CAN WE BE BOTH SAFE AND FREE?

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when we joked that a
conservative was a liberal who had been mugged. Now it might be said that a
wavering civil libertarian is one who's become gun-shy in the days since
Sept. 11.

For sure, adherence to the sweeping liberties granted us by our
Constitution and traditions remains an easy call in some instances, such as
when Suffolk County, N.Y., recently banned from using its ballfields anyone
who laughs at the mistakes of opposing teams or even heckles opposing
players. Come on!

And when the regents exam was revealed to have been fraught with
censorship, the boneheadedness of that practice was easy to spot and
protest. A no-brainer.

But the various security measures being proposed, or in some instances
enacted, in response to threats of terrorism since September leave me with
an uneasy feeling. Not outright rejection. But great concern. There is
method in the madness, but the methods need to be perfected before becoming
law.

I don't like it that Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to be exploiting
our post-Sept. 11 fears to push for enactment of stringent restrictions on
the movement of non-citizens. But neither do I like it that most of the
threats we're hearing about - e.g., blowing up apartment buildings or
bringing us to our knees with chemical or biological warfare - emanate from
people associated with a few countries, including Iraq, Iran and Syria. And
many of the people making these threats appear to receive succor from
associates in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

But are we also crossing a vital line?

So, yes, we've obviously got to do something. But are we plunging back into
ethnic profiling after just trying to purge the practice from our system?

Ashcroft, promising "a vital line of defense in the war against terrorism,"
has proposed measures aimed at foreign visitors who raise "national
security concerns" - in plain language, foreigners who raise the suspicions
of those who have fixed in their minds what "fitting the description"
means. Like state troopers on the New Jersey Turnpike who thought that most
black men raised "concerns" and pulled them over for drug checks? Or like
pilots who force off their planes passengers who raise "concerns" because
of their skin tone or manner of dress?

On this one, I tend to side with civil libertarians and advocates for
immigrants, such as the official from the National Immigration Forum who
told The Washington Post: "The most law-abiding immigrant will now find
himself a lawbreaker and deemed a security threat. It makes me worry about
what kind of nation we're becoming."

I worry, too.

Breezing through security

On the other hand, I'm a black American who, according to airline
employees, can breeze through security because I "don't fit the profile" of
a terrorist. So I wonder if I am a bit too sanguine because the new rules
would apply to people who don't look like me or mine.

That is not an attitude to be proud of, but it is one easily recognized by
many Americans.

You know, the "that's got nothing to do with me" feeling.

And I wonder if some of the new measures don't go far enough. For instance,
with all the focus on fingerprinting and registering and monitoring of men
of Middle Eastern origin, do we risk losing sight of the newest trend in
suicide bombing: the use of young, even teen-age, females?

And what about the so-called "sleepers" - the Osama bin Laden followers who
are just lying in wait, blending in, adopting American lifestyles until
they are called upon to strike?

Yet when all is said and done, my overriding concern is that with the
authorized snooping at houses of worship, on the Internet, even at public
rallies, we risk a return to the days of J. Edgar Hoover and the infamous
Cointelpro domestic spying program.

President Bush tries to reassure that our constitutional rights remain
sacrosanct, but do we dare believe that we can have our civil liberties and
his administration's brand of homeland security, too?

There are no easy answers as we struggle with our better selves, mindful
still of our interest in self-preservation.

E.R. Shipp is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Daily
News, 450 West 33rd St., New York, NY 10001.