The price of safety: does the fight against terrorism require giving up some of our rights?

• Author: Smith, Patricia
• Position: NATIONAL

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Eight months from now, the United States will mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in which Al Qaeda terrorists killed almost 3,000 people in New York, at the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and in Pennsylvania.

In the years since, a host of new security measures have been put in place to stop other attacks. Most have become so part of everyday life that we don't even notice them anymore. But some raise fundamental legal and constitutional questions with no easy answers.

That was the case in November, just before Thanksgiving, when new security procedures went into effect at some airports: Passengers had to walk through full-body electronic scanners or submit to extensive pat-downs, and many people objected.

Striking a balance between protecting the public from very real terrorist threats and safeguarding civil liberties has been the subject of intense debate since 2001. It has played out not only at airports but in many other areas of American life, with Congress, the courts, and two Presidents trying to figure it all out.

In 2002, for example, President George W. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans and others inside the U.S suspected of terrorist ties, without first obtaining warrants.

When the program became public knowledge in 2005, a political firestorm erupted. Opponents cited the Fourth Amendment's protections against "unreasonable searches and seizures" which has generally been interpreted to mean that government authorities must obtain court-issued warrants before conducting wiretapping or other such monitoring.

Presidential Power

Bush claimed that the program was a legitimate exercise of presidential power, including his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. Security officials also cited concerns about situations in which delaying monitoring for even a few hours while waiting for a warrant could result in the loss of critical intelligence that could stop an attack.

Last March, however, a federal judge ruled that warrantless wiretapping is illegal. The Justice Department says the practice has been discontinued under the Obama administration.

Questions have also been raised about the hundreds of terrorism suspects who have been held since 9/11 at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and whether they are entitled to the same legal protections as Americans.

Some of the...