Click here to subscribe today or Login.
The recent mass shooting in Orlando, the worst in our nation’s history, has reignited the contentious political debate on gun-control legislation.
However, while gun control is always positioned as the main focus in reducing crimes of this nature, it is not the only topic that needs to be discussed. We also must address the difficult but all-important issue of public safety versus individual rights.
As we now know, the shooter in the Orlando tragedy, Omar Mateen, appeared on the government’s terrorism watch list and was interviewed twice by the FBI. After surveillance, background checks and witness interviews, the agents were unable to verify any terrorist links, and the investigation was closed.
If nothing out of the ordinary showed up in the FBI investigation, why then is information coming out about Mateen’s ties with possible terrorist groups? When did the FBI uncover a relationship between Mateen and Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the first American suicide bomber in Syria?
According to Ron Hopper, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Tampa Field Office, contact between Abusalha and Mateen “was minimal and did not constitute a substantive relationship or threat at that time.” These assurances do little to answer two key questions. How much contact is needed between those who are associated with or known to be terrorists before it is considered a “substantive relationship?” And, why did the intelligence community clear Mateen of all terrorist ties?
Let’s pretend for a moment that Mateen didn’t use a gun but an IED (improvised explosive device) to implement the mass carnage at Pulse nightclub. The issue then might shift from gun violence to terrorist attacks and, possibly, how the intelligence community failed to do its job.
The FBI says the case was closed after all possible leads had been exhausted. Maybe Mateen should have been on the watch list for a longer period of time. Regardless of the outcome, it is necessary to raise this question: When does public safety override individual rights? Both are core tenants of the Constitution, and both, some people claim, are equally important.
To protect individuals from government tyranny, the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. As such, in order to begin an investigation on a suspected terrorist, the FBI needs to have probable cause, which is a much higher standard than reasonable suspicion. Law enforcement is required to secure a warrant, using probable cause as the standard, in order to investigate an individual. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution applies to everyone.
However, the time has come to ask if this standard should be the same when investigating possible terrorists.
In a time when lines are blurred, when does protecting society as a whole outweigh the rights of the individual? This does not mean supporting the argument that government can to do anything it wants, anytime it wants, to whomever it wants, without restrictions. However, the time has come to re-evaluate the constitutional constraints placed on government intelligence agencies in the continued fight against global terrorism.
I wonder how many more terrorists (domestic and international) will be overlooked because of restrictions on our government. How many more citizens must die in senseless attacks before we begin this important discussion?