Posted on 07/30/2005 6:58:47 AM PDT by Restorer
The death of Jean Charles de Menezes last Friday is a tragedy.
One day after the second spate of terror attacks hit London and with four terrorists still at large, Menezes was mistaken by the metropolitan police as a terrorist and, upon failing to obey orders to halt he was shot five times at close range as he entered a crowded train at a metro station. Bad policing maybe, but what if he had been the right guy? What if he was a terrorist and was about to detonate an explosive belt to kill scores of innocent bystanders? No tears would be shed and those policemen who shot him would be heroes now. The difference between a successful counterterrorism operation and a tragic blunder was, in the final analysis, predicated upon bad intelligence and a split-second decision, something that the war on terrorism will continue to experience. And the context and circumstances of the event suggest that the police acted reasonably. Still, an innocent man is dead and with terrorists still at large democracies owe themselves a moment of reflection. What price must democracy pay to defeat terrorism?
Americans have apparently understood the nature of the terrorist threat. They know they are at war. Despite bombings in London and Madrid and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, Europe seems to believe terrorism can be fought with the same means used for ordinary crime. But fighting crime and fighting a war are two different businesses indeed. That is why when Menezes was killed in broad daylight by plainclothes policemen in the midst of a terrified crowd many disapproved even before they knew he was innocent. Even if he had been a terrorist, arrest would have been preferable.
As in the case of Israel’s policy of targeted killings, even those who understand the plight of the Jewish state often demand that terrorists be apprehended and brought to justice, decrying the action as "extra-judicial killings." Better a terrorist apprehended alive of course, for a host of reasons. Is this feasible though, especially in the age of suicide bombers, or is this enunciation of principle just a recipe for inaction?
One can sympathize with the opinion that no freedom should be sacrificed on the altar of security, but unless this is qualified, in the post-9/11 world this view is neither serious nor realistic.
It is not serious, because liberalism has always postulated the possibility of a temporary suspension of freedoms to confront national emergencies. States of emergencies are regulated in liberal democracies so as not to allow disproportionate measures: the extent of restrictions must be correlated to the nature of the threat. In war and catastrophe, democracies accept limits on freedom of the press, movement, immigration, expression and assembly, rationing and curfews, military courts and anti-sedition laws.
It is not realistic, because terrorism exploits the openness of free societies to pursue its deadly designs. Our strength — a robust civil society that keeps Big Brother at permanent arm’s length — has become our weakness when confronted with terrorists in our midst. Tolerant immigration laws, due process, and a host of mechanisms expressing confidence in the freedom we cherish and the desire of all human beings to enjoy its gift have made it easier for terrorists, who loath freedom and exalt death, to strike. Introducing restrictions on our freedoms and giving broader — and at times deadlier — discretion to our security forces might be the price democracies must pay for their own defense.
Nevertheless, liberals have a point: If the knee-jerk reaction that postulates no limits is silly, this does not mean that anything goes. The shoot-to-kill policy tragically applied last Friday in London was meant to save innocent lives: a balance had to be struck between a suspected terrorist and his right to life and the right to life of innocent bystanders. But that balance is frail and fraught with moral dilemmas, as the death of Menezes proves. This tragic outcome highlighted both the dilemmas and the challenges a democracy must face if it wants to defeat terrorism and still be true to its moral higher grounds.
Still, in real-life situations, the ideal may prove impossible to achieve.
To maintain the same level of individual freedoms under the new threat of terrorism might therefore prove to be a principled but untenable stance, which one can hope to hold only at the price of giving in to terror’s blackmail. But make no mistakes: Ultimately, terror’s goal is not just to influence a change in policy among Western societies, as many in Europe claim. Terror’s ultimate target is the Western way of life itself, which is built on freedom. Old principles will not work this time. To save freedom and fight terror at the same time a new doctrine is needed. To what extent are Western societies prepared to limit civil liberties in order to effectively countenance the terrorist threat? The answer cannot be a dogmatic refusal to ponder the dilemma. The only right answer is to find a balance between the call of liberty and the imperative of security. To engage this debate, rather than shun it, is the only way to ensure that freedom is protected in the long term.
