Page 27 - Freedom in the world_Neat

In the history of the United States, the American commitment to civil liberties has
frequently been put to the test. The Alien and Sedition Acts of the late eighteenth century,
the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the persecution of war critics during
World War I and the Red Scare that followed it, the internment of Japanese Americans
during World War II, the McCarthyite phenomenon during the early cold war, and the
government's campaign of surveillance targeting opponents of the Vietnam War--all were
driven by a perceived need to protect the United States against foreign adversaries or
internal subversion. The darker chapters of American history, especially those involving
crackdowns against immigrants and political dissent, have almost always occurred during
times of war or the threat of war.
It is within the context of a history in which the rights of the individual have been placed in
jeopardy mainly during wartime that we must assess American counterterrorism policies in
the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
This chapter deals with those aspects of President George W. Bush's counterterrorism
agenda that have drawn criticism from civil libertarians and others in the United States and
abroad, including the USA PATRIOT Act, warrantless domestic surveillance, extraordinary
renditions, harsh detention and interrogation policies, the opening of a special detention
facility at Guantanamo Bay, and efforts to curtail judicial review of such matters. The report
details the arguments advanced against these policies as well as those articulated by the
Bush administration and its supporters. But this is not a simple "on the one hand, on the
other hand" assessment. The chapter shows that a number of the actions taken by the
administration in its war on terrorism present genuine threats to the individual rights of
American citizens and of foreign citizens caught up in the counterterrorism net.
At the same time, it is important to point out that the setbacks to individual rights during
the war on terrorism pose less severe threats to American liberty than those that arose
during the major conflicts of the past. The United States has not declared a wholesale
suspension of habeas corpus rights, outlawed political dissent, placed tens of thousands of
nonwhite residents in domestic detention centers, ordered security services to conduct
campaigns of surveillance against war critics, or blacklisted entertainers and academics
who differed with the policies of the federal government. Nor has the government taken
sweeping action against the press, despite article after article that revealed sensitive
information about counterterrorism initiatives.
In an evaluation of the administration's policies, there is also the question of whether the
laws and techniques developed to cope with traditional military conflicts and espionage
tactics are suited to a conflict involving inchoate, global terrorist networks that disregard
the traditional rules of warfare and are committed to inflicting massive casualties on the
civilian population of the United States and other countries. Civil libertarians and others
have argued strongly that the laws and policies devised to deal with traditional warfare are
sufficient to cope with the threat of terrorism. They may be right. But at this point the
United States and other democratic societies are still grappling with this extremely
important issue.
Finally, as this chapter points out, the countervailing forces of American democracy have
tempered a number of the administration's more ambitious initiatives and will no doubt
have an important impact on the shape of America's counterterrorism regime in the future.
The courts, Congress, and the press have all played an important role in forcing changes in
the administration's approach; their role will, if anything, become more significant as
counterterrorism policies are further refined and moderated.

Page 27 of 168