SECURITY VS CIVIL RIGHTS?

October, 2001
		How will the new anti-terrorism legislation affect civil rights? Taking your questions are Douglas Kmiec, dean of the Catholic University School of Law; Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Loretta Lynch, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Forum Introduction Should non-citizens have the same rights as citizens when national security is at stake? How will the anti-terrorist bill affect our right to privacy on the Internet and cell phones? How often are sunset limitations used and how often are bills renewed?: How will the new office of Homeland Security be affected by the anti-terrorist laws? Could the new legislation allow information sharing between INS officials and intelligence agencies? Does the new legislation empower federal authorities to collect information but not use it against us?       Online Specials: The Response Combating Terrorism America After the Attacks Sept. 25, 2001: A discussion about the impact of anti-terrorism legislation on civil liberties. Sept. 24, 2001: A look at Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft's congressional testimony in favor of greater Justice Dept. authority. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of: terrorism

Daniel Stucks from Glencoe, IL asks: I would allow an even greater loss of our right to privacy as long as the sunset provision remains attached to any such bill. The sunset provision seems to be a significant moderating influence. How often are sunset limitations used and how often are bills renewed? Douglas Kmiec responds: It is very likely that a 3 to 5 year sunset provision will be included in the new legislation. This is entirely appropriate and not uncommon where the legislation cannot be fully evaluated in terms of its impact. One example of the use of a sunset provision for just such purpose was the Independent Counsel law passed in the wake of Watergate. There was considerable fear that the law would avoid some political conflicts of interest, but also invite prosecutions that might be politically motivated or aimed at matters that prosecutors would not generally pursue. There was some concern as well that the law's structure might render it unconstitutional under the separation of powers. The law was enacted with 5 year sunset provisions. From the beginning, Attorneys General complained of its misuse, but since it was mostly Republicans who were howling, the law was reauthorized several times by Democratic Congress' that didn't see the mischief in the law until President Clinton's impeachment. When the law came up for review right before the end of President Clinton's term, virtually everyone agreed it was time for the sun to set on the law, and it hasn't been re-enacted. Loretta Lynch responds: The sunset provision in the proposed legislation - it would expire at the end of 2003 unless renewed - provides an important check on the expansion of law and procedure, and gives Congress the opportunity to review the new laws in light of practical use. Congress' review will, by then, be informed by the practical results of the new law, including any legal challenges to its constitutionality. Unfortunately, I am not aware of how often sunset provisions are used or the renewal rate. Anthony Romero responds: Sunset provisions are very infrequently applied to legislation in Congress and when they are, it is usually only on the most controversial bills. The ACLU has vigorously opposed the new anti-terrorism legislation and does not feel that the sunset clauses in the House version of the bill adequately address the implications of the vast new powers that will be granted to American law enforcement and the intelligence community. They are, however, better than nothing. Historical experience suggests that when the federal government manages to gain greater power - especially in the field of surveillance and law enforcement - it is quite reticent to give such power up, even if the new power is set to sunset.