Anti-terrorism proposals worry civil libertarians. “Advocacy groups, legal experts and some members of Congress are voicing strong concerns that a proposal to expand law enforcement powers in order to ratchet up the fight on terrorism could end up treading on civil liberties enjoyed by all Americans.” CNN

Readers of FmH know I’m often preoccupied with civil liberties issues, and I have since Sept. 11th covered concerns about whether a precipitous reform of law enforcement authority will exact too steep a price to our fundamental rights. In the last few days, I’ve been even more worried about another civil liberties implication of these events, more along the lines of my membership in Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch than the ACLU. The “allies” whose cooperation we are seeking for our global “war on terrorism” are surely looking for concessions in return. They include some authoritarian regimes whose repressive stance toward their own citizens we may no longer have the discretion to object to. The threat of terrorism or of domestic unrest over being in bed with the U.S. may be the impetus, or the pretext, for such regimes to take even more draconian measures, that will make any domestic clampdown in our civil liberties pale in significance by comparison. (Many so-called anti-terrorism measures are of course not really about terrorism, although at times of passion it may be an effort to stop and analyze the implications of proposed new state powers to conclude that.) “If you thought the Taliban were monsters, just wait until you meet the West’s new friends…” warns the Sydney Morning Herald.