Last week’s news that terrorists were poised to attempt a spectacular attack on U.S.-bound jetliners has brought fear and anxiety back to the surface for many Americans. That’s fertile ground for those who would seek to give freer reign to the executive branch to decide when, how and against whom to direct anti-terrorist operations.
Such efforts should be resisted, especially when emotions are running high.
That’s not to say the government shouldn’t have sufficient tools to watch, infiltrate and thwart the plans of potential terrorist cells. Of course it should. But the separation of powers so carefully crafted by our Constitution’s framers can and must be adhered to in the process.
Days after the announcement that British authorities had broken up a plot to use liquid explosives to bring down several airliners headed from London to the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was on TV arguing for a review of U.S. laws that could allow for more electronic surveillance and detention of possible terror suspects.
“What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information,” Chertoff said Sunday. “We have to make sure our legal system allows us to do that. It’s not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants.”
We beg to differ. Twenty-first century technology should easily allow for rapid approval by a special court of domestic surveillance. Such approval can be granted on a temporary basis, allowing operations to proceed swiftly while giving the court more time to look at the case more deeply.
The dangers inherent in allowing a single branch of government to make such decisions without oversight are obvious. Harassment of political opponents or other perceived enemies has occurred throughout our history. “Trust me” doesn’t cut it, as the nation’s founders clearly believed.
Last week’s developments showed the value of human intelligence, and luck, in fighting terrorists. British authorities, after receiving a tip from within Britain’s Muslim community, apparently were able to infiltrate key terrorist cells and move in when things got serious.
As Chertoff suggests, in the ongoing police and military war against terrorism, the focus should be on moving quickly, flexibly and effectively against those who would do us harm. All of that can be done lawfully, within our proven system of checks and balances.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
