Knee-jerk security

In response to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush administration has proposed broad security measures to fight terrorism. The new legislation would make it easier for the government to track communication and detain immigrants suspected of terrorism, something officials say may have prevented the attacks. But lawmakers should be careful not to approve the policy as a knee-jerk reaction to fear but rather scrutinize the proposal before passing judgment.

The terrorists who committed last month's atrocities took time to think through their plans. Any effective attack in the future would similarly require a significant amount of planning. Furthermore, terrorism is a long-term problem that merits a long-term solution: Any attempts to control it must be well thought out. Although officials have pushed for speedy implementation of legislation, members of Congress should take time to debate the issues seriously and not rush into anything that potentially violates the freedoms America has been so proud of.

Indeed, some of the legislation may do just that. The Bush administration has proposed giving the government the power to deport and detain legal immigrants if it determines they are threats to national security. This measure could undermine the very freedom that defines this country. The United States would not tolerate its citizens' detainment under similar policies held by other countries, and furthermore, lawmakers have not demonstrated a real need for the change. Authorities have certainly been able to make arrests these past several weeks.

Other proposed measures, however, could work if used properly. Some lawmakers have discussed the creation of a national identification card. If the card functioned simply as a form of identification, it could be an efficient way to limit security concerns. However, if the card tracks people through more than basic information, it demonstrates serious potential for abuse.

Still other proposed legislation seems reasonable irrespective of the terrorist attacks. For example, right now, the laws that give authorities the power to track suspects and their actions may be obsolete, as they were passed targeting telephone calls and paper. In the future, legislation should also include provisions to eliminate loopholes that limit the monitoring of computer communication and cellular phones.

Although the Bush administration has rightly begun to react to the attacks, it must also be cautious in implementing its proposed measures, which have the potential to spill over into areas some may not have even contemplated. If the government infringes on citizens' rights, the terrorists will have won. If cooler heads prevail, though, the United States can recuperate from last month's tragedies and prevent future ones from occurring, while still preserving the basic freedoms accorded to its citizens.