Chicago Tribune Editorial: Missteps in the
war on terror
Chicago Tribune
Editorial
December 19, 2005
History makes clear that when this nation goes to war, there is a serious
danger that the government will respond by going to extremes, trampling
important legal protections for its citizens. Recent events confirm that the
war on terror is no exception. But there is another danger when an emergency
arises: Vigilance can weaken, leaving Americans exposed.
In some ways, our leaders overreacted to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But
even today, they are also underreacting to tomorrow's threats.
The Bush administration was forced to abandon one mistake last week when it
endorsed Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's legislation banning "cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees abroad. Vice President Dick Cheney
had lobbied senators to modify the bill, arguing that harsh methods were
sometimes needed to extract information from terrorists.
But the administration's endorsement of such tactics created serious
conflicts--with the obligations America accepted in 1994 by ratifying the
international convention against torture; with the public's sense of right and
wrong; and with the demands of European allies whose cooperation is needed in
the war on terror. Thursday, the president invited McCain to the White House
and agreed to nearly everything the former POW demanded.
That change of policy coincided with a disturbing revelation in Friday's New
York Times. The newspaper reported that shortly after Sept. 11, the president
gave the National Security Agency secret permission to monitor the
international communications of people inside the United States without court
approval. That is a drastic departure for the NSA, which normally conducts such
surveillance only overseas.
This may also be a violation of American law, which requires that a special
court issue warrants for wiretaps on communications originating in the United
States. Some officials familiar with the program said it is illegal. But a
Justice Department memo took the radical position that the congressional
resolution authorizing the president to act against Al Qaeda enabled him to use
methods that were previously forbidden.
On Saturday, President Bush strongly defended the program, saying it has
"helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks" here and abroad. Had the
administration really believed it had congressional consent for spying on
Americans at home, it could have asked for legislation to affirm that. It
didn't, for the obvious reason that Congress would not have agreed.
This disclosure had the regrettable effect of helping to at least
temporarily derail reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, which for the most
part represented a careful and prudent response to the new challenges posed by
Al Qaeda. On Friday, Senate opponents managed to prevent a vote on the bill,
leaving in limbo some provisions scheduled to expire Dec. 31.
While fear produced some abuses, it has not prevented the onset of
complacency in the face of an ongoing threat. Earlier this month, former
members of the Sept. 11 commission issued a dismal "report card" giving
Congress and the president 5 F's and 12 D's in their handling of such matters
as airline cargo screening, communications among first responders and
allocation of homeland security funds.
Excesses of enforcement violate civil liberties. Lapses of vigilance can
lead to mass carnage. Our leaders have an urgent duty to correct both mistakes,
without delay.
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
|