You don't have to be a terrorist to oppose anti-terrorism legislation -- just a Constitutionalist!
"It is wise to be against even beautiful sounding legislation," says former U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop, "if that legislation hurts the citizens; treats them as subjects, not citizens; and makes them answerable to unelected government officials." Wallop recognizes "the need to identify and attempt to thwart future acts of terrorism. That, however, must be done within the letter of the law and our Constitution," he insists. "Otherwise, we risk accusing innocents of wrongdoing."
Currently chairman of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, Wallop offers some constructive criticism for his former colleagues in Congress. "Thus far," he observes, "every anti-terrorism measure suggested by our leaders tests the fine line between fighting terrorism and denying basic liberties. The majority of measures offered by well-meaning legislators," Wallop contends, "would do little or nothing to stop or deter terrorism. Not one legislator can point to a single provision of any of those bills that would have prevented the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Amtrak derailment in Arizona, or even the Unabomber. In fact," he says, "those measures cheerfully and without apology do more to crack down on average Americans than on terrorists."
In rejecting this "knee-jerk reaction," Wallop points out that America "has had a long, glorious, and, at times, brutal history. Through it all we have revered the Constitution," he observes. "It is that document that has held and can continue to hold us together as a people. It is not a document that grants powers to the federal government," Wallop emphasizes. "Rather, its purpose is specifically to limit the ability of government to infringe upon those inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator."
Needless to say, Wallop, as a former lawmaker, recognizes the need for law enforcement. "A civilized society must have it," he affirms. "But, as the Constitution stipulates, law enforcement must remain limited in how far it can intrude into any citizen's private life. And no protestations of good intentions in pursuit of security must be allowed to expand the limits of government power." Wallop emphasizes that "acts of violence are not necessarily terrorist acts. No matter how much legislation regulates them and how much technology is at law enforcement's command," he argues, "no one can deter or stop a psychotic predator from creating or committing an act of violence."
With its many restraints on individual liberties, anti-terrorism legislation runs counter to the trends of "a time when Americans think we are moving to limit government and when the country fears an overly intrusive federal bureaucracy," says Malcolm Wallop. "No one can doubt that there will be terrorist acts in the future," he concedes. "Yet we cannot let fear of such attacks overwhelm us into ceding constitutional rights to any government, however benign its promises. Once ceded," Wallop warns, such rights "can never be restored except by revolution."
