NEW YORK, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- The former heads of U.S. and Israeli intelligence said Tuesday the United States may have to curtail civil liberties to fight terrorism.
In appearances before influential members of New York's Jewish community John Deutch, the former CIA boss, and Shabtai Shavit, who once ran the Mossad, urged a reexamination of America's security framework in light of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We are going to reexamine the balance between national security and public and private freedoms," Deutch said. "The security structure that we lived with until Sept. 11 was born of the Cold War. We are going to see a lot of changes in America as a result of Sept. 11."
Shavit urged that legal standards of proof in cases involving terrorism be relaxed to more closely reflect the rules of "intelligence proof" used by field operatives rather than the stringent criteria provided for by American law.
"The fight against terrorism is not on equal footing," Shavit said. "On one hand there is a democratic country which cherishes liberalism, human rights, human life and transparency. On the other hand there is an authoritarian entity, fundamentalist by nature, whose aims justify all means and which takes advantage of the democratic system.
"The only way to solve the problem of proving guilt is by closing the gap between intelligence and legal proof. The way of doing it is lowering the ceiling of legal requirements."
Human rights groups and the U.S. government have in the past rejected legal standards and methods used in Israel during the Palestinian uprising.
Shavit, however, said the United States should use profiling, a practice by which certain individuals are singled out for more intense security scrutiny because of their ethnicity or nationality.
"You should agree to what we call profiling," Shavit said. "Profiling is of ultimate importance in building the capability to cope with terrorism and with terrorist acts. It enables you to deter and identify certain (dangerous) people."
The practice has been highly controversial in the United States because of its racial implications. Civil libertarians have criticized these recommendations and other recent moves in Congress strongly backed by the attorney general and intelligence establishment to restrict civil liberties.
In arguing his point, Deutch said despite the U.S. war on terror, terrorists will likely not be deterred in the near future.
"I believe that there will be additional acts of catastrophic terrorism against the United States," Deutch said. He said the recent anthrax scare, though minimally damaging thus far, "is an example of what can happen."
"I cannot think of any time when I ... have ever been so concerned about the safety and security of our country," he said.
Nevertheless, Shavit said terrorism can be effectively combated once the international community unanimously agrees on a precise definition of what it is.
"We tend very easily to mix up terrorists with guerilla fighters, with freedom fighters and with revolutionists and anarchists," he said. "I believe that if we agree on definitions for terrorism and guerilla warfare ... we stand a fair chance that a consensus may be built around it."
The Arab world has often distinguished between the resistance against occupation and terrorism, a stance Israel has rejected.
Shavit said terrorism should be defined as "using violence against civilians in order to enhance political aims." In this way, he said, terrorism is differentiated from guerilla warfare, which he defined as violence directed at military and security targets and political leadership.
Defining terrorism as such, Shavit added, will facilitate the work of lawmakers, smooth the way for the extradition of terrorists and generate support for the fight against terrorism.
"Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism," he said. "The ends, no matter how important they are, do not justify the means.
