Cilvil Liberties Since 9/11

The Bush administration, the United States Justice department, and the United States Congress have enacted a series of executive orders, laws and regulations that have dangerously undermined civil liberties, as well as the checks and balances essential to the structure of democracy as a whole. In order to ensure National Security from the risk of terrorist attack, it becomes necessary to allow certain civil liberties of the people to be susceptible to revision. In situations where attempts at protecting the people infringe upon the rights of those people, priority should be given to the overall security of the nation. To save the system that is the guarantor of our liberties, we must allow for some level of intrusion on those liberties. However, in the wake if the September 11 attacks, many of the civil liberties reserved to all people have been harshly abused and in some cases removed completely

The executive branch of government has chosen to combat terrorism by way of a series of executive orders and emergency interim agency regulations, which greatly overstep the reach of both the judiciary and legislative branches. These laws and regulations violate the laws and constitution of the United States as well as international and humanitarian laws. In order to allow unprecedented new powers to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the Bush administration called for the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act. The Act involves many different areas of law, ranging from immigration to surveillance to intelligence sharing between federal agencies.

Congress had very little time to look over the Act, and so very little was changed or even discussed before it came up for vote. In the little time that congress did have for reviewing the document, they were able to apply certain checks in the form of provisions to the document to ensure that the rights of the people are best preserved as is allowed by the Act. In respect to immigration, the Act grants unprecedented new powers to the Attorney general. Allotted to him is the ability to detain non-citizens he certifies as suspected terrorists. To this congress applied a number of checks to these powers. Included, are the requirements that the Attorney General must charge a detainee with a crime, initiate immigration procedures for deportation, or release the individual within seven says of detention. He must also report to congress every six months with specific details on the use of his new powers. Most congressional debating of the USA PATRIOT Act centered a great deal on these few provisions concerning the detention powers within the Act. The government thus chose to rely on regulatory authority to accomplish the same goals as were previously authorized preceding the provisions made by congress. The Attorney General issued a regulation authorizing him to detain people without a charge or suspicion of terrorist activity for a “reasonable period of time” in the event of an “emergency or other extraordinary circumstance.” Both of these terms are left open for interpretation to each individual INS officer. Once detained and admitted into the system, the detainee can be refused the right to legal representation and the right to liberty. Included is the right to an arraignment and to be confronted by the accuser. . In many cases even the right to a trail before being jailed has been removed completely. The Executive Office for Immigration Review also issued a regulation expanding its power to suspend an immigrations judge’s decision that a detainee be released on bond. These actions widely overstep the boundaries of not only our own constitution, but international law as well. It is the responsibility of the judicial branch to step in and declare that these actions sanctioned by the Executive branch, are illegal and unconstitutional. For the tightening of national security relative to the possible entrance of terrorists into the country, a strengthening of select and limited powers should be delegated to the INS and the Attorney General; rather than absolute. Increase security can be insured by means of an increased ability to detain and monitor citizens and non-citizens alike, without the stripping of such fundamental rights as liberty, representation or even trial. Here a balance must be struck between the protection of national security, and the freedoms of all individuals alike.

Issues have also arisen concerning the government’s use of those exceptional powers