Meanwhile, as Congress worked on the antiterrorism bill,
proponents argued that the FBI and police need new tools
to keep up with modern technology, such as e-mail and cell
phones; others expressed concern about violating privacy
and other rights. Lucky Severson reports on the new search
for the right balance between national security and civil
liberties.LUCKY SEVERSON: Federal agents, at work on the trail of suspected terrorists -- a scene that has been repeated hundreds of times since September 11th. And one that will be repeated again, if Congress passes new antiterrorism legislation urgently requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft.
JOHN ASHCROFT (U.S. Attorney General): When circumstances require us to use the full force and effect of the order, we will do so. I make no apology.
SEVERSON: The legislation gives the government expanded authority to detain immigrants and monitor phone calls and e-mail within the U.S. The legislation is aimed at terrorists, and its supporters say it will make America safer. Douglas Kmiec is dean of the law school at Catholic University.
DEAN
DOUGLAS KMIEC (Catholic University Law School): We need
this legislation because our existing laws have not kept
up with technology and the methodology that terrorists use
to communicate with one another. If we don't have laws that
match the nature of the threat, we are merely inviting more
harm to come in our direction.SEVERSON: Constitutional law expert David Cole is part of a broad coalition of groups, ranging from the ACLU to the conservative Free Congress Foundation. They argue that the legislation has been rushed through Congress and infringes on our civil rights.
DAVID COLE (Georgetown Law School): I think you should be concerned for a variety of reasons. First of all, a number of provisions that the government is seeking would potentially radically reduce the privacy of all of us.
SEVERSON: The legislation makes it easier for the government to monitor e-mail communications and Web site use.
MR. COLE: The concern here is that the address information of both e-mails and Web surfing may include content. Where a phone number doesn't include what you were talking about on the phone, but an e-mail address, if it includes the "re:" line, may include content.
DEAN KMIEC: I don't think anything on the face of these statutes compromises our civil liberties. But here's where a lot depends on the prudential judgment of the men and women given the responsibility to administer it.
SEVERSON: The law would allow so-called "roving" wiretaps, tracking an individual from one phone to the next. It would also allow more information sharing among law enforcement agencies.
Just
a year ago, Americans were worried about losing their privacy.
But then after September 11, over 70 percent said they were
willing to forego some of their personal freedoms.LOUISE MURRAY: If you're not doing anything wrong, then what have you got to hide?
RUTH BARATTO: In fact, we had our purses checked, even our wallets checked, to get into the museum, and we said, "Thank you."
SEVERSON: But many people are torn.
RON LAMBERT: I have mixed emotions. I don't care
for Big Brother looking over my shoulder, but when you have
an incident like this, obviously you need to take measures
that address that.MITCH BROWN: I think the government is too intrusive already. I mean, I think that we've given up, you know, enough of our rights. You know -- where is it going to end?
MR.
COLE: I think we obviously need to rethink our security
concerns ... but in doing so we should not overreact as
we so often have in the past. We should not sacrifice our
freedoms as we so often have in the past.
MICHEL SHEHADEH: Agents, more than ten, were hiding
behind the bushes around the house ... walked into the house
with their weapons drawn.
