|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
ACLU on Surveillance powers |
Current rating: 0 |
by ACLU
(No verified email address) |
11 Oct 2001
Modified: 14 Nov 2001 |
|
On September 19, only eight days after the tragic terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush Administration unveiled its proposed Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), legislation that included many changes to the nation's current surveillance laws. |
The ACLU has five overall concerns about the surveillance provisions of the legislation being discussed:
1. They would reduce or eliminate the role of judges in ensuring that law enforcement wiretapping is conducted legally and with proper justification. There is no reason why the requirement to get a court order for surveillance should slow down the investigation of suspects for which there is evidence of terrorist activities.
2. They would dangerously erode the longstanding distinction between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence collection, which protects Americans from being spied upon by their own intelligence agencies, as happened during the Cold War.
3. The definition of "terrorism" is too broad, permitting the special surveillance powers granted in this legislation to be applied far beyond what is commonly thought of by the term. Under the definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" investigations.
4. Many of the expansions in surveillance authority being considered are not limited to even the broad definition of terrorism investigations.
5. The Congress is moving unnecessarily and irresponsibly quickly on these measures. It takes a great deal of time to deal with complex issues such as how to apply wiretap law to the Internet, and to think through all the possible unintended consequences of legislative language. Few of the provisions being discussed are needed for the current terrorism investigations, so Congress should take the time to do it right.
Security and civil liberties do not have to be at odds. Law enforcement authorities already have great leeway under current law to investigate suspects in terrorist attacks - including broad authority to monitor telephone and Internet communications. In fact, under current law, judges have rejected only three federal or state criminal wiretap requests in the last decade.
Follow the link below to view a chart which outlines the changes proposed by the ATA, and the ACLU's objections to those changes. Also compared are the latest versions of anti-terrorism legislation being considered in the House and Senate. |
See also:
http://www.aclu.org/congress/patriot_chart.html
|
|
Don't let the terrorist win by taking away our civil liberites |
by Rita Faulkner
rfaulkne (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Nov 2001
|
I am wondering what I as an individual can do to try to recover my civil liberties and to protect those of others, citizens or not. At the same time, I do want vigilance on the part of law enforcement and security people in order to stop violent acts, organized or not.
Thank you,
Rita Faulkner |
