Posted on 11/22/2001 9:42:29 PM PST by JohnHuang2
TownHall.com: Conservative Columnists: Steve Chapman
QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW townhall.com
Steve Chapman (back to story)
November 23, 2001
Unbalanced approaches to civil liberties
"Moderation in all things" is not always a sensible formula. Most of us aspire to be more than just moderately healthy or moderately intelligent. Few of us endorse moderate fraud, moderate larceny or moderate child abuse. But sometimes, good public policy consists of prudently balancing two important values, rather than giving absolute priority to one or the other.
That's especially true when it comes to civil liberties in wartime. Protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people is among the highest functions of our government. But sometimes that duty has to take a back seat to protecting the lives and safety of the American people. Let me put the point bluntly: Sometimes it is necessary to curtail civil liberties a bit, and this is one of those times.
Most Americans understand that simple reality. But critics act as though any concession to national security amounts to a shocking rejection of everything America stands for.
Columbia University historian Alan Brinkley decries the administration's anti-terrorism proposals as "one of the most extraordinary assaults on civil liberties" in American history. Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, charges that "government officials have refused to reassure the American people that our constitutional protections are in place, and that due process of law is alive and well."
Now the ACLU and like-minded people are welcome to explain why any particular proposal harms freedom more than it helps security. The problem with civil liberties absolutists is that they refuse to admit any conflict between these concerns.
There is certainly a danger that in trying to safeguard the safety of Americans, the government may unnecessarily violate basic rights. But let's not forget the other risk: In trying to preserve civil liberties, we may allow terrorists to succeed in killing innocent people. Both errors ought to be avoided.
In the case of the Sept. 11 attacks, our regard for civil liberties may have already had a cost. Back in August, FBI agents in Minneapolis wanted to search the computer and telephone records of Zacarias Moussaoui, whom the government now believes was supposed to be the 20th hijacker. But FBI lawyers concluded they didn't have enough evidence to get a special warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Respecting Moussaoui's rights was deemed more important than investigating his alleged terrorist connections.
Only after the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hit did police get permission to do the search, which yielded evidence of his interest in crop-dusting planes. Who knows? If that evidence had been obtained sooner and the investigation had been expanded, maybe authorities would have uncovered the plot in time to stop it.
The Constitution doesn't require the government to operate under the same constraints in wartime as in peacetime. Just the opposite: It authorizes a suspension of habeas corpus "when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." During the Civil War, President Lincoln used that power, over the objections of the Supreme Court, to imprison suspected rebel sympathizers without trial -- a policy vindicated by history.
The Third Amendment forbids soldiers from being quartered in private homes without the consent of the owner during peacetime -- but allows it in wartime. The Fourth Amendment bans "unreasonable" searches, but the term does not have an immutable meaning. What seemed unreasonable Sept. 10 may look reasonable today. And what looks reasonable now may look excessive by next November.
The framers of the Constitution understood what the ACLU may not -- that in an emergency, the survival of the government and the safety of the citizenry may have to override ordinary liberties. As federal appeals court Judge Richard Posner writes in The Atlantic Monthly, "All that can reasonably be asked of the responsible legislative and judicial officials is that they weigh the costs as carefully as the benefits."
The Bush administration has not exactly made a fetish of heeding both considerations. For example, it asked for the right to detain noncitizens indefinitely, as in forever (Congress balked, setting the limit at seven days). Its new proposal to set up special military tribunals to conduct secret trials of foreigners accused of terrorism -- at the sole discretion of the president -- goes too far, removing protections that are needed even in a crisis.
Special courts may be warranted in some instances, but with safeguards. Their reach should be restricted, the secrecy should be strictly limited, and the type of suspect affected should be defined by law, not presidential whim.
Given sufficient care, the heightened demands of security can be balanced with the need to prevent injustices against innocent people. That will come as news to only two groups of people: the Bush administration and its critics.
©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
townhall.com
QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW
I have read it pretty carefully, and I can't find one anywhere.
I must have an old copy or something....
L
What a load of horseshit!!!!
To you, it seems, there are only two ways to go....
You can have Freedom....or..
You can have security.
This Nation, with Rights given by God...not the government, can easily fight a war and keep all of those Rights.
But the wannabe tyrants always keep pushing the idea that you can't have both.
redrock
Criminy, it almost feels like they want us to be overrun by the scum we are fighting.
B - I - N - G - O !
Got it down to a single sentence.
Now, can anyone figure out why?
If you think about it the amendments came after the main part was written. Would that not have priority over anything before them ?
Because the elite leadership expects to end up on top. They know they're no match for the citizenry without outside help, so that's where they'll go.
2 for 2, and the crowd goes wild!
I used to call it the two dog theory... Goes like this. Bad dog lives in the river gorge and you gotta get to the other side. So you want to build a bridge, right? How do you sneak someone across the river gorge with the first rope? Toss in another dog and haul a$$ across the river before the dogs figure out who is trying to keep them fighting.
Moral of story? Everyone guard their OWN turf (national sovereignty) and the elite that will "guide us" can't get the rope across the river. Just yesterday Tony the sissyboy Blair was spouting on about eliminating "National Sovereignty" in the EU. Everyone "share and live in global harmony together gag " routine. Forget that there will be infighting and DISharmony so while we are busy fighting each other they can do what they want.
THAT is why we are having this decades/generations of war bs shoved up... uhhhh, down our throats. We could get it on in Afghanistan - Iraq - Iran - Saudi - Pakistan and the entire area would be full of Texaco refineries and Giffard-Hill plants in two years but nnnoooooooooooooooo, we gotta "brace ourselves" for "generations of war."
I think the only thing we need to brace ourselves for is grabbing the rifles. It's going to come to that or grabbing our collective ankles.
ps. My thanks to whomever came up with the "sissyboy" bit. It was not me but if a shoe ever fit somebody, that name fits TB.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.