Terrorism represents a real threat for Americans, as demonstrated by the failed car bombing in New York. Security is essential, just as the basic protections for individuals should be in a democratic society. One is not at odds with the other.

That is why we are concerned by the wave of proposals inspired by the Times Square incident that dilute fundamental rights, fail to enhance security, and reek of political opportunism.

One of them is the Terrorist Expatriation Act by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Scott Brown (R-MA), which authorizes the State Department to revoke U.S. citizenship from citizens suspected of being part of or supporting a terrorist group. It goes without saying that people are innocent until proven guilty, a premise this bill ignores. According to the bill, citizenship is lost first, and then, if the individual ends up innocent, they have to appeal to the State Department and the courts to recover it. This is just one of many serious constitutional problems with this law.

The same is true with the idea of amending the Miranda rule that requires authorities to inform detainees of their rights, such as the right to remain silent or to an attorney. There is already a "public-safety exception," which was used with Faisal Shahzad – the Times Square suspect – with good results. We don't believe any further weakening of this protection is necessary.

These two proposals are based on the premise that Congress, with the stroke of a pen, can change or eliminate basic constitutional protections. This is not the case, just as the president should not have the power to designate anyone an "enemy combatant" and strip them of their minimum rights before the law as happened with José Padilla.

The war on terror will not be won by weakening the constitutional protections enjoyed by all Americans, or by stripping suspects of their citizenship. These proposals seize the moment to win political points, but make no specific contribution to improving security.