The state of civil liberties in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks was the topic for the Monday, November 4 Frary Blue Room discussion panel, which included Politics professors Leo Flynn and John Seery, as well as Rose Ash, President of the Pomona Valley chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The entire 45-minute discussion consisted of audience questions, which were then answered and discussed by the panel members. The discussion began with a question regarding the United States’ Patriot Act and the reform of student visa laws.

"We wanted … a government that was safe and fair … but [also] a government that was good at preserving our safety and security," said Flynn, suggesting that the United States has a tradition of trying to balance civil liberties with functionality.

Ash was more critical of the legislation.

"This new legislation is extremely broad … The first casualty of this legislation is our civil liberties," she said. "There was [also] very little understanding of the consequences of this broad legislation," said Ash, on how the bill was rushed through Congress.

Also discussed was the Patriot Act’s altering of search and seizure rights.

The new legislation makes it legal for law enforcement agencies that have obtained search warrants to investigate a person’s possessions without informing the person of their intentions until after the fact.

As to whether or not the Patriot Act could be declared unconstitutional, the panelists seemed to agree that there were certain areas that could be challenged.

"There are a number of provisions that could be considered unconstitutional," said Flynn, citing the search and seizure and immigration portions of the act as two sections that could become potential issues in the courts.

But Flynn said that there was considerable precedent to let the acts stand. "By and large the courts have always, during times of war and soon after, deferred to the executive," he said.

Ash, however, saw this as something that is in itself constitutionally unacceptable.

"Our whole constitutional basis for government is set upon [a] defined separation of powers…. What this new legislation does is it sets up a limiting of judicial review," Ash said.

Flynn then went on to cite historical examples of this, such as when Fred Korematsu, a Japanese-American citizen who attempted to challenge the government’s right to intern people of Japanese dissent during World War II, failed to convince the Supreme Court to reach a verdict in his favor.

"The Supreme Court upheld the right to use racial classification," said Flynn.

Ash was also quick to voice her opinion that there were valid constitutional questions to be raised, such as in the use of racial profiling.

"There’s a new standard that is being used: reasonable belief that a person may be a terrorist," said Ash.

According to Seery, the reason that the Patriot Act makes what some conceive to be an unprecedented attack on civil liberties is simply because this type of crisis has never been encountered before, and so there is no legal precedent as to what should be done.

While there were some obvious points of contention between the panelists, some of the students present at the discussion did not believe that there was enough of a difference of opinion among them.

Will Ikard ’04, a P

.olitics major, thought that personal prejudices might have sometimes infringed on the intended impartiality of the discussion. Overall, however, Ikard had a good opinion about the topic of debate for the November 4 discussion. "It was very good to put this all in a political perspective," he said.