(Page 21 of 21) - Terrorism and Civil Liberties in the U.S. authored by Freeman, Michael.

How bad could it get? The comparisons with Peru and Uruguay highlight the

potential dangers. Recall that both countries were fully democratic when they responded
to the dangers of terrorism. Yet, in the process of fighting the terrorists, the security
forces in both countries frequently used torture to interrogate suspects, Peru
“disappeared” thousands of alleged members of Sendero Luminoso, and Uruguay
suffered the ultimate violation of liberty when the military launched a coup and ruled the
country as repressive dictators.

Why did the U.S. (and the U.K.) not end up like Peru and Uruguay? As the

earlier sections show, the key variable is whether the institutional safeguards (judiciary,
legislature, and free speech) that normally operate to protect against abuses of power
were undermined by the emergency powers or whether they were allowed to continue to
function during the campaign against terrorism. In the United States and Britain, the
Parliament/Congress, the press, various advocacy groups, and the judicial system all
continued to monitor alleged abuses and enforce the law when appropriate. In contrast,
in Peru and Uruguay, the emergency powers undermined the ability of these same
institutions to provide a check on the power of the military and executive branch.

Despite the relatively good record of the United States in terms of protecting civil

liberties, there is still more that can be done. First of all, the administration needs to be
more forthcoming and less secretive about the individuals who have been detained and it
should be required to disclose any evidence that it has used to determine that these
individuals are threats to the country. Second, Congress needs to build more oversight
into the legislation itself. For every piece of legislation that gives the government more
power and takes some liberty away from individuals, Congress needs to enhance the
oversight and not diminish it. In this way, we can have more effective measures at
combating terrorism, while also, at the same time, better protecting our liberties.

In general, all indications point to a relatively benign set of consequences to the

government’s decision to take measures that infringe on some civil liberties. The system
of checks and balances has seemed to work: the judiciary has overturned many of the
executive branch’s policies, the legislature has monitored and debated the use of
emergency powers, and the press and other groups have been active in publicizing
possible abuses. Even the actors responsible for implementing the government’s policies
have critically reviewed their own actions, with the military reporting on its operations in
Guantanamo and the use of tribunals and the FBI reporting on the status of immigration
detainees.

119

With the record so far, and in comparison to other countries, civil liberties

in the Unit ed States look secure, but only as long as there is constant vigilance.

119

The Justice department’s inspector general issued a scathing critique of the governments use of

immigration detention, see Adam Liptak, “The Back Page: Palmer Raids Redux; The Pursuit of Immigrants
in America After Sept. 11,” New York Times, June 8, 2003.. FBI agents reported to the ACLU that
prisoners at Guantanamo complained that they mistreated the Koran, Neil Lewis, “ Documents Say
Detainees Cited Abuse of Koran,” New York Times, May 26, 2005; The Justice Department investigated
the military’s practices at Guantanamo, Eric Lichtblau, “Justice Dept. Opens Inquiry Into Abuse of U.S.
Detainees,” New York Times, January 14, 2005. The Pentagon issued a report that found some prisoners
had been mistreated at Guantanamo, “Secret Report Questions Guantanamo Tactics,” New York Times,
February 2, 2005 and Neil Lewis and Eric Schmitt, “Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantanamo Bay,” New York
Times, May 1, 2005. The military considered revamping the military tribunals, Tim Golden, “U.S. IS
EXAMINING PLAN TO BOLSTER DETAINEE RIGHTS,” New York Times, March 27, 2005.