DANIEL PIPES: Perverted priorities

Jerusalem Post ^ | 3-2-05 | DANIEL PIPES

[SJackson]

For a free people in the age of terrorism, what is the proper balance between civil liberties and national security?

This debate wracks every Western country. Looking at the United States, the "united we stand" solidarity that followed September 11, 2001, lasted just some months, after which a much deeper divide emerged as conservatives proved far more profoundly affected by the atrocities than did liberals. The result has been the growing political acrimony of the past three years.

Many examples illustrate this divide. For the most recent, take the argument concerning Ahmed Omar Abu Ali between the conservative Bush administration and its mostly liberal critics. Born in the US to immigrant Jordanian parents, Abu Ali, 23, was indicted last week of plotting the assassination of President George W. Bush. The prosecution asserts he was in touch with al-Qaida and in 2002 discussed ideas of eliminating Bush by getting "close enough to the president to shoot him on the street" or by deploying a car bomb.

Abu Ali's biography indicates how he might have ended up as an al-Qaida operative. He attended the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Virginia, graduating in 1999 as class valedictorian. As an outpost of Saudi values on American soil, the academy enjoys Saudi government funding, is chaired by the Saudi ambassador in Washington and boasts a curriculum imported straight from Riyadh.

Thus, the first-grade teachers' guide at the Islamic Saudi Academy instructs that Christianity and Judaism are false religions. When one realizes that the curriculum is overseen by Saleh Al-Fawzan, who in 2003 endorsed the institution of slavery, this comes as less than a grand shock.

While still living in the US, Abu Ali developed ties to the "paintball jihadists" of northern Virginia, nine of whom have served time in jail. In 2000 he went to study Islam at its source, at the Islamic University of Medina. In May 2003, a terrorist attack in Riyadh left 34 dead, nine of them Americans; a month later, the Saudis arrested Abu Ali for connections to this crime, incarcerating him until his recent transfer to the US.

Conservatives focus on the hair-raising news that an al-Qaida affiliate had plans to kill the president of the United States. Liberals hardly note this development, focusing instead on the question of whether, while in Saudi custody, Abu Ali was tortured (Justice Department officials call this an "utter fabrication").

Note the editorials in four northeastern papers:

The New York Times: This case is "another demonstration of what has gone wrong in the federal war on terror... In an undisciplined attempt to wring statements out of any conceivable suspect, American officials have worked with countries like Saudi Arabia."

The Washington Post: "The courts need to ensure that no evidence obtained by torture – with or without the connivance of the US government – is used to convict people in US courts."

The Baltimore Sun writes (dripping with sarcasm): "By unsealing a federal indictment against Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the US government garnered headlines about an alleged terrorist plot, instead of the unexplained imprisonment of an American citizen in Saudi Arabia... it portrayed Mr. Abu Ali [as] someone other than a victim of torture. The government may think its secret is safe. But it isn't."

Newsday's editorial is titled "Shame on Bush for rights violation."

These liberal analysts evince no concern that an American citizen trained by the Saudi government in Virginia will stand trial for plotting to assassinate the president. They decline to explore the implications of this stunning piece of news. They offer no praise to law enforcement for having broken a terrorism case. Instead, they focus exclusively on evidentiary procedures. They know only civil liberties; national security does not register. But, as British Prime Minister Tony Blair correctly writes, "there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack."

To strike a proper balance, Westerners must ask themselves what happens in case of error about the Islamist threat. Mistakes enhancing national security leave innocents spending time in jail. Mistakes enhancing civil liberties produce mass murder and perhaps a Taliban-like state (with its near-absence of civil liberties).

Which emphasis, dear reader, do you choose?

The writer is director of the Middle East Forum. This article derives from a presentation for the Federalist Society at Harvard Law School. www.DanielPipes.org

[Noachian]

Which emphasis, dear reader, do you choose?

I choose common sense, and rejection of the death wish of the MSM.

[cyclotic]

I think I prefer "Mistakes enhancing national security leave innocents spending time in jail."

Frankly, by the time one of these islamist fascists comes up on our security radar screen, they are beyond all pretense of innocence.

[gr8eman]

The MSM does not have a death wish for just itself...it wants everyone to die with them or be under the thumb of totalitarianism. This is evidenced by their love of Saddam, Castro, and Che.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

For a free people in the age of terrorism, what is the proper balance between civil liberties and national security?

Some say that restrictions play into the hands of the terrorists, restrictions make the terrorists "winners," they say.

If irresponsible, anti-social dangerous activities by a few cause temporary restrictions, on visiting a favorite place or using the most convenient route to your destination for examples, do the few win?

Note the editorials in four northeastern papers quoted in the article and know this: North Vietnam Communist General Giap praised the American press as his most valuable guerrilla.

We cannot allow the stooges of the enemies within to repeat their treason. This war is for all the marbles.

I have no problem with a temporary suspension of the Constitution. We've lost more rights in peacetime permanently -- not surprisingly, due mainly to the court actions of the enemies within -- than we could lose by a temporary suspension.

The payoff would be a thorough, wall-to-wall house cleaning and removal of the enemies within. IMO. (It should have been done about 35 years ago when Cronkite openly sided with General Giap and Communist lies -- and John Kerry was presenting the Communists' case to the Senate.)