When we think about the differences between our values here in America and the values of the people who flew planes into our buildings on Sept. 11, the extent to which we embrace individual freedoms tops the list. America not only permits, but encourages, diversity of opinion on virtually every issue, and we have certain rights against governmental intrusion that make it easier for us to live our everyday lives without fear of constraint or persecution.
Afghanistan, our first target in the war against terrorism, is ruled by militants with a core values system antithetical to ours. Women are prohibited from working at a job or attending school, and if they happen to show their leg in public it is chopped off. Television is illegal and radios are allowed only on a very limited basis.
Men are arrested if their beards do not meet state-specified lengths. The Taliban, whose terrorizing and propagandizing has choked the country and its people, has complete control over everyday life. It is difficult to imagine what living in this type of society would be like. Frankly I don't want to.
These distinctions are an indicator of just how free we are in this country relative to the rest of the world. However, we could see these freedoms change subtly, if not significantly, over the coming weeks, months, and years.
There are already officials in the Justice Department, specifically in the FBI, who are asking Congress to give them expanded powers to wiretap phones, computers, and even individual people.
With the ability to use these resources, investigators say they would be able to prevent further terrorist attacks and possibly gather evidence that could lead to apprehension and conviction of suspected or potential terrorists.
One might argue that by wiretapping phones and spying on people to a greater extent than it already does, the federal government would be infringing on our civil liberties, namely our rights against search and seizure and self-incrimination, as well as our right to privacy. Although not found explicitly in our Constitution, an individual's right to privacy has been recognized by the Supreme Court for decades.
If the FBI can monitor the phone records and Internet activity of a suspected terrorist, who is to say it cannot monitor the activities of some other person, perhaps a parolee or even potentially a political enemy of the President or Attorney General?
The prospect of "Big Brother" watching all of us is scary, and it will likely not come to that. As long as Congress passes an anti-terrorism package giving the FBI an expanded but still fairly narrow authority to tap phones, etc., we shouldn't be afraid of losing our liberties on this front.
The real losers in the new wave of zealous anti-terrorist sentiment in the United States could be immigrants and people of Arab descent. Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked Congress to include a provision in the anti-terrorism bill that would permit the indeterminate detention and even deportation of "out of status" (the new PC term for illegal) immigrants believed to be associated with known or suspected terrorists.
In addition, we can expect to find difficulty getting on airplanes without rigorous interrogation and close inspection of our bags. America has been notoriously lenient with airport security for many years, and we paid the price on Sept. 11.
Israel's airline, El-Al, is likely susceptible to hijackings on a nearly daily basis but it has never had such a problem. El-Al's sparkling record has to do with its ultra-tight security measures and its procedure of rigorously screening and questioning all Palestinians or other non-Israelis at each checkpoint.
Is this something we should consider doing in America? We have good reason to think that, at least right now, this web of terrorism is limited to Muslim extremists. Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient if we only thoroughly questioned people of Middle Eastern descent at airports and let the little old ladies through without a hassle? The answer is complicated. Certainly Israel owes at least part of its impeccable flight record to the practice of racial profiling, but Americans should not take cues from other nations when it comes to the issues of freedom and equality.
Here in the United States we sacrifice efficiency, and sometimes even safety, in order to preserve the doctrine of equal treatment for all, which we hold dear. It is more difficult to say this now than it ever has been, but increasing the safety of our airline flights does not mean much if we must make an entire race of people feel alienated in order to do so. We can strengthen security in other more fair ways.
First we have to forget, at least for now, the days when we could take the Dartmouth Coach to Boston, arrive at 6:45 and make the 7:00 shuttle to New York. Second, training and arming our airline pilots, most of whom have military backgrounds anyway, and securing the pathetically feeble cockpit doors will go a long way to preventing terrorists from taking over planes in the future.
There is no question that one necessary response to the terrorist attacks is the beefing up of security here at home. However, we must be careful not to let the government overstep its bounds when it comes to individual freedoms and equality of treatment among its citizens. If we forget these fundamental tenets of Democracy, we become more like the terrorists, which is exactly what they want.
