We pride ourselves on our freedom and our rights, yet there has been very little protest about the antiterrorism legislation currently rushing through Congress. As our safety is increasingly jeopardized by terrorism, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question. Is safety from terrorist attacks worth the cost? As the nation responds to the events of Sept. 11, we must consider what price we are willing to pay for safety.
Recent anti-terrorism bills have flown through the House of Representatives and the Senate with little or no time for debate. While these bills contain innovative provisions to prevent terrorism, many of these provisions come at great cost to civil liberties.
Amounts of power never before seen have been granted to all levels of government agencies. The federal government will soon have the power to monitor both the e-mail people send and the web sites they view without a search warrant. There are no regulatory agencies in place, or on the draft table, to monitor these new powers. Without such precautionary measures the government has been given near tyrannical power.
Already, security precautions have begun to affect our civil liberties. With the recent flurry of anthrax-laced mail, increased mail screening seems likely. If attacks continue, international travel could be restricted. The time has come to challenge both the pending and enacted legislation that restricts our rights.
Even national identification cards, a concept already under debate, appear to be a possible reality in the near future.
All of these ideas are dangerous. Never before has a situation presented itself when such legislative concepts could be enacted. We must put pressure on Congress to carefully debate the antiterrorism legislation it considers, instead of just passing any bill with an antiterrorism theme.
There is a definite trade off between civil liberties and safety. In order to preserve our safety, we must be willing to sacrifice some degree of freedom. Longer waits at airports and increased scrutiny of the borders are both allowable sacrifices. Both these concepts are already being enacted, but we must think before going further.
Each restriction on our freedom erodes what makes America great. No matter what level of surveillance the government conducts, terrorist will still find a way to attack. We cannot eliminate the principles our nation was founded upon.
Given time, some of the security measures will expire. The bills passed by the House contain many provisions that will cease to be law after three years. If the war is still going on, and Congress sees a legitimate need to extend the legislation, they have the power to do so.
The Senate has taken a much more dangerous approach. The primary antiterrorism bill passed there contains no expiration date. Laws that will change the course of our nation's history, and the way our nation functions, were barely debated. Traditionally, civil liberties are restricted during times of great crisis and war. While this is understandable, if the war on terrorism is to be successful, we must return to a normal state of affairs once it is completed. Our Congress must consider the long-term implications of the bills it is currently passing.
Terrorists aim to destroy America. If we let our government chip away at our rights and civil liberties, we are only allowing the terrorist to succeed. We must not eliminate our freedom as we hastily respond to terrorist attacks. If we stand up to those who wish to end our freedom, then the casualties of the war on terrorism will not have been in vain.
Adam Koeppel is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
