Freedom on the Fourth: Civil liberties not always a sure thing
Comments 0 | Recommend 0
July 3, 2008 - 9:28PM
The Monitor
McALLEN - Everyone in the United States should know the story.

On a bright, cool Pennsylvania summer, 56 men pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In the 232 years that followed that first Independence Day, they and millions of men and women have fought, argued and debated in battlefields, courtrooms and legislative halls to defend those rights.

So, while the Fourth of July is a time to celebrate the country and express thanks to those who have helped shape the nation, it is also a time to recognize some of the principles on which it was founded.

From increased surveillance to restrictions on free speech, liberty is not all encompassing - especially when pitted against safety concerns.

"All of those developments heading into July 4 should give us all something serious to think about between our hot dogs and apple pie," said Dotty Griffith, a spokeswoman for the ACLU's Texas office.

Yet, others have said civil liberties advocates downplay the serious risks of post-9/11 America.

"Keeping America safe, free and prosperous requires both liberty and order," writes the Heritage Foundation's James Carafano. "Protecting the safety and freedom of Americans is not served well by simply demonizing security."








A U.S. Department of Justice report released last year indicated more than 700,000 names exist on a terrorist watch list.

Supporters of the list say taking one dangerous person off could be devastating, but civil liberties advocates disagree.

"Small, focused watch lists are better for civil liberties and for security," the ACLU argues.

The government is also installing body scanning machines in 10 of the country's busiest airports. The scanners allow security to see past passengers' clothes and screen for hidden weapons.

But privacy advocates say "citizens in a free nation should not have to tolerate" such invasive examinations.






A White House manual gives instructions on "deterring potential protesters" at the president's public appearances, the Washington Post reported last year.

The manual directs White House staff to ask local police to designate protest areas "preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route." It also says as a last resort, security staff should remove demonstrators.

In fact, protesters are expressing outrage that the designated protest zone for the Democratic National Convention in late August will be more than 200 yards away from the Pepsi Center in Denver, where the convention is planned.

Organizers say that plan is necessary to help maintain security, but opponents say the distance will make it near impossible for their message to be heard.




After 9/11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on Americans, pending approval of a secret court. But after 9/11, a presidential order allowed NSA to eavesdrop without warrants.

A U.S. Senate vote is scheduled next week to re-authorize a surveillance bill that would revamp spy laws and theoretically increase privacy protection, but civil liberties groups say it does not do enough to address their concerns.




A U.S. Supreme Court decision last month gave foreign terrorism suspects imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba the right to challenge their detentions in civilian court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the right of habeas corpus extends to foreign prisoners held overseas. The Bush administration had argued that because the military base is not in the United States it fell outside constitutional protections.

It was the third blow from the Supreme Court since 2004 about procedures surrounding the Guantanamo naval base, where prisoners have been indefinitely held without charges.

Some detainees, who have been deemed "enemy combatants," have been held at the facility for years without the opportunity to respond to or even know the allegations against them.








The Supreme Court this year upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. The law, one of the strictest in the nation, is designed to deter voter fraud.

But critics say requiring voters to present a photo ID - typically a driver's license or passport - is a burden to poorer voters who can't afford to purchase such documents, deterring them from casting ballots.

The idea has been brought up in Austin several times over the last few years - and one state representative promises to bring it back up when the Legislature meets next year.






U.S. Congress has yet to pass a federal shield law that would protect courts from forcing journalists to reveal their anonymous sources.








And USA TODAY reporter Toni Locy is currently fighting a contempt order that would require her to pay up to $5,000 per day for refusing to identify sources who called former U.S. Army scientist Steven Hatfill a "person of interest" in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Though the courts maintain journalists are not above the law, reporters say orders that force them to reveal sources undermine the First Amendment and essentially pacify the public's watch dog.



New York Times

reporter Judith Miller was famously jailed in 2005 for refusing to testify before a grand jury about an anonymous source who leaked the name of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.


http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/l ... afety.html