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) are 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. 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 yet.
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 January 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.
