"Security vs. freedom: the false choice"
Printed on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 {at} 08:10:41 CDT

By Jeff Milchen

YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States) 

(YellowTimes.org) - When Congress reacted to the events of Sept. 
11, 2001, by passing the "Patriot Act" just weeks later, many 
Representatives agreed to support it only because the most drastic 
expansions of government power were made temporary. Those provisions 
will not expire until 2005, but the Bush administration seeks not 
only to make them permanent (without evaluating their effectiveness 
or consequences) but to further expand police power.  

Inevitably this will generate renewed debate on "striking the 
right balance" between freedom and safety. But to have meaningful 
discussion, the premise that American freedom either enabled the 
crimes of 9/11 to occur or hinders the effectiveness of terrorism 
prevention should be scrutinized.  

That premise, underlying the "Patriot Act" and the Bush administration's 
draft Domestic Security Enhancement Act ("Patriot II") doesn't hold up 
to such scrutiny. No credible evidence has been presented that 
legalizing more invasive technology and granting law enforcement 
agencies the sweeping power to arrest, detain and spy on citizens 
enhances the safety of Americans.  

To the contrary, history suggests that allowing law officials to spy on 
citizens based on their politics or to search property without judicially 
scrutinized evidence typically wastes resources. The FBI's COINTELPRO 
operations of the 1960s and '70s, including the government's Church 
Commission Report, support this. Martin Luther King Jr., for one, 
was the target of countless federal agents' investigations which 
produced mountains of files, but no evidence of dangerous activity.  

Rather than viewing political dissent -- the focus of much FBI activity 
to this day -- as a danger sign, authorities should recognize it as a 
safety valve that enhances stability. When opportunities to create 
peaceful change are available, people are less likely to turn to violence. 
America's high level of political freedom contributes substantially to the 
nation's comparatively low incidence of terrorism.  

Besides, the most dangerous terrorists tend to keep a low profile, rather 
than advocating publicly for social change. The Sept. 11 attackers, for 
example, evidenced little or no public political or religious activism. 
Government security agencies did have evidence that should have led to 
the investigation of some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, but that crucial 
evidence apparently was lost in an information overload.  

Yet more information overload is what many Bush administration 
proposals would create. For example, the Transportation Security 
Administration's controversial Computer Assisted Passenger 
Prescreening System II (CAPPS II) purports to sort airline passengers 
according to risk potential. As originally proposed, CAPPS II would 
have required that air passengers check their Fourth Amendment rights 
along with their bags by forcing disclosure of extensive personal 
information in order to fly.  

Travel history, organizations you support, books you bought, and even 
your credit rating were to be analyzed (no word yet on whether it's being 
prompt or tardy in paying bills that enhances your terrorist tendencies) 
to evaluate you. Sensibly, the TSA recently yielded to growing citizen 
opposition and announced it was scaling back the information to be 
gathered, but it has stonewalled requests for critical information.  

Undermining safety

Promoters of CAPPS argue that sacrificing privacy will enable most 
people to check in with less hassle and enable security to focus on 
"high-risk" passengers. But on closer inspection, this arrangement 
would undermine air safety. Intelligent terrorist groups readily could 
use these ratings to increase their odds of success. By thoroughly 
testing who among them gains easy passage, they could minimize risk 
of a thorough search at the critical time.  

Perhaps the single most effective measure needed to prevent a Sept. 
11 repeat has been implemented with zero cost to freedom -- securing 
cockpit doors. Banning such potential weapons as box-cutters onboard 
was also a sensible move that left freedom unscathed.  

Another effective measure, bag matching, could be implemented at a 
much lower cost than the CAPPS scheme and without encroaching on 
our privacy. Already in effect at many foreign airports, bag matching 
simply prevents luggage from flying on the aircraft unless the owner 
is on board. Though this may not prevent a suicide bombing, 
unaccompanied luggage bombs caused three of the worst air disasters 
of the 1980s, including the Pan Am explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland.  

In contrast to common-sense precautionary measures like these, the 
Bush AdministrationAEs Patriot Act II is brought forward with a few 
measures that actually could help prevent terrorism surrounded by 
many that merely move us toward a secretive police state. When Patriot 
II was leaked to the public last January, a Department of Justice 
spokesperson denied that it was draft legislation, but just months 
later on June 5 John Ashcroft asked Congress to enact many of its 
measures.  

Patriot II would go even further than the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 
in permitting law enforcement to target people based on their politics 
rather than evidence of crime. It effectively would re-authorize the 
CIA and FBI to engage in disruption of activist groups -- a practice 
made illegal only after serious and systemic abuses of that power.  

Hiding Dangers from Citizens

The proposal also would revoke key elements of the Freedom of 
Information Act, which prevents government from keeping secrets from 
citizens unless a true security threat exists. Among other problems, 
this would place us at greater risk of catastrophic chemical or nuclear 
accidents by stripping us of our right to know about threats posed by 
toxins, spills or explosions in our communities.  

Chemical companies are responsible for tens of thousands of toxic 
releases each year in the U.S. (reported incidents alone). According to 
the Environmental Protection Agency, more than 120 chemical plants 
individually could kill a million or more people in the event of an attack 
or serious accident. The public availability of information, combined with 
self-interest of local residents, is an important safeguard against such 
episodes.  

Consider that the 1984 Union Carbide (now Dow Chemical) catastrophe 
in Bhopal, India killed far more people than any domestic act labeled 
as terrorism. Those deaths resulted from willful endangerment by a 
corporation cutting corners on basic safety measures combined with a 
lack of public access to vital information -- a situation Patriot II 
would enable in the U.S.  

An attack on chemical or nuclear plants in the U.S. could kill millions, 
yet security at these facilities consistently has been proven inadequate 
during mock attacks. More stringent inspections and security at these 
facilities are another simple way to reduce vulnerability to attack, 
but industry lobbying killed even modest proposed security improvements 
last year. Worse, Congress just revived the perilous, economically 
unfeasible (without corporate welfare) and rightfully extinct practice 
of building nuclear plants by authorizing $16 billion of new federal 
subsidies.  

If we seek to improve security, why do we still lack any explanation of 
how intelligence that should have prompted investigation of several 9-11 
attackers was disregarded or unnoticed? When the space shuttle 
Columbia disintegrated, investigations began almost immediately. Yet 
our government waited almost a year to launch an official 9-11 inquiry 
and then authorized less than one-tenth the budget that Kenneth Starr 
spent on the Clinton investigations.  

Seeking Courage and Common Sense

The debate over sacrifices of Americans' freedoms is being engaged 
against a backdrop of cynicism and the fear of a presidential 
administration emboldened by disaster. As Wisconsin Democrat 
Russell D. Feingold, the only Senator to oppose the Patriot Act, said, 
"A number of my colleagues said I was right on the merits but felt they 
had to vote for it."  

Now, more than ever, we should resist further erosions of our freedom 
and banish investigations or harassment based on political activity, 
race or any reason other than tangible evidence of criminal activity. 
By doing so, we can ensure that law enforcement resources are used 
most effectively -- pursuing valid leads and real suspects of crime, 
not suppressing healthy dissent.  

Defending our Constitution does not hinder our safety, it enhances it.  

[Jeff Milchen directs ReclaimDemocracy.org, a nonprofit organization 
working for systemic change to restore citizen authority over 
corporations and to revitalize American democracy.] 

Jeff Milchen encourages your comments: Jeff{at}ReclaimDemocracy.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. 
YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, 
or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the 
original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links 
to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated. 

                           -==-

Source: YellowTimes
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1453&mode=thread&order=0


Cheers, Steve..

---