Let’s work together to balance civil rights and national security

The Sikh man felt violated when asked to remove his turban by a court bailiff in Dallas, Texas.  Was that discrimination?  Was he treated any differently than anyone else entering the courthouse?  Should his faith have allowed him rights other individuals do not have?

The airline captain removed six Muslim imams from the flight.  He was told the imams were saying the words “U.S.,” “killing Saddam,” and chanting “Allah, Allah.” He was told they were “acting angry.”  Was his decision ethnically motivated or religiously biased?  Were the imams treated unfairly, singled out because of their nationality or faith?  Would a reasonable person with the same information have made the same choice?

We were appalled when we learned the government was wiretapping potential terrorists without first petitioning a judge.  Is such surveillance needed to preserve our national security or is the government creating a police state?  What is more important, civil rights or security? 

We live precariously balancing civil rights and national security.  Maximum security demands minimum civil rights while maximum civil rights demands minimum security.  Are we willing to compromise any of our civil rights for security or any security for for our civil rights?  If our civil rights are more important than security, could we complain if another 9-11 occurs?

We expect security but refuse any personal inconvenience.  We expect the government to prevent another 9-11 but chastise TSA agents at the airport security checkpoints.  We expect the government to intercept terrorists plotting an attack but criticize the government for listening in on citizens’ private conversations.

Is it reasonable for the Texan to remove his cowboy hat in the courthouse but not expect the Sikh man to remove his turban?  Can we expect an airline captain to not act on information given him when he has only a few minutes to decide?  Can we expect our government to only wiretap those lines guaranteed to produce a terrorist? 

And what would we say if a gun were smuggled into a courtroom in a turban? What if a bomb were smuggled onto an airliner?  What if a wiretap could have prevented another 9-11? 

Could we expect the gentleman from Texas to remove his cowboy hat for courthouse security but not expect the Sikh man to remove his turban?  Could we expect an airline captain to not act on information given him when he has only a few minutes to make a decision?  Could we expect our government to only wiretap those lines guaranteed to produce a terrorist? 

And what if a gun were smuggled into a courtroom in a turban?  What if a bomb were smuggled onto an airliner?  What if a wiretap could have prevented another 9-11? 

Could the Sikh man have politely asked if he could be searched in a private area and then, if agreeable with the judge, be allowed to wear his turban in the courtroom?  Could he have thanked the bailiff for doing what was needed to keep the courtroom safe? 

Would a simple request for understanding work better than unnecessary accusations and lawsuits?

Could the captain have apologized to the clerics for their embarrassment and inconvenience and could the clerics have thanked the captain for caring about the safety of the flight? 

Would acknowledging the other’s point of view help avoid a confrontation?

Could the government wiretap the person who may have been a threat to our country, presenting evidence to a judge in a reasonable time?

Would a compromise lead to better understanding?

We can either fix the blame or fix the problem.  We can reach a balance between an individual’s civil rights and the general population’s national security rights.

Let’s not claim racism, religious intolerance, profiling, unnecessary delays, violations of civil rights, and the like, whenever we find ourselves inconvenienced.     

Let’s try saying “thank you to those responsible for our safety.” 

Let’s remove the chips from our shoulders, the hard edge from our personality and the condescending demeanor from our voice.  Let’s work together maintaining our civil rights while preserving our national security.  We can find that compromise position between security and freedom. 

Remember, maximum security and maximum freedom are mutually exclusive.  We will lose some freedom to enhance our security and we will have less than ideal security to maintain our freedom.

Print Page