Eye On America | The price of safety—do we pay too much?

Ross Weingarten

On Sept 14, the Senate Armed Service Committee approved a new approach to detaining and questioning terrorism suspects that the Bush administration deemed too lenient. The new legislation gives suspects more rights than they have had in the past, and limits the use of coercive measures such as torture to attain information. The Committee, which includes powerful Republican senators such as John Warner of Virginia and John McCain of Arizona, said that Bush’s proposal did not do enough to protect the rights of detainees. The White House was outraged, and said that they needed their approach to pass in order to gain vital information to stop future terrorist attacks.

The fight between President Bush and the Armed Service Committee highlights a question that has emerged front and center since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: What is more important—safety or civil liberty? The Bush administration believes that because we are at war with those who wish to commit acts of terrorism, the government has the right to infringe upon the rights of certain individuals. Examples of this philosophy are the secret wiretaps that the government used to track suspects, as well as the secret military tribunals used to prosecute those accused of plotting terrorist attacks, which the Supreme Court recently deemed unconstitutional. Transparency of government means nothing to our president, as long as he thinks he is making people safer.

On the other hand, Americans value their freedom, and many are repulsed by Bush’s history of compromising individuals’ privacy and right to a fair trial in the name of safety. Bush’s former Secretary of State Colin Powell recently said that attempts by this administration to redefine the terms of the Geneva Convention, which regulate how terror suspects can be treated and interrogated, could lead people to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. (“Rebuff for Bush on terror trials in a Senate test” in the 9.15.06 edition of The New York Times).” Powell’s words are even more telling when you consider how rare it is for a former Secretary of State to speak against the president for whom he worked.

There is obviously no simple answer to the question of safety versus liberty. Certainly, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 made it clear that Americans are vulnerable to terrorism. However, by compromising the liberties that define this country and form the basis of our Constitution, we are doing what our enemies want: changing our lives and living in fear.

Bush seems to think that in times of war, the president has virtual carte blanche to act as he pleases if it is in the best interest of the American people. But the great irony is that as America seeks to replace authoritarian dictatorships with democracies in the Middle East, coercive legislation passed by our president (either publicly or privately) brings this country closer and closer to an authoritarian regime, that which we wish to eliminate around the world.

This debate inevitably leads to the question of racial profiling. Should men and women of Middle Eastern descent be checked more zealously at airport security lines, for example? This may sound horrible to some, but the fact is that, to date, the great majority of attempted terrorist acts have been perpetrated by men of Middle Eastern descent. Why, then, should there not be extra precautions taken when one tries to fly? The answer is two-fold. First, we cannot compromise our fairness and responsibility to uphold equality because a minute number of people want to hijack planes or engage in other terrorist attacks. And second, more pragmatically, singling out people who look like they come from a Middle Eastern country is not the kind of message America should be sending to the world right now. As Powell said, our methods of fighting terrorism have come under fire, and we must make sure to maintain the ethical high ground.

The bottom line is that safety is incredibly important. Americans are used to feeling safe when they go to work, drive through a tunnel, or fly on a plane, and they should continue to feel secure. But if we accept secret and often unconstitutional means of assuring that safety, the ends do not justify the means. The Bush administration claims that America is more secure because of measures taken to track and interrogate terrorist suspects, and to some extent that is probably true. However, there is simply not enough proof that these coercive measures are dramatically increasing our safety to warrant the tracking of phone calls and e-mails made by American citizens, or the torture of suspects in secret military prisons. It seems that if the White House needs a battleground to fight coercive regimes and give rights to citizens, they need only look in the mirror.