Posted on: Tuesday, September 10, 2002

ISLAND VOICES
The dangers of too much security

By Molly Tafoya
Senior at La Pietra-Hawaii School for Girls

Our society is one of polar opposites. You are either Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative, in the minority or the majority, or you are with us or with the terrorists.

The sacred and rational middle ground has somehow been lost in the din of all opposing sides crying out "radical!" The problem with this philosophy is that we are now forced to make certain sacrifices as we paint ourselves into ideological corners.

Republicans cannot favor social welfare programs, liberals are expected to be radical, and civil libertarians are told they are fighting security measures indiscriminately. This way of thinking has become social law in our society, an unspoken rule, and yet it is not as plain as that.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, Americans knew that life was not colored in just white and black; there was also red, white and blue. And the question pouring from our lips was, "Where do we go from here?"

Surfacing were only two concepts: civil liberties and security. These two simple yet powerful ideas have a complexity that lies in their simplicity when forced together.

What makes these concepts so complicated are their levels of personal attachment. What are we personally willing to sacrifice for safety's sake? Or, perhaps more importantly, what aren't we willing to sacrifice? The sacrifices of picking a side in this heated, centuries-long debate have sparked events that result in the actions of the federal government favoring security, and court rulings that favor individual rights.

President Bush took quick and necessary action immediately following the terrorist attacks to ensure our safety. Our security blanket had been violently ripped off and that bare, vulnerable moment left us willing to sacrifice anything for security. That is what the president gave us, and he continued to do so with the U.S.A. Patriot Act on Oct. 24, 2001.

Security is enhanced and increased with the measures provided for in the act. Yet in the process of enhancing security, the former balance between civil liberties and securities was disturbed.

Congress passed this act with sections that called for the "authority to intercept wire, oral and electronic communications relating to terrorism" and other invasive, now legal actions. Moreover, the balance between civil liberties and security has been upset because the checks and balances within our system of government have been upset. Both the judicial and the legislative branches followed the executive branch with ease in the immediate shadow of the terrorist attacks.

For example, recently Chief Justice William Rehnquist gave a speech to fellow judges about the ongoing struggle between civil liberties and security. In that speech, Rehnquist stated his belief that it is an unreasonable assumption to expect courts and judges to challenge the actions of the government during a breach of national security, surely an abdication of the need for the courts to check the executive and congressional branches of government.

Now, a year later, the shadow from hijacked planes has passed, the dust has settled and the balance is shifting yet again. John Walker Lindh, the 21-year-old American accused of conspiring with the Taliban to kill Americans, found a judge ruling in his favor regarding the right to speak with suspected Taliban fighters in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

In his ruling, Lindh's judge replied that while he sympathized with government concerns, he would not allow national security to override Lindh's rights. The good of the individual over the good of the whole has been preserved within this one decision. The good of the whole is linked to national security and the good of the individual is linked to civil liberties, and therein lies a clue to regaining our balance.

If we sacrifice specific freedoms — for example, our right to privacy — then we threaten the good of the individual. Yet if we do not, events like Sept. 11 affect the good of the whole. So whom should we protect? What good is security if we lose many of our rights promised in the Bill of Rights? What good are rights if we do not have the security we desire? And where do we draw that definitive line?

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln felt justified in his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus immediately after an 1861 uprising in which 13 innocent people were killed. He sacrificed civil liberties for security after a small rebellion, and was criticized greatly for it. The military tribunals and the suspensions lasted the entire five-year span of the war, and eventually citizens got used to it.

This was also true for people in Hawai'i during the martial law imposed immediately after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Martial law in Hawai'i lasted from 1941 to 1944 and was implemented because there was an immediate and substantial threat to the security of both the nation and the state.

It took a brave court case, Duncan v. Kahanamoku, for martial law to be lifted. For three years, people in Hawai'i lived with blackouts, a suppressed press and military government. Yet people got used to it. If "getting used to it" makes it right, then how much longer would martial law have gone on in Hawai'i? Racial profiling, military tribunals, invasion of privacy — these are the dangers of too much security.

And then perhaps on the flip side, the terrorist attacks are the ultimate danger of not enough security. History, with the Civil War, Pearl Harbor and 9/11, is fraught with instances where security slipped and civil liberties consequently suffered. But this brought about change, and with that change came the hope that we are that much closer to an acceptable balance.

In the end, certain freedoms should never be sacrificed. At the risk of sounding unpatriotic, I feel that my First Amendment rights carry too much weight to be lightly tossed to the side. In the patriotic, flag-waving hurrah of this year's Fourth of July, the phrase "what makes this country great" appeared in everything from fast-food commercials to clothing ads.

Mass media have provided one service that affects all of us: voice. Everyone has a voice, and we can be as loud as we want to be. The freedom to speak our minds is really what makes this country great.

That is the case whether one cries out in pure hatred toward the people who coordinated the 9/11 attacks or whether one simply exudes cynicism toward everything that our president has done wrong so far. And it is this freedom that keeps everything in line; this freedom is what keeps everything, including civil liberties and security, balanced.