Introduction of United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act of 2007

SPEECH OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2007

* Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Commission on an Open Society and Security Act; expressing an idea I began working on when the first signs of the closing of parts of our open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing tragedy, well before 9/11. I introduce this bill on the sixth anniversary of 9/11 because the bill grows more urgent as increasing varieties of security throughout the country proliferate without any thought about their effect on common freedoms and ordinary access, and without any guidance from the government or elsewhere. The bill I introduce today would begin a systematic investigation that takes full account of the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threats terrorism poses.

* To be useful in accomplishing its difficult mission, the Commission would be composed not only of military and security experts, but for the first time, they would be at the same table with experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date, questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to security and military experts. They
are indispensable participants, but these experts cannot alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the balance required by our democratic traditions, a cross-cutting group needs to be working together at the same table.

* For years before our eyes, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of terrorism and fear of terrorism--whether checkpoints on streets near the Capitol even when there were no alerts, or applications of technology without regard to their effects on privacy. We have also seen heightened controversy, litigation, hearings, legislation and court decisions because of the use of technology that intercepts terrorist communications but also covers communications among Americans.

* Following the unprecedented terrorist attack on our country, Americans expected additional and increased security adequate to protect citizens against this frightening threat. However, in our country, people also expect government to be committed and smart enough to undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of their personal liberty. These years in our history will long be remembered by the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country and the unprecedented challenges it has brought. We must provide ever-higher levels of security for our people and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society for as long as is necessary. Yet, this is no ordinary war that we expect to be over in a matter of years. The end point could be generations from now. The indeterminate nature of the threat adds to the necessity of putting aside ad hoc approaches to security developed in isolation from the goal of maintaining an open society.

* When we have faced unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply and to move to resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the Ð9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman-Robb Commission) and the Kerner Commission that investigate the riotous uprisings that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. The important difference in the Commission proposed in this bill is that it seeks to act before a crisis-level erosion of basic freedoms takes hold and becomes entrenched. Because global terrorism is likely to be long lasting, we cannot afford to allow the proliferation of security that neither requires nor is subject to advance civilian oversight or analysis of alternatives or repercussions on freedom and commerce.

* With no vehicles for leadership on issues of security and openness, we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th century approaches, such as crude blockades, unsightly barriers around beautiful monuments and other signals that the society is closing down, or anti-privacy applications, without appropriate exploration of possible alternatives. The threat of terrorism to an open society is too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate as they are menacing.

* We can do better, but only if we recognize and then come to grips with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The place to begin is with a high-level presidential commission of experts in a broad spectrum of disciplines who can help chart the new course that will be required to protect our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.

Source