Panelists tell editors: Congressional efforts to protect freedom may thwart it

By The Associated Press,
freedomforum.org staff

10.15.01

Printer-friendly page

MILWAUKEE — Americans should be vigilant about ensuring their civil liberties are not quashed as Congress expedites legislation to maintain their safety, members of a panel told a meeting of newspaper editors Oct. 12.

Meanwhile, the leaders of 18 journalism groups said the next day that heightened security measures implemented in reaction to the terrorist attacks are limiting the ability of news media to give people the information they need to stay safe.

While the government must take "unusual measures" in time of war, the restrictions "pose dangers to American democracy," according to the statement released Oct. 13 at the annual conference of Associated Press Managing Editors.

Azizah Y. al-Hibri, a law professor at the University of Richmond, told conference attendees Oct. 12: "If you want to protect your own liberties, you have to protect mine. Because if mine go down the drain, soon yours will follow."

A Senate bill passed Oct. 11 could place immigrants in detention for extended periods and strip them of their civil liberties, said al-Hibri, an expert on human rights and Islamic law. Law enforcement agencies would have too much latitude to detain anyone suspected of being associated with a terrorist group, she said.

The Oct. 12 panel discussion on the balance between security and freedom was held as part of the APME conference. The group is comprised of editors and managing editors of the AP's more than 1,520 member newspapers.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., later defended his decision to vote against the anti-terrorism bill when he spoke to the organization on Oct. 12. Feingold, the lone dissenter in the 96-1 vote, said the bill did not strike the right balance between law enforcement and civil liberties.

"The pressure to move on this bill quickly, without discussion or debate, has been relentless," he said. "This, in my mind, was not the finest hour of the U.S. Senate."

While he did support several measures in the bill, Feingold said he was worried about enhanced legal powers such as allowing officers to search a home without a warrant if they believed notifying the subject would thwart their investigation.

"There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch the terrorists," he said. "That probably would be a country in which we would not want to live."

Panel moderator Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tenn., said it could be easy for Congress to pass a wave of patriotic and potentially dangerous legislation because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He told the panel the nation is at a crucial "intersection of freedom and fear."

"We need to regain our national perspective, and I hope we do that soon," he said.

Former newspaper columnist Dan Guthrie told editors he was fired from the Grants Pass Daily Courier in Oregon after writing a column that appeared Sept. 15 denouncing President Bush for not being a more visible leader in the hours after the attacks.

Publisher Dennis Mack has denied the column was the reason for Guthrie's dismissal, which occurred nine days after the article appeared.

Guthrie told editors that the column received an overwhelmingly negative response from readers, some of whom canceled subscriptions and pulled advertisements.

He said it is natural for Americans to be pro-government when the country has been assaulted, but that there still should be room for criticism.

"We're hard-wired to respond to an attack by rallying behind our leader," he said.

Barry Fisher, vice president of sales for Visionics, a company that created a computerized facial recognition system, said his firm has been flooded with calls from businesses interested in using the program to detect criminals and potential terrorists.

The program uses cameras to take a person's picture and special technology to match the photo to a database of known criminals and suspected terrorists.

Fisher said many have looked to this technology as a way to stop future attacks, but he acknowledged the program could be abused by impinging on citizens' liberty. He urged legislators to develop sound policy to prevent the program from being misused.

Paulson said many Americans have conflicting feelings about the government expanding security efforts at the possible risk to freedom.

"There's a Big Brother feel to all of this," he said. "It doesn't feel like the land of liberty."

In discussing the statement released Oct. 13, Al Cross, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, said the restrictions on military coverage are understandable. But he said journalists covering other topics, such as the environment and health care, also are facing unnecessary burdens.

"They're finding it increasingly difficult to fulfill their role as watchdogs," he said. "It just seems like things have been done willy-nilly."

Andrew Holtz, a free-lance reporter in Portland, Ore., said he was told in the days following the Sept. 11 attacks that he could not interview a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researcher because the Department of Health and Human Services banned all interviews related to terrorism or disasters.

The researcher, who had investigated the long-term mental health effects of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, would have provided crucial information for the public's well-being, he said.

"How could there possibly be any harm in discussing the mental health results of a terrorist attack?" said Holtz, president of the Association of Health Care Journalists. "It does seem irrational and overreaching."

Tony Jewell, a spokesman for Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, did not return messages left by the Associated Press seeking comment.

Barbara Cochran, president of the 3,200-member Radio-Television News Directors Association, said news crews have had problems because the Federal Aviation Administration grounded news helicopters in major cities following the attacks. Restrictions were recently lifted for 15 of the 30 major metropolitan areas, but any bans seem excessive, she said.

"People are very edgy, and if something untoward happens, they want and deserve the factual information as soon as possible," Cochran said. "Helicopters are often the fastest way to get to the story."

Messages left at the FAA headquarters in Washington seeking comment were not returned.

Brant Houston, executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc., said the public should be concerned about restrictions.

"We require more vigilance in our government activities now since they have let us down," said Houston, whose Columbia, Mo.-based nonprofit organization compiles information from several databases for more than 100 news outlets.

Houston said information about airport security, bridges and dams, among other things, has been removed from a number of federal Web sites "without explanation."

"I think it's outrageous that we're seeing the government remove databases meant to protect the public," he said. "It's really easy to get caught up in the national cause. But in getting caught up, we lose some of the freedoms that the cause is all about."

Related

News media, administration struggle over press freedom, national security
Analysis 'Patriotism and transparency are kissing cousins,' says free-press advocate; restraint, are close relatives too, government insists.  10.12.01

Ashcroft urges caution in release of public records
Bush administration changes policy, says agencies that legitimately turn down requests made under FOIA will have Justice Department’s backing.  10.17.01