By AgapePress Staff
September 19, 2001

(AgapePress) - A conservative Republican and a coalition of groups that includes the ACLU are urging caution as the Justice Department seeks new surveillance powers to track down terrorists.

In the wake of last week's assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Justice Department is seeking greater power to wiretap telephones, conduct searches, and seize assets. And according to CNSNews, the FBI would also have new power to wiretap specific people rather than a specific telephone number, making it easer to track cell phone users.

In a recent news conference announcing new regulations, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said the government had "a responsibility to use every legal means at our disposal to prevent further terrorist activity by taking people into custody who have violated the law and who may pose a threat to America." Ashcroft insisted the Justice Department was going to do everything possible to "harmonize" the constitutional rights of individuals with the need to protect the safety and security of individuals. The Attorney General has asked Congress to act within days on broad new surveillance authority and other powers to fight terrorism.

But Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia says before we begin dismantling constitutionally protected safeguards and diminishing fundamental rights to privacy, we should first examine why last week's attacks occurred. Barr says when we begin to seriously tamper with fundamental laws regarding Fourth Amendment protections for electronic communications, such proposals deserve a serious and vigorous debate. He says we ought not to rush into a vast expansion of government power in a misguided attempt to protect freedom because in doing so, we will inevitably erode the very freedoms we seek to protect.

Barr is not alone in his concerns. A longtime official with the American Civil Liberties Union describes Ashcroft's plea as "deeply troubling." Morton Halperin, who was with the State Department under the Clinton Administration, tells The New York Times that the U.S. should not be enacting restrictions on the liberty of Americans without careful debate. "If we do it carefully, we can find an acceptable balance," Halperin says. "If we rush into it, we will do things that deprive people of their liberty without improving security."

And Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, is also apprehensive. According to Berman, the United States has a history of racing to judgment and passing what he describes as "inappropriate ... wrongheaded and ultimately counterproductive laws."

"Before you pass legislation in this area, you need to know what happened," Berman tells The Times. "I have not yet found a story or a statement by any official that says the failure here was caused by restrictions on electronic surveillance."

Others Involved?
While the initial investigation into last week's terrorist attacks has pointed to Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden as the mastermind, there are indications this act involved others in the terrorist community. Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus suggests the U.S. be cautious in putting all the blame on bin Laden.

"We have to wait and see wherein responsibility lies," Phillips says. "I'm reluctant to simply say that this or that group was responsible until there is further evidence and information."

Many in the intelligence community say they would not be surprised if Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq, was also a part of the plan to cripple the nation. Iraq is one of the seven countries accused by the U.S. of sponsoring terrorism. But according to Associated Press, Iraq is denying any involvement in last week's attacks and is pushing for a "united Arab stance" against any military action by the U.S.

Iraq's foreign minister told an Iraqi newspaper today that the United States and the West know Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. But yesterday a U.S. official said it had been learned that one of the hijackers met earlier this year in Europe with an Iraqi intelligence agent.

War Against Who or What
Meanwhile, several military scholars have indicated that if the United States Congress declares war, it does not need to identify a single country as an enemy. Marshall Whittman is a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute. He tells The Washington Times that if Congress declares war, it does not necessarily have to exactly specify who war is declared against. He says the declaration could simply be against international terrorists.

Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, concurs, saying a declaration of war is whatever the President says it is. And Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter recently said on the Senate floor that the U.S. can declare war against a group, not just against nations.

Political scholars also point out that the formal act of declaring war is not required for the President to strike militarily against any country or group. The National War Powers Act allows the President to attack in the event of a national emergency and employ the military for up to sixty days without a formal declaration by Congress. With the state of anger in the country and on Capitol Hill, the President should have little trouble getting what he wants.