after the 911 attacks. Concerns over that act have
brought out hundreds of citizens to local meetings in the Ann Arbor area
in recent weeks.
Ann Arbor City Council Member Kim Groome, D-1st Ward, has prepared a
resolution that she says protests the erosion of civil liberties through
the Patriot Act and other federal legislation. Groome said the resolution
will be discussed at Monday's council meeting and she hopes it will be
voted upon.
Ann Arbor isn't alone. Similar resolutions have been adopted by more
than 130 communities nationwide and the states of Alaska, Hawaii and
Vermont, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
"In my conversations with people from across the political spectrum, I
hear one refrain over and over: If we give up our freedoms in the name of
national security, we will have lost the war on terrorism," said Laura W.
Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, in a statement
released Thursday.
A civil debate
Critics of the federal government say an erosion of civil rights began
with the roundup of 762 foreigners in the aftermath of the Sept. 11
attacks. And it has continued, they say, with the passing of the USA
Patriot Act and the drafting of Patriot Act II.
They say Americans only need to recall the abuses of power by former
President Richard Nixon and former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to realize
the dangers of unchecked government.
The federal government says the war on terrorism requires a new way of
thinking because it involves a ruthless, nontraditional enemy without
fixed bases of operations. Officials say laws must be updated and expanded
to enable them to use new surveillance technology to track and attack
elusive terrorist organizations, such as Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida.
One Justice Department lawyer said many critics of the Patriot Act may
have good intentions but are acting on faulty information about what new
powers the law gives the government. She says many of the same
investigative tools were available to the government before the Patriot
Act became law in October 2001.
"My only beef is that many critics are basing their attacks on false or
misleading information," said Barbara McQuade, an assistant U.S. Attorney
in Detroit. "Job 1 is to educate yourself. Then if you disagree, you are
free to say so strongly."
Yet the philosophical tug-of-war between civil liberties advocates and
the government's post-9-11 policies has left many people unsure what is in
the best interests of the country.
"You hear all of these horror stories," said Ann Arbor's Wassim
Mourtada, who was born in Lebanon and is not an American citizen but has
lived here for 11 years. "At a certain point, you don't know who to
believe."
High-tech spying
The Pentagon is developing a surveillance system that would allow every
vehicle in a foreign city to be tracked, recorded and analyzed to protect
soldiers overseas.
Some worry it could be adapted and used domestically.
The CIA has set up In-Q-Tel, a venture capital company that invests in
technology to help improve the CIA's search for information. The FBI has a
computer program that allows it to intercept e-mails.
Mourtada owns a venture capital company in Ann Arbor and said
technology usually outpaces the law.
He said he understands the reason for the Patriot Act.
"I tend to understand the context," Mourtada said. "Acts of terrorism
were committed. You can prevent it. You must prevent it. What
fundamentally worries me is its misapplication."
The rules the government must follow regarding new surveillance
technology are just now being established, says one expert.
"This wouldn't have come up in the 1960s," said Peter Honeyman,
scientific director of the University of Michigan's Center for Information
Technology Integration. "It'll be an issue in the 2030s. Historically, we
are at the moment when we have to make the decision."
But Honeyman questions whether technology is really the issue.
"Policy is the real story here. I think the Bush administration has
other things in mind. They are not just invading privacy for the hell of
it."
Honeyman says one possible misuse could be the government's tracking of
individuals and keeping dossiers on them.
"How much do we want the government to know about us?" Honeyman said.
"How much do we want to let them know about us to serve their ends?"
Historical lessons
Concerns about the government abusing its power are not without
historical basis.
n On his own secretly recorded tapes, President Nixon discussed in 1972
with an aide having the CIA ask the FBI to stop investigating the
Watergate break-in by claiming it involved national security. Former Nixon
aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. were convicted in 1973 of
conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping in the break-in at Democratic
headquarters in the Watergate Hotel.
Hoover, the controversial director of the FBI for nearly 50 years,
kept files on many prominent Americans, including members of Congress.
Some alleged Hoover used them for blackmail. Hoover and the FBI
investigated any high-profile person who he thought held dangerous
political views, including leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
"Unfortunately, we have a really short memory and we forget the lessons
we learned," Lawrence said. "It's not good enough for the government to
say, 'Just trust us.' When you give government the power that is easily
abused, they may not abuse it today but you never know about tomorrow."
Some civil rights advocates say the government is abusing its powers
now.
