Law Students and Faculty Commemorate 9/11
By Jerri Nims
The College of Law remembered the events of September 11th through many forms of expression; speakers shared relevant topics, the library set-up a commemorative display, and the school community shared in a moment of silence, donning remembrance pins. Two speakers shared programs about the past, present, and future impact of the horrific events brought about by the terrorist attacks just over a year ago.
The Student Health Law Association co-sponsored a September 10th program with the school featuring Heather Horton from the Office of the General Counsel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In "Public Health Initiatives in the Wake of September 11th," Ms. Horton discussed the draft of the Model State Emergency Powers Act formulated after 9/11. The purpose of the Act is to help states know how to regulate emergency public health issues and largely stems from present state laws. Legislation based at least in part on the Act has been introduced in 35 states and passed in 19 of those states as of August 2002.
Ms. Horton explained the Act is needed because traditional public health law is amorphous and does not account for scientific or legal advancements. She discussed the actions of public health agencies pre-event, during the declaration of an event, and post-event, as well as qualifying an event as an act that threatens the public health through bioterrorism, chemical, or nuclear attacks.
Although the Act has been criticized as too vague and allowing the states to encroach on federal issues, Ms. Horton explained that the Act is envisioned for extreme threats to the public health and provides better civil liberties protections than conventional infectious disease laws.
She also stressed the need for disease reporting in order to facilitate public health. Ms. Horton spoke of balancing privacy interests with the need to report illnesses caused by biological agents or symptomatic outbreaks.
The College of Law sponsored a September 11th program featuring Richard Deane, former U.S. Attorney of the Northern District of Georgia on 9/11 and currently with the law firm of Jones, Day, Reaves & Pogue. Gentry Shellnut, Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorneys Office of the Northern District, also shared thoughts and impressions with students.
In "Reflections on 9/11," Mr. Deane discussed his involvement with readying an existing Anti-terrorist Task Force in the Northern District of GA to re-direct their focus towards dealing with the aftermath of 9/11. Mr. Shellnut headed this Task Force whose goal was to help enable local, state, and federal authorities to share information so that authorities had a coordinated response to resultant issues.
Mr. Deane spoke of the complexity of figuring out legitimate threats to Metro Atlanta in the wake of 9/11. Officials in Washington instructed state officials to follow any logical leads, yet the enormity of the recent events reduced the time law enforcement officers had to filter possibly illegitimate threats. He recounted being one of the only people left in his office "in an act of defiance." He explained that he did not want the attackers to have shut down his office.
Mr. Deane related that since the attacks, the FBI has undergone a fundamental change in purpose. Formerly the FBI concentrated on investigating criminal or terrorist activities. Now their purpose is predictive and preventative; they use intelligence to predict and prevent future events. He shared that it is "no longer unacceptable for the FBI to conduct an investigation and give those results directly to policy makers." The structure of the FBI has also changed as 500 agents, 400 of which were previously with the Narcotics division, have been reassigned to anti-terrorist pursuits.
Mr. Deane also spoke of numerous tensions between previously accepted boundaries. While the FBI used to concentrate only on domestic issues and the CIA on international issues, they are now balancing that division with the fact that domestic issues are intertwined with international affairs.
He highlighted the difference between racial profiling and reasonable suspicion. He said there is "no place for generalized suspicion known as profiling." However, he differentiated profiling from knowledge of a specific group of people based on a reasonable suspicion. Mr. Deane stressed the importance of distinguishing between individual disloyalty and group disloyalty.