Cost of fighting terror

The Constitutional watch dogs are on guard after the Congress skipped some committee reviews and pushed the anti-terrorist bill through both houses with overwhelming approval. President Bush to signed it into law Oct. 26, less than two months after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Many aspects of the bill were long over due. It updates existing laws to address technological advancements such as voice mail and the Internet while increasing the penalties and eliminating the statutes of limitation for acts of terrorism. The bill addresses issues with the Canadian border and provides assistance for victims of crime. Some aspects of the new law fulfill long term wishes of the Justice Department – wishes that the Congress refused to approve as recently as 1999. But the ill wind that blew over our country on Sept. 11 blew favorably for the Justice Department. They finally had a nation, a Congress and a president bent on catching terrorists at any cost.
The question is: was part of the cost our first amendment rights to freedom of speech and fourth amendment rights to protection against unreasonable search and seizure?
The loss of those rights concerned U.S. Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, the sole dissenting vote against the anti-terrorism laws.
Feingold argued that “under this bill, a lawful permanent resident who makes a controversial speech that the government deems to be supportive of terrorism might be barred from returning to his or her family after taking a trip abroad.” America – where the most outrageous statements are expressed – now has a law that could bar re-entry to someone for something they said – but never did?! Surely the Constitutional watch dogs are growling.
Under the anti-terrorism bill some could see their fourth amendment rights denied. In the name of fighting terrorism, authorities can now secretly search our homes, our business and school records and listen in on private phone conversations other than those specifically targeted under a warrant.
To those who question the extensive liberties of this law for those in authority, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. said it was up to Congress and their committees to make sure that federal authorities are not too heavy-handed with their new enforcement powers.
In our haste to eradicate the evil of terrorism in the land of the free, are we really willing to compromise the basic freedoms of Americans? Day after day we read about one more devious way that someone bent on terrorizing us can, or has, attacked American citizens. These people need to be caught, but do we have to sacrifice our basic freedoms in order to so?
When Feingold raised questions regarding the compromising of the rights of the target minority group in this search for the terrorists, he was told “don’t worry, the FBI would never do that.” The same FBI that only days before Timothy McVeigh’s execution for his act of terrorism discovered a stash of files that pertaining to his case that his lawyers never saw.
Certainly we need teeth with laws to deal with terrorists. However if we brush aside the long cherished rights that make America unique in our rush to respond to the Sept. 11 attacks on America, we as a country will have lost more than any terrorist dreamed of destroying.