Last Thursday night, ACLU president Nadine Strossen and former FBI agent and author Christopher Whitcomb engaged in a debate on civil liberties that drew over 600 people to Shriver Hall.
The event, "Big Brother: The Effect of Government Policies on Civil Liberties," was organized by the Milton S. Eisenhower Symposium and co-sponsored by the Maryland and Johns Hopkins chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute and the JHU Pre-Law Society.Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Steven David moderated the debate.
Hopkins ACLU co-president Kestrel Linder was on hand to introduce Strossen and was eager to point out the importance of their debate on the evening's theme.
"No domestic topic is more relevant to Americans today than the government's stance on civil liberties," said Kestrel. "As we wage the war on terrorism, it is crucial that we do not curtail the very liberty that we seek to preserve. While it is important that President Bush bolster our national defense, it is just as important that we do not allow our rights and liberties to be trampled upon."
Strossen was in agreement as she criticized the Bush administration's security enforcing policies in the wake of last year's terrorist attacks as "new power meant to cover the failure of old power."
She directed most of her criticism at the anti-terrorism bill known as the U.S. Patriot Act, a measure that grants the federal government sweeping authority to combat terrorism and, in the process, add to what Strossen called the federal government's "insatiable appetite for even more power."
Strossen labeled such measures as secret military tribunals for terrorist suspects, religious and ethnic profiling, the wholesale arrest and deportation of various immigrants and the citizen spy network known as TIPS as knee-jerk reactions to the attacks, the need for and effectiveness of which were shaky at best.
As evidence that the anti-terrorism bill was nothing more than a power-grab made by the Bush administration, Strossen pointed to the Congressional testimony given by FBI agent and whistleblower Colleen Rowley in an investigation into possible negligence on the part of the intelligence community in anticipating the attacks.
"The problem wasn't lack of government power to gather information," said Strossen. "Rather, it was lack of personnel to effectively process the information it already had."
Rowley had come forward to bring attention to the potentially troublesome disorganization of the FBI, a shortcoming that was said to have made preventing the attacks all the more difficult.
Strossen also criticized the effectiveness of the security measures provided for in the Patriot Act, saying that practices like ethnic and religious profiling and increased surveillance hurt rather than help the government's efforts.
"Many of the post-9/11 measures that do make us less free do not make us more safe," she said. "These measures are overly broad dragnets, fishing expeditions and therefore, they're doubly flawed. On the one hand, they're sweeping in too many innocent people and also failing to hone in on the dangerous ones."
Whitcomb recounted his experience in Yemen while he was investigating the suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 in which 17 American sailors died.
While there, he was threatened by a plot to bomb the hotel in which he was staying.
Attributing his safety to the American intelligence operatives in Yemen at the time, Whitcomb emphasized the importance of security in a state threatened with violence.
"The thing I learned in Yemen," said Whitcomb, "is that terrorism is something that's visceral, immediate and personal."
Although asserting that he did not come as a representative of either the FBI or the Justice Department, Whitcomb defended the motives and methods of the government in seeking to maintain security in a state of uncertainty.
"We have to give people the tools they need to protect us," he stated.
Whitcomb also criticized the statement made by civil liberties advocates who claim that such an increase in government power mandated by the anti-terrorism bill necessarily means that everyone's rights are being violated. He asserted that such an attitude displays an inherent distrust in the government that is undeserved.
"We all want to believe that everyone is snooping on us," he said. "Who cares? If the FBI comes after an individual, there's a reason for it. If they're wrong, you lose nothing for it."
Whitcomb also called upon Americans to be more patient with their government as it tries to provide for the safety and security of its citizens.
"It's not a violation of your civil rights to ask questions," he said. "It's a violation of your civil rights to demand answers."
As moderator, David said, "I think they both did a good job and I'm glad we're in country were we can disagree civilly on important issues like these," he said.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.