Editorial
Security measures must not ruin freedoms

In the wake of last week's terrorist attacks Americans have — quite willingly for the most part — surrendered certain small liberties and conveniences for the sake of security.

We wait patiently in lines at security checkpoints. We gladly show our identification when asked. We accept with only minor reservations the presence of armed military security forces within civilian environments.

Americans have always been willing to sacrifice some of their personal freedoms when there is a greater good to be served. But the emphasis here is on "willing" and "sacrifice." These concessions are not forced upon us by an autocratic government; they are asked of us and we comply.

These important distinctions between totalitarian and democratic societies must not be lost as we move ahead in the next days and weeks.

There will be demands for new security procedures; new secrecy rules and new restrictions on the right of Americans to gather and travel.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has already announced emergency legislation that will help authorities in their pursuit of terrorists.

A key element of that package would give the Justice Department far broader authority to tap into the communications of suspected terrorists. It will be a challenge to balance this obvious need with constitutional rights of privacy.

Under today's wiretap law, the monitoring is authorized only for a specific device — a telephone, for instance — of a person under suspicion. If authorities want to monitor other forms of communication or the person's activities in other places, a new warrant must be obtained.

The point of these constraints is to minimize eavesdropping on conversations or communication that may have nothing to do with the investigation.

Under Ashcroft's proposal, the eavesdropping approval would apply to the individual, rather than a location or a communications device. That makes sense in an era of virtually disposable cellular phones and ubiquitous Internet cafes.

But the practical effect of this would be to put every person who comes into contact with a suspect under surveillance from Uncle Sam.

Changes are coming, certainly. But Congress should insist that these changes are made with care and due deliberation.

We cannot give the terrorists the satisfaction of knowing that one of their legacies is the loss of freedoms that make America strong.