Will we trade our civil rights for safety?

By MARK CURRIDEN / The Dallas Morning News

Legal experts said Thursday that there is growing concern that there may be another victim from Tuesday's terrorist attacks: people's civil rights and freedoms.

Civil libertarians across the country say they are worried that the federal government's desire to crack down on terrorism and protect public safety may lead to a widespread deterioration in basic rights of privacy, right of movement and freedom of association.

"There is growing concern that because we are a country in crisis and a people in mourning, that we will give away fundamental constitutional rights in order to feel safer and more secure," said Frank Newton, dean of the Texas Tech University School of Law.

"When we start hearing politicians talking about declarations of war, it gets scary because people lose basic freedoms during war time – freedoms that we as a people are very used to," said Mr. Newton. "The paradox is that the more open a society is, the more vulnerable it is to terrorism."

Legal analysts say they were relieved when President Bush said Wednesday that the terrorist attacks would not interfere with the rights and liberties of American citizens.

However, they say they cringed every time Mr. Bush and top Congress leaders talk about declaring war.

"Historically, this country does not have a good track record for defending people's constitutional rights during times of national crisis and high passions," said Will Harrell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

"The fear is increased because polls show us that a majority of Americans are willing to sacrifice certain rights to the government if it helps the government apprehend terrorists and makes the public safer," he said. "But giving away rights is never good."

Some legal experts pointed out that Americans sometimes confuse conveniences with rights. For example, they say, there are no legal rights prohibiting government agents from searching people and their belongs when entering public buildings, such as airports or courthouses or even post offices.

"Americans have a sense and expectation of privacy that simply is not supported by the U.S. Constitution," said Robert Scott, a Dallas lawyer who specializes in appellate law. "The law doesn't go nearly as far in protecting individual rights when it comes to the government's need to ensure public safety."

Other legal analysts predict that law enforcement agencies will almost certainly seek additional authority to monitor telephone and Internet communications in an effort to detect possible terrorist plots.

"The question is, how far should we let the government go in monitoring our Internet activity and e-mail communications?" said Dean Harvey, an Internet law expert with Vinson & Elkins in Dallas. "The problem is, when people give away these privacy rights for a short-term benefit, we must realize that we will probably never get that privacy back."

Mr. Harvey said it is "natural" for the government to want to gather more information in order to prevent events such as the terrorist attacks Tuesday. "But just because the motivations of the government agencies are good, it doesn't mean that the long-term results will always be good," he said. "Tensions are sure to get very high over this."

Some legal experts say they also fear increased restrictions on citizens' basic right to travel without being followed electronically by the government.

"Americans have traditionally had the ability to move about the country and even outside of the country without getting any kind of permission," Mr. Newton said. "To change that would be a definite infringement on our accepted liberties and freedoms."

But the analysts say the biggest danger of constitutional infringement may come in the area of freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment.

"There's a major risk out there that just because a person is of Arabic ethnicity or of a certain religion or associates with certain political or cultural groups, that they may be targeted for suspicion," said Gerald Goldstein, a San Antonio lawyer and past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Mr. Goldstein and others point to decisions during World War II to detain Japanese-Americans.

"These were hundreds of thousands of people who did nothing wrong, and yet they were rounded up and imprisoned simply because of the birthplace of their families," said Mr. Harrell. "I'm afraid I'm already seeing that kind of mentality."

Tom Melsheimer, a former federal prosecutor in Dallas, agreed that the justice system needs to be particularly on guard against issues of racial profiling and discrimination against Arab-Americans.

"It's easy to say we should do whatever it takes to protect ourselves and to track down these killers, but do we really want to sacrifice the basic rights and liberties that make this country so great?" Mr. Melsheimer said. "There are no easy answers, but I think we can punish the terrorists and make our country safe without surrendering our freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution."