SECURITY VS CIVIL RIGHTS?

October 2001
		In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lawmakers are considering legislation to increase law enforcement's authority. How will the government balance protecting citizens against future attacks with a commitment to protect their civil rights?

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. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of: terrorism

Last week, nearly one month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the House and Senate passed major anti-terrorism bills in attempt to preempt future terrorist attacks. The House and Senate bills are nearly identical in terms of granting the government broad powers to investigate, surveil, and wiretap terrorist suspects. The House's bill, however, limits these new powers to a five year term under sunset provisions. Both President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft had been publicly prodding Congress to quickly approve legislation during a time of which Ashcroft calls "clear and present danger" of terrorist attacks. Ashcroft urged Congress to grant law enforcement officials unprecedented power to detain immigrants indefinitely, to allow greater grand jury information to be disclosed, and to ease restrictions on wire-tap and search petitions. Congress' bills deliver some, but not all, of Ashcroft's recommendations. Substantial provisions of the bills permit "roving wiretap" court orders so law enforcement could monitor all phone lines used by suspects, instead of the current single phone line wiretap. Law enforcement also gain greater subpeona power on electronic forms of communication, such as the records of e-mail transmission and Internet use. The bill also would allow authorities to detain noncitizens for seven days without specific charges, but not indefinitely. Finally, the statute of limitations would be eliminated for major terrorist crimes. Critics in Congress and at watchdog groups warned against granting authorities such broad powers, recalling the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and illegal surveillance of anti-war protesters in the 1960s. What do you think? Does the "clear and present" danger justify the augmentation of law enforcement jurisdiction and the potential infringement on civil rights? Will U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have enough authority to preempt another terrorist strike in the U.S. and on U.S. overseas? Responding to viewer 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.