Antiterrorism legislation may face backlash - Civil Liberties - Brief Article

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), April, 2002

A backlash against antiterrorism legislation passed following the Sept. 11 attacks will grow, leading to a fierce struggle over civil liberty issues, predicts Sandra Braman, Reese Phifer Professor of Telecommunications and Film, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. This fight will occur, primarily, in the courtrooms, she believes.

"Under the Patriot Act, restrictions to civil liberties include not only typical wartime constraints on speech to ensure that national security is not endangered, but also a reduction in the right to a fair trial, the right to associate with others, the right to privacy, and a restriction of the right to government information," she points out. It also gives expanded powers to Federal authorities to tap telephones, monitor Internet use, and share data among agencies. The act was signed into law in October, 2001, and lauded as an essential step in defeating terrorism.

While a few Americans adamantly and publicly voiced opposition to the bill when it first passed, that number has grown recently and will continue to do so, Braman says. As more people begin deciphering the complex, 30,000-word legislation, concerns will increase. "We're beginning to see it among members of Congress and journalists now."

Historically, restrictions on civil liberties during wartime were applied based on actual behaviors of individuals. "Under the terms of the Patriot Act, however, one need not have done anything at all and still find one's civil liberties restricted," she notes. For example, permission to obtain a search warrant no longer requires probable cause that the person being searched is involved in illegal activity, but can now be granted on the claim that the search sought information relevant to an ongoing investigation.

"A lot of this is so overboard, I think it will be declared unconstitutional," Braman says. "An awful lot of people think this has nothing to do with them and say, `What do I have to worry about, I'm not a criminal?' But I don't think they are foreseeing all that it could mean to them."