Competing Sets of Values
By Russell Shaw
Herald Columnist
(From the issue of 3/15/07)
Ever since the 9/11 terrorist attacks leveled the towers
of the World Trade Center and left a smoking crater in the side of the
Pentagon, Americans have been tugged and pulled by two competing sets
of values. On one side stands the nation's tradition of individual liberty;
on the other the imperatives of national security in an age of terrorism.
No simple, one-size-fits-all formula has yet been found to resolve this
tension.
Critics of President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales accuse them of
intolerable violations of constitutional principle based on what a New
Republic editorial calls "lawless claims of executive unilateralism."
Practices like so-called warrantless wiretapping (now apparently remedied
by administration agreement to a judicial review process) is cited to
illustrate the point.
Typically, the administration responds to the critics by saying a President
has not just a right but a duty to take extraordinary steps to protect
the country against enemies who don't play by the rules. And precedents
then get cited to illustrate that. "Better safe than sorry"
is the reasoning, and it resonates with citizens who, not unreasonably,
see fretting about civil liberties in perilous times as hairsplitting
over procedural niceties worthy of the ACLU.
This argument will continue—not least, because there's more than
a little truth on both sides. In the meantime, though, there are certain
modest steps in the direction of liberality that could be taken without
compromising security and might actually enhance it. The "Secure
Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act" appears to be one.
What's that, you say? A bit of background will help.
Ever since 1986 the United States has had a visa waiver program allowing
visitors from certain friendly countries to enter the U.S. for up to 90
days for business or tourism without obtaining visas. To take part in
the program a country must meet specified criteria, including some that
pertain to security and law enforcement. At present, 27 countries participate.
No new nations have been admitted to the program since 1999, but a number
want in. Last November, visiting Estonia before a NATO summit, President
Bush endorsed the idea of letting more friendly nations take part. Thirteen
13 "road map" countries have been identified as candidates for
doing so—Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and South
Korea.
In December, responding to the President's call, Sen. George Voinovich
(R-OH) and four other senators introduced the Secure Travel and Counterterrorism
Act (S.342, H.R.561 in the House). The legislation hasn't been acted on
up to now.
The measure would authorize the Homeland Security Department, in consultation
with the State Department, to extend the visa-free program to no more
than five new nations for a probationary period of five years. As a condition
for participation a country would be required to adopt tougher travel
security arrangements and negotiate new agreements on counterterrorism
cooperation and information sharing. It's argued that in these and other
ways—for example, requiring the use of electronic passports with
biometric information—the legislation would actually increase U.S.
security, not reduce it.
As matters now stand, Voinovich pointed out in a Jan. 11 letter to Bush,
people from some lucky countries are able to travel easily to the U.S.,
but "citizens of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia are still given second-class
treatment at our consular offices and airports." Fretting about visas
may seem like small potatoes to many Americans, but exclusion from the
waiver program is a needless irritant to friendly nations. It's time for
Congress to get cracking on this.
Shaw is a freelance writer from Washington, D.C.
(c) Copyright 2007 by Arlington Catholic
Herald
