Content area
Full Text
The aftermath of September 11 th has seen a worrisome rise in invasive surveillance measures. Both adopted by statute and initiated by agencies, these provisions provide unprecedented powers for government agents to investigate suspects and search individuals, whether they are directly involved in terrorism or not. The prevailing wisdom has been that the American people will accept these restrictions as the natural cost of heightened security, and initial evidence suggests the public has been willing to tolerate greater limits on civil liberties. However, over time such support will erode, leaving in place permanent restrictions on civil liberties that not only will concern Americans, but also may turn them against government officials and civic participation. Thus, contrary to many interpretations of September 11 th, this article argues that the policy response has only sown the seeds for greater detachment from and dissatisfaction with government as the public becomes increasingly separated from the workings and operations of public policy.
The Legislative Response
The horrors of September 1I th have been covered extensively by the popular media, both by same-day reporting of the attacks and lengthier analyses of the long-term effects on victims' families. In response to the terrorist threat-one that, interestingly, was interpreted as rising after the initial attacks '-Congress passed and President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act. Described by Attorney General John Ashcroft as a "package of 'tools' urgently needed to combat terrorism" (McGee 2001), the legislation raises domestic intelligence gathering to an unprecedented level. Among its several provisions, the act stipulates that:
* The standards for wiretapping may be lowered. Whereas previously, the FBI could obtain a court order only if its "primary purpose" was to gather intelligence through wiretapping, the new law permits wiretaps if "a significant purpose" involves intelligence gathering. As a result, people merely suspected of working with terrorists or spies may be wiretapped.
* The FBI may share sensitive grand jury and wiretap information with intelligence agencies without judicial review or any safeguards limiting its future use, so long as the information concerns foreign intelligence or international terrorism.
* Law enforcement may access an individual's internet communications if officials can certify to a court that the information is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. This standard is much lower...