A report by the Justice Department's Inspector General in early June
criticized the government's handling of the 762 foreigners detained on
visa violations after Sept. 11.
The report said the detainees were mistreated and abused and had
problems meeting with their lawyers. It also said of the 762 detained,
only Zacarias Moussaoui was facing a terrorism charge. And he was taken
into custody before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Among those detained was Ann Arbor Muslim leader Rabih Haddad.
Haddad has been in federal custody for 18 months for a visa violation.
He was co-founder of Global Relief Foundation, an Islamic charity that has
been designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government. Yet, Haddad
hasn't been charged with any terrorist-related crimes and is fighting
deportation.
"The inspector general's own report showed there is a lot that is going
on that is questionable," said Kary Moss, the executive director of the
ACLU of Michigan.
Moss said the ACLU has fought to find out the names of the detainees
and whether they have been charged but has had no response from the
government. And immigration hearings were closed by Attorney General John
Ashcroft at first until overruled by the courts.
"It's a level of secrecy the country has never experienced before in
its judicial system," Moss said. "There is this grab for power and an
attack on privacy. A lot of what is going on, we don't know."
McQuade said the secrecy is necessary in some cases to protect the
national security.
But Moss said the government's secrecy expands beyond the detainees.
What concerns Moss is the Patriot Act II. According to reports, the
"Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" was leaked to the Center for
Public Integrity in February. The 87-page bill was a classified document.
Moss said the Department of Justice had denied there was another
Patriot Act type legislation being considered before it was leaked.
"They were caught doing something in secret again," Moss said.
And critics are also concerned that Attorney General John Ashcroft also
has rewritten Freedom of Information Act guidelines, making it easier for
the government to deny requests.
Is 'Big Brother' watching?
Critics paint a picture of an Orwellian government, surfing Web pages
looking for innocent civilians to spy upon.
McQuade said those types of characterizations of the government's
intentions and legal capabilities are wrong.
For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation - a self-described
defender of freedom in the digital world - did an analysis of the Patriot
Act. It says: "Be careful what you put in that Google search. The
government may spy on Web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms
entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the
U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is 'relevant' to an
ongoing criminal investigation."
McQuade said that is misleading.
All the Patriot Act allows, she said, is the ability to get e-mail
addresses, without content or subject line, that someone sends or receives
messages from. McQuade said that just updates existing law to the changes
in technology. The government, with a court order, could always get the
phone numbers of incoming and outgoing calls of a suspect in a criminal
investigation. Now it is expanded to e-mails.
McQuade said to get Google search terms or Web sites visited would
require wiretaps. She said to acquire a wiretap "agents must obtain
several levels of approval from the FBI and the attorney general, then
present a detailed affidavit to a judge to establish probable cause."
The national ACLU Web site claims the Patriot Act allows the FBI to spy
on a person "because they don't like the books she reads or because they
don't like the Web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she
wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy."
McQuade said the Patriot Act expressly prohibits that type of
investigation. She said the Patriot Act may not be used against U.S.
persons (citizens or permanent resident aliens) solely on the basis of
activity protected by the First Amendment. She said it can only be used
against identified targets who are already the subject of an
investigation."
"Therefore," McQuade wrote in an e-mail response to a reporter, "the
FBI cannot just conduct a fishing expedition to see what people are
reading, writing in newspapers or viewing on the Internet."
A 'good' act
Ashcroft acknowledged in testimony June 5 before the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on the Judiciary that some politicians who
supported the Patriot Act are now questioning it.
"Let me state this as clearly as possible," Ashcroft said. "Our ability
to prevent another catastrophic attack on American soil would be more
difficult, if not impossible, without the Patriot Act. It has been the key
weapon used across America in successful counter-terrorist operations to
protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists."
Ashcroft said the Patriot Act was vital in the indictment of Sami
Al-Arian and seven co-conspirators recently. He said several were leaders
of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which Ashcroft said is responsible for
the murder of more than 100 innocent people, including 20-year-old
American student, Alisa Flatow.
Ashcroft opened his remarks to Senate committee by quoting Stephen
Flatow, the father of the slain student: "When you know the resources of
your government are committed to right the wrong committed against your
daughter, that instills you with a sense of awe. As a father, you can't
ask for anything more."
Tom Gantert can be reached at tgantert@annarbornews.com or (734)
994-6701.
.gif){kind=small}
