Terrorism and Liberty

After four years of work, a federal commission on terrorism issued its final report [PDF] last week. [P6: Yup, that's a link to the report itself. Thought I'd add that.] The report was unremarkable except for one recommendation that shone brightly through the usual thicket of bureaucratic prose. Aggressive antiterrorism policies, the report suggested, when combined with increasingly sophisticated surveillance technologies, could have a "chilling effect" on the right to privacy and other fundamental civil liberties. To prevent that from happening, the commission recommended that the White House establish a bipartisan panel to review how constitutional guarantees would be affected by all new laws and regulations aimed at enhancing national security.

The report appeared only days before two federal courts rebuked the Bush administration for ignoring constitutional restraints in the name of fighting terrorism. The commission did not directly criticize the administration's policies, but it urged the government to take special precautions to protect against the infringement of basic rights. The report was also notable for the fact that it came from a fairly conservative panel consisting mainly of law-enforcement and municipal officials and headed by James Gilmore III, a former Republican governor of Virginia.

Created after the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the commission is one of two federal panels examining terrorism. A second panel, which is examining the Sept. 11 attacks, will report in May. The Gilmore group praised many aspects of the government's response to 9/11, but said there was plenty of room for improvement in terms of intelligence gathering and coordinating the efforts of state, local and federal governments. These complaints had been expected. What was not expected, and most welcome, was the emphasis on civil liberties and the commission's reminder that these liberties and security concerns are not mutually exclusive.