“Many places in New York are vulnerable to terrorists,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly warned residents. “First and foremost, our subways, ports and Broadway theaters. In order to avoid disaster, we must act without hesitation, and rely on our own strengths, without waiting for help from Washington.”

Absolutely, our top cop is right—you can rely on Bush, but ultimately you have to help yourself. On the other hand, how is the commissioner proposing to fight international terrorism, so that we New Yorkers can sleep at night? Can we accept all of his methods, especially the ones that infringe on our rights and civil liberties?

When Kelly claims that his department cannot go on working as it has in the past, I completely agree with him.

I give two thumbs up to the business trips approved by Kelly for the New York Police Department (NYPD), which, in this new year, will open offices in Tel Aviv, Toronto, Lyon, London and in one of the major German cities, where they will collect information far from the Big Apple, in cooperation with local police.

I support the commissioner’s order to increase the staff of the intelligence unit of his department, which is headed by David Cohen, a former staff intelligence officer and the chief planner of Central Intelligance Agency (CIA) operations. The unit also includes officers fluent in Arabic and Pashto.

I support Kelly’s efforts to improve links between his department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which was always lacking. With this goal, the commissioner significantly increases the number of his employees, who work closely with FBI agents in a special anti-terrorist unit—the Joint Terrorist Task Force.

I consider very timely the increased police and detective activity in New York City neighborhoods, New York tunnels and bridges and the gathering of intelligence, which can prevent terrorist acts.

But can we agree with the intention of the Police Commission to try to abolish the 1985 law, which prohibits police from spying and keeping secret files on individual citizens and/or organizations whose activities are within the law and are conducted in accordance with the Constitution?

Kelly, and especially Cohen, are trying to convince judges and the public that without total freedom to maneuver, it will be far more difficult to battle terrorism. But will the police deal only with terrorists? In reality, before this law was adopted, government blacklists included not only anarchists and African-American radicals like the Black Panthers, but also journalists and any activists who held a view different from the government—for example, Vietnam War protestors.

Let us remind the reader that in 1971, after several public organizations filed complaints against police actions, Judge Charles Haight ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1985, the so-called Handschu Agreement (named after one of the plaintiffs) was signed, which strictly limited police from spying on individual citizens and organizations.

Some of our readers may suggest that, post-September 11th, we should throw away the scrupulous observance of this law, and allow the police to act as they see fit in the War on Terror. The end, they would say, justifies the means. Incidentally, it was just this argument that was used at last year’s hearings by representatives for Mayor Bloomberg and, especially, Mr. Cohen. The latter’s expansive speech can be reduced to this short thesis: As long as the Handschu Agreement exists, we, the cops, cannot work at our full strength.

I would have eagerly agreed with the former professional spy that, without restoration of the power to spy on our own citizens, it would be impossible to overcome Osama and his associates. But I was deterred by the opinion of one of the plaintiffs of the 1970s, now a New York University Law professor, Paul Chevigny, who stated in a Village Voice interview, “If the police win, civil liberties will slide back to the 1950s.” This refers to the unforgettable times of McCarthyism.

Cohen insists that New Yorkers who are not guilty of anything have nothing to fear. I do not believe him. Thirty years ago, the scope of police spying included, for example, friends and acquaintances of the suspects whom they could charge, if not with direct support, then with being sympathizers—with all the consequences that follow.

What is the Police Commissioner trying to accomplish?

First, to obtain, one way or another, lists of members of organizations that seem suspicious to the police. We should add that anybody can be suspect—not only members of mosques, but also students and members of pacifist organizations that protest against the war on Iraq.

Secondly, to tape and photograph participants of anti-war and other demonstrations.

Third, to infiltrate, with their agents, various organizations and companies.

Fourth, the police would like to get rid of the public control of its actions, as called for by the Handschu Agreement.

Furthermore, Mr. Cohen expressed the desire to change the process of political investigations, including those related to terrorist activities, which are conducted only by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Unit.

“We do not consider these investigations to be the exclusive prerogative of the federal government,” Mr. Cohen declared. “Let us also conduct them.”

The Handschu Agreement clearly spells out the conditions under which police can target and gather information about a subject. To do the aforementioned targeting and information gathering, the police needs approval from a special Troika: two representatives from the Police Commission and one civilian appointed by the mayor. The Troika is responsible for its decision to the public and to those against whom the investigations were conducted, if the secret investigations become public. Even the most loyal Troikas would not necessarily violate or misinterpret the law. Without the Handschu Agreement, the police would clearly be totally unrestrained.

During the 1971 trials, we learned that over the almost 70 years of unrestricted police activity, they kept over a million files on individual citizens and groups. The then-Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy admitted that agents’ infiltrations into various organizations, telephone tapping and photographing participants of demonstrations was widespread. But that’s not all. Police officers who were members of a special Red Squad unit collected information on suspects by conducting interviews which were more like interrogations with teachers, employers and landlords. It is not surprising that the suspects often subsequently lost their jobs. Who would keep a person considered a danger to society at the risk of remaining on an official list of the law enforcement community?

Yes, we live in a dangerous time—a firm war on terrorism is necessary. But too often in the past year, we have witnessed attempts to impose on Americans the opinion that, for the sake of victory over Osama bin Laden and his henchmen, it is necessary to give up part of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. We hear the same arguments today, also from the officials of the NYPD. Alas, they are not convincing. The existing laws do not tie the hands of the police at all; while at the same time, they prevent arbitrary actions against its own citizens.