Page 39 - Freedom in the world_Neat

of extraordinary rendition and deportation to countries where torture is practiced. Canada
has tightened its immigration policies and increased domestic surveillance, both in
cooperation with the U.S. government and on its own. Everywhere, it seems, democratic
nations grapple with the tension between preserving cherished liberties and protecting
themselves from the very real threat of terrorism.

Conclusion

As this report is written, the core institutions of American democracy continue to grapple
with the issues raised by the Bush administration's counterterrorism agenda, especially the
assertion of enhanced authority by the executive branch. While administration actions have
met with skepticism from different quarters, the most significant pushback has come from
the press and the judiciary. The press continues to ask probing questions about the
consequences of antiterrorism policies, publicize acts of injustice against individuals or
groups, and assess the effectiveness of administration efforts. For its part, the judiciary has
forced the government to adjust or even reverse course on some aspects of
counterterrorism policy, while at the same time validating other initiatives. By contrast,
Congress, though at times sharply critical of administration policy, has been reluctant to
challenge the president on national security issues.
Yet even now, six years after 9/11, the impact of the administration's policies on the civil
liberties of Americans remains unclear. This is due in part to attempts by the
administration to limit public knowledge of its actions on national security grounds. At the
same time, the proposition that, as some critics have said, counterterrorism policies are
placing fundamental freedoms in jeopardy and leading to massive violations of civil
liberties seems to be an overstatement of current conditions, especially when viewed in
historical context. Constitutional protection of civil liberties, including the rights of
immigrants, is proving much more resilient than in past periods of conflict. Despite a high
degree of political polarization, critics of administration policies have been free to express
their views in the media, on the internet, and through many public protests. Civil
libertarians and other critics have not been subject to prosecution, surveillance, or witch
hunts. Indeed, careful scrutiny of civil liberties in today's United States reveals how much
the country has changed since earlier times of war or crisis.
In assessing America's performance since 9/11, we must also keep in mind the
dramatically new nature of the challenge that America and other democracies are facing in
the rise of Islamist terrorism. Even if we put aside the American case, it is clear that the
new breed of terrorist--committed, as he is, to the mass murder of civilians--is forcing
democratic societies around the world to consider adjustments in both the law and the
techniques of national security. Throughout Europe, democratic governments have
responded to the terrorist threat by tightening antiterrorism laws, expanding the
surveillance powers of the state, adding restrictions to the asylum and immigration
process, and enabling the deportation of immigrants who, through action or word, seem to
support terrorism. While it will take some time to establish the proper relationship
between security and liberty in an age of terrorism, current trends suggest that the United
States and other democracies will successfully meet the challenge.

Page 39 of 168