Pubdate: Thu, 13 Jun 2002
Source: Sun Herald (MS)
Copyright: 2002, The Sun Herald
Contact:  http://www.sunherald.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/432
Author: E.R. Shipp

CAN WE BE BOTH SAFE AND FREE?

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when we joked that a 
conservative was a liberal who had been mugged. Now it might be said that a 
wavering civil libertarian is one who's become gun-shy in the days since 
Sept. 11.

For sure, adherence to the sweeping liberties granted us by our 
Constitution and traditions remains an easy call in some instances, such as 
when Suffolk County, N.Y., recently banned from using its ballfields anyone 
who laughs at the mistakes of opposing teams or even heckles opposing 
players. Come on!

And when the regents exam was revealed to have been fraught with 
censorship, the boneheadedness of that practice was easy to spot and 
protest. A no-brainer.

But the various security measures being proposed, or in some instances 
enacted, in response to threats of terrorism since September leave me with 
an uneasy feeling. Not outright rejection. But great concern. There is 
method in the madness, but the methods need to be perfected before becoming 
law.

I don't like it that Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to be exploiting 
our post-Sept. 11 fears to push for enactment of stringent restrictions on 
the movement of non-citizens. But neither do I like it that most of the 
threats we're hearing about - e.g., blowing up apartment buildings or 
bringing us to our knees with chemical or biological warfare - emanate from 
people associated with a few countries, including Iraq, Iran and Syria. And 
many of the people making these threats appear to receive succor from 
associates in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

But are we also crossing a vital line?

So, yes, we've obviously got to do something. But are we plunging back into 
ethnic profiling after just trying to purge the practice from our system?

Ashcroft, promising "a vital line of defense in the war against terrorism," 
has proposed measures aimed at foreign visitors who raise "national 
security concerns" - in plain language, foreigners who raise the suspicions 
of those who have fixed in their minds what "fitting the description" 
means. Like state troopers on the New Jersey Turnpike who thought that most 
black men raised "concerns" and pulled them over for drug checks? Or like 
pilots who force off their planes passengers who raise "concerns" because 
of their skin tone or manner of dress?

On this one, I tend to side with civil libertarians and advocates for 
immigrants, such as the official from the National Immigration Forum who 
told The Washington Post: "The most law-abiding immigrant will now find 
himself a lawbreaker and deemed a security threat. It makes me worry about 
what kind of nation we're becoming."

I worry, too.

Breezing through security

On the other hand, I'm a black American who, according to airline 
employees, can breeze through security because I "don't fit the profile" of 
a terrorist. So I wonder if I am a bit too sanguine because the new rules 
would apply to people who don't look like me or mine.

That is not an attitude to be proud of, but it is one easily recognized by 
many Americans.

You know, the "that's got nothing to do with me" feeling.

And I wonder if some of the new measures don't go far enough. For instance, 
with all the focus on fingerprinting and registering and monitoring of men 
of Middle Eastern origin, do we risk losing sight of the newest trend in 
suicide bombing: the use of young, even teen-age, females?

And what about the so-called "sleepers" - the Osama bin Laden followers who 
are just lying in wait, blending in, adopting American lifestyles until 
they are called upon to strike?

Yet when all is said and done, my overriding concern is that with the 
authorized snooping at houses of worship, on the Internet, even at public 
rallies, we risk a return to the days of J. Edgar Hoover and the infamous 
Cointelpro domestic spying program.

President Bush tries to reassure that our constitutional rights remain 
sacrosanct, but do we dare believe that we can have our civil liberties and 
his administration's brand of homeland security, too?

There are no easy answers as we struggle with our better selves, mindful 
still of our interest in self-preservation.

E.R. Shipp is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Daily 
News, 450 West 33rd St., New York, NY 10001.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens