[Previous entry: "Playwrights and Playwriting Workshop"] [Next entry: "Deer Harbor Plan Ready For Input"]

02/27/2006: "Forum On Patriot Act Draws Large Crowd"

(Christopher Varas, on the left, and Herb Meyer, on the right)

An educational forum sponsored by the SJI Outreach Group of the ACLU, and co-sponsored by the SJC Bar Association, attracted a large audience Sunday afternoon to hear Christopher Varas, formerly a staff attorney for the ACLU and a member of the Speakers' Bureau of the ACLU, and SJI resident Herb Meyer, former Special Assistant to the Director of CIA, to speak on "Homeland Security & Civil Liberties". (Previous Story)

The presentation by the two speakers was to be an educational experience for both the speakers and the public, to explore and learn about the Patriot Act, and what impacts it may or may not have on both civil liberties and rights. Mr. Meyer led off, and set a tone of reasonableness and willingness that both speakers consistently followed throughout the afternoon as they presented views and observations on the subject, without introducing politics into the discussion; an ongoing problem Meyer told the group that "both the Right and the Left are guilty of", and Varas in turn stated "The worse possible outcome is the polarization of dialog".


(continued from the front)

If anyone came to the forum expecting loud argument and an unwillingness by the presenters to admit to any weaknesses or criticism of their positions on the Patriot Act, they would have gone away surprised by the willingness of both speakers to be candid and honest in attempting to explore the issues raised by their respective positions.

In his opening remarks, Meyer said the lesson of 9-11 was that a very few people can kill a very large number of our citizens. But he added that "our civil liberties cannot be ignored as we fight this shared problem". One of the problems we face, he said, is that "our legal system is reactive, that once a crime is committed, we then react to it". The solution to preventing the killing of many by a few, is to be preemptive, but people will disagree as to where the line should be drawn, but stated that his view is that over time we will sort out what the issues are, and make proper adjustments. "There is a gap between the passive and the preemptive", he said, and "The Patriot Act is the bridge over that gap", but that "if the bridge is built wrong, we need to change it".

While Mr. Meyer stressed the necessity for a strong response to terrorism, he agreed with Mr. Varas that there needs to be protections in place to guard against abuses. Varas argued that the protections in place were inadequate, not so much because there have been abuses, but because the lack of protective safeguards opens the door to future abuses. As an example, he cited a provision that allows the "Attorney General to hold anyone suspected of terrorism for seven days without going to Court, and then after seven days must release the suspect or brings charges, or, sign a letter stating the reasons the person is being held, and then hold them for six months, and then may repeat the process again, over and over, without having to show cause in a Court of law".

Varas said "the word terrorism is a word that pervades our dialog", but the lack of a clear definition of terrorism has already lead to overreactions and abuses; and asked the question "How do we prevent terrorist attacks without crossing the line of violating civil rights and liberties?" He said the present administration has expanded the powers of government by expanding the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism".

At the end of Varas comments, Meyer said "That was good! There are a lot of opportunities for abuse". Meyer used the example of the Columbine High school massacre as an example of how, in quickly reacting to a crises, we can create abuses and "stupid" actions by the authorities; but with the luxury of time, he said, "we made adjustments and modifications to correct the early mistakes". He said we always need to ask "What have we done wrong, and how can we do a better job. We need to review and try and get it right".

After a short break, the floor was opened to questions from the audience, and at first things followed the same collegial form of dialog manifested by the speakers, but halfway through the period the moderator became active in suppressing the desire of some to introduce partisan politics into the discussion, but the two speakers, gentlemen to the end, stayed on course as they steered the group back to the topic of the afternoon.