DM Catholic Workers’ Focus Upon Threats to Civil Liberties
by Robert Wright (DMCW volunteer)
The prophetic words of the Sage of the American Revolution might well have been echoing throughout the First Christian Church as Members of the DMCW Community gathered with other concerned citizens to respond to real and potential threats to American civil liberties in the wake of the horrendous events of September 11.
When our nation was desperately struggling to forge its newly-declared freedom, Benjamin Franklin issued this stern warning to those of his more timid, hesitant and reluctant revolutionary colleagues: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Chilling and challenging words expressed by a man who was certainly one of the oldest, undoubtedly one of the most famous, perhaps the most respected and probably one of the wealthiest of the American colonists.
As such, Franklin was thus, quite obviously, putting more of himself at risk in terms of not only his personal and civil liberties, but also his personal fortune, reputation and life than any of our Founding Fathers.
And yet, he and they did risk everything imaginable for this unprecedented experiment in personal freedom, human rights and civil liberties which the world has known, and envied, since as the United States of America.
It was with a sense of protecting these same human rights and ensuring the continuance of these same civil liberties that members of the DMCW Community participated in a series of public forums on the “War on Terrorism” sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, the Iowa Peace Network and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.
The first of such forums had dealt with attempting to define “terrorism”; explain its motivating factors; and differentiating it from state-sponsored violence, while the second in this series focused upon the history, culture, and impact of colonialism on Afghanistan.
The last of these forums held on November 13, 2001, concerned itself with “Civil Liberties under Threat,” and was heralded by many of its participants (as well as the timeless conscience of the late Mr. Franklin) as the most relevant and appropriate in the series.
The forum consisted of a distinguished panel whose members included Ms. Sandra Sanchez, from the American Friends Service Committee’s Immigrant Rights Project; Mr. Ben Stone, Executive Director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union; and Mr. Chuck Gifford, former Director of the United Auto Workers Iowa Political Action Committee and current candidate for the Democratic nomination for Iowa State Senator from newly created district 31 on Des Moines’ South Side. Ms. Sally Frank, Drake University Law Professor, served as moderator for the
panel. As Mr. Stone outlined some of the provisions of the “USA Patriot Act” which the ACLU found most troubling, DMCWers and other participants in the audience wondered aloud if some of the more inattentive Congressional supporters of this Act had subsequently expressed, at least to themselves, some degree of regret at the haste of their legislative zeal since according to an ACLU Publication various measures of this Act would:
Expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism; Mr. Stone also noted the availability of a pamphlet published by the ACLU in various languages entitled “Know Your Rights,” which provides information about what to do if you are stopped by the police, the FBI, the INS, or the Customs Service.
Mr. Sanchez further elaborated on certain provisions of the “USA Patriot Act” stating that since this legislation had only recently been passed, on October 26, 2001, the vast majority of Americans were probably not yet even aware of its existence, let alone its all-encompassing ramifications.
It was noted, however, that public officials at all levels, as well as religious leaders from every faith, had condemned the spate of hate crimes which had been directed towards Muslims and Arab Americans since September 11. It was stated as well that the Bush Administration had been both highly visible and outspoken in its support of targeted ethnic and religious groups.
Mr. Gifford, who served for 10 years on the Democratic National Committee, referred briefly to his lifelong advocacy of workers’ rights and the Trade Union Movement. He voiced concerns about the lack of civil liberties within the workplace in America and noted that if anyone attempted to impose the lack of rights within the workplace upon American society as a whole, there would indeed be another revolution in this country. Participants left this forum with an alerted sense of the fragility of certain of our civil liberties, as well as with the obvious need for vigilance and action to oppose inappropriate and/or unnecessary governmental infringement upon their continued existence.
Mr. Stone began the discussion by referring to the obvious relevance of the issue of civil liberties, primarily in light of certain legislative initiatives at the federal and state levels, in response to the September 11 attacks on America. Most notable of these was the rather cumbersomely entitled “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” to be known as the “USA Patriot Act,” which passed the House by 357-66 and the Senate by 98-1.
Mr. Stone reported that Congress had enacted this measure following what the ACLU described as “unprecedented strong-arm tactics of the Bush Administration” with little time to even consider its provisions or impact, much less with substantive debate.
Following its passage, numerous Congressional staffers had phoned ACLU’s National offices sheepishly asking for an explanation of exactly what their respective Members of Congress had just enacted, admitting with embarrassment that many had not even read the language of the bill prior to voting in its favor.
Create a broad new definition of “domestic terrorism” that could sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest and subject then to wiretapping and enhanced penalties;
Minimize judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities in anti-terrorism investigations and in criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism;
Grant the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental health and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order;
Put the CIA and other intelligence agencies back in the business of spying on Americans by giving the Director of Central Intelligence the authority to identify priority targets or intelligence surveillance in the United States; and
Allow searches of highly personal financial records without notice and without judicial review based on a very low standard that does not require probable cause of a crime or even relevancy to an ongoing terrorism investigation.
Mr. Gifford also reminded us of the sense of national apathy which had permeated this country in the early 1950’s and which had led to the anti-Communist hysteria of McCarthyism and the House Un-American Activities Committee during this period.
Noting the innumerable lives, personal reputations and professional careers which had been destroyed in the name of anti-Communist witch hunts, Mr. Gifford strenuously cautioned against allowing our government to pursue a similar national agenda in the name of anti-terrorism.
