Terrorism threat: Should national security take priority over some civil liberties?

[Batgirl]

Do you agree or disagree the threat of terrorism is so serious that it may be necessary to restrict the civil liberties of suspected terrorists even though there is not enough usable evidence to charge and convict them? In order to better protect our countries, is it reasonable to take action against these potential terrorists even if they have not yet committed a criminal offence?

[Brad]

It depends on whose civil liberties, and what you mean exactly by "civil liberties." I think, in a climate of war, non-citizens should be given very little latitude. We should tighten our borders and require more careful monitoring of those who are here. And a non-citizen who behaves suspiciously should be dealt with quickly and thoroughly.

As to inconveniences to citizens in time of war. We should all expect and tolerate increased surveillance in public places. The investigative arms of the government ought to be able to work together and coordinate information for the most rapid response to threats. At the same time, though, strip searches of 80 year old ladies in airports is unwarranted. During WWII virtually no one complained that Japanese Americans were rounded up, questioned, and in some cases held - because we understood that in that war Japan was an enemy and "Asian-looking" was a reasonable profile for suspicion.

Our namby-pamby sensibilities in a PC world have made that rather difficult today, but, oddly enough, the bombings in London, New York, and elsewhere were done by people who (gasp!) look remarkably alike. An Arab Muslim should not be surprised if he is periodically questioned or investigated or restrained - especially since the domestic Muslim communities have done so little to denounce the terror activities, and have, in fact, encouraged them on several occasions. I wouldn't have a problem at all with checking every Arab that got on an airplane. And, when white men of Germanic descent start carrying out attacks, I'll gladly line up too! But, again, I think a US citizen of Arab descent deserves more latitude than a foreigner on our shores - even now.

All that being said - to me these sorts of questions are where the idea of "Defending Freedom" really comes into play. As we praise our military, police, and statesmen (few though they may be) for defending our freedoms, this is precisely what it means. I want my fellow Americans to be free to come and go as they please. To pursue whatever dreams they may hold dear. To live lives in the pursuit of happiness, not under fear of threat and attack. If we are all treated with suspicion because there's a war on, then we are not a free society.

[Banander]

During WWII virtually no one complained that Japanese Americans were rounded up, questioned, and in some cases held - because we understood that in that war Japan was an enemy and "Asian-looking" was a reasonable profile for suspicion.

Due to the paranoia of General DeWitt this was done, and truth be told it didn't do much good. It made some people 'feel' safer. People did complain but the government leaders looked at the issue as minor. Just remember American citizens of Japanese ancestry were imprisoned as well, just for being Japanese. We look at the matter in hindsight with revulsion.

In WW2 the only sabotage of note on US soil came from German nationals. We rounded up and imprisoned known Germans but not as a whole.

No matter what measures are taken something will happen.

In order to better protect our countries, is it reasonable to take action against these potential terrorists even if they have not yet committed a criminal offence?

Reasonable . . . Yes. Distasteful . . . Yes. But reasonable as long as they are identified as such. We have to be sure, no half a$$ed guessing.

[AmericanGirl]

Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't it? Our constitution makes our country what it is, and while its nice to feel secure, it should not be at the expense of our civil liberties. There are things the government can do to improve security without infringing on our rights. If they want a wire tap or to delve into our personal records, get a court order. I might make it easier for them to get a court order if they suspect terrorists, but even then if they discover a terrorist in our mist, everyone citizen should have the right to a fair and speedy trial. Now, if you aren't an American citizen, all bets are off, you go straight to Gitmo, do not pass go.

[Batgirl]

It depends on whose civil liberties, and what you mean exactly by "civil liberties

Sorry, I should have elaborated more on what I meant by 'civil liberties'. For this question I was largely referring to restricting the movement, communications and associations of individuals where there is a reasonable suspicion they may be involved in terrorist activities but there may not be enough usable evidence to try them in court. Currently the UK's anti terror legislation allows the government to place suspected terrorists under house arrest via "control orders" requiring them to remain in their homes, wear tags and not communicate with other suspects. Most controversially, they apply to both foreign nationals and British citizens suspected of international or domestic terrorism, even if they have not been charged with any offence. Naturally opponents of this legislation accuse the government of violating basic principles of fairness and human rights. Personally I think it's a difficult call for any government in determining how to best balance protection for the public from terrorism while safeguarding civil liberties. Five years ago I would have argued with my last breath that we should never interfere in such fundamental liberties but these are extraordinary times and I believe it's reasonable that the government should have the power to act swiftly in the cases of suspected terrorists - both foreign nationals and British citizens - provided there is a strong suspicion of the individual's guilt. I can't comment on the American muslim community but in the UK and across Europe we have large muslim populations and while the majority claim not to share the extremist views of the muslim clerics who preach their hate quite freely here, there are too many examples of British born or domiciled muslims being recruited to these terrorist organisations. Just a few weeks ago it was reported that 50+ of these British muslims had left the country to join the insurgency in Iraq. These terrorists pose a very serious threat to us all as they're able to travel quite freely on their EU passports without any visa restrictions. I'm not saying the majority aren't ordinary, law abiding citizens and I would never condone a witch hunt against any specific group of people but they do fit the profile and naturally will be under more suspicion. In any case, it's reinforced my view that protecting our countries against further terrorist attacks must take priority even at the cost of some civil liberties.

[CFergusn]

Yes