Governments’ primary duty is to protect their citizens from outside (and internal) enemies. If there can be no pursuit of happiness without liberty, there is no liberty (or liberty would be meaningless), surely, unless life is first protected.
Rather than knee jerk rhetoric about slippery slopes, I think the author's final question deserves some serious thought.
This is the point many of us have been trying to make, despite the libertarians' misgivings. If we're dead, or living under the rule of some Talibanish imam, it's all moot, isn't it? It's tempting to paraphrase this author's comment for a tagline.
It is instructive to look at what the same men who wrote the Bill of Rights were willing to do to win the War of Independence. They violated the "rights" of their Loyalist neighbors apparently without breaking stride. The Loyalists were treated much worse than even the defeated side in the WBTS.
Dead people are not free.
very quietly remembering "better dead than red"
& how anyone who believed that was ridiculed .
Read your history books. Every time our country has gone to war, some civil liberties have been suspended--because it was necessary to do so. I note with some irony that many in Britain have changed their tune once the danger became personal and immediate--and I suspect it will be the same here, if, Heaven forbid, this plague of suicide bombers comes to our own cities.
eternal vigilance of our freedoms. security is no substitute for freedom. as an aside - the london cops should be congratulated; they tried to stop a "terr" from entering subway and then jumped on him and covered him with their bodies. they ,unfortunately, have to live with their mistake.
I have remembered and discussed that phrase often the past few years. It has much more meaning to me now than when I questioned my parents about it's meaning. Funny how I have thought about something so often that held so little understanding for me as a child.
It's interesting how quickly civilized people will give up their freedoms when the disaster of terrorism becomes up close and personal. Another major attack on American soil will prove that point.
When that next attack happens the military, and government agencies, will be free of many of restrictions, and life for muslims, both here and abroad, will become a nightmare.
Darlin, I don't have to read history books about the communists, because I lived it. They were a scourge and a plague but in the 1940s & 50s after they infiltrated our universities, labor unions & hollywood, you'd be ridiculed for pointing that out.
I have no problem with some civil liberties being temporarily suspended. It happened in the Civil War & WWII and everyone survived.
Better dead than red was a trite saying that was deadly serious for so many people in so many countries. Just think of all the East Germans who died trying to escape to freedom.
If we're honest with ourselves, it is still going on in Cuba and China.
Yes, in some circles, but not in my household. (Daughter of a WWII Naval officer)
For what it's worth, we're fighting for freedom in this war, too. The liberals don't understand that yet, but life under an imam and sharia rule would be far worse than suspending certain civil liberties during this war. I sometimes nearly choke when some liberal "feminist" talks about the "freedom" of the veil--yet I'm not seeing many of them wearing it full-time, OR giving up the freedoms they now enjoy.
Yes, but, in the past
every time our country has
gone to war it's been
reasonably clear
what would constitute the end
of that war. But now
the current fighting
is against those who dissent
from the West, and those
types will be around
forever. There's no clear end
to the current war.
I believe that's why
libertarian types quail
at infringing "rights."
There was no "clear end" to WWII, either, especially in the early years. Matter of fact, we're just now formulating an "exit policy" for Germany.
"Daughter of a WWII Naval officer"- did he (or she) talk much about the communists? It was very hard to shift gears and look at Russia, our WWII partner, as the new enemy. Most of the WWII vets were heartbroken when FDR died, and it took them a few years for word to seap out from the conquered countries that FDR's Yalta agreement had flaws.
Neither is death.
We cannot win this war, or any other, while providing all peacetime civil rights.
Does anyone doubt that?
Slogans about freedom being better than security are just that in the circumstances -- meaningless slogans.
The question is: Are you willing to lose this war, which by their definition involves the supremacy of Islam?
If not, what are you willing to give up temporarily to win?
Is temporary sacrifice of some rights better than permanently losing them all?
Haven't even started working on one for Japan. And even bring up Korea!
In a very real sense, we're still dealing with the aftermath of WWI, especially in the Middle East.
The WBTS ended in 1865, but I think it was really over only sometime in the 70s or 80s. (And some on FR are still fighting it!)
My father was never much of a Roosevelt supporter, but was a loyal officer. He always felt the welfare system would be the death of us, among other things. Like everyone, our family was very concerned about Communists. I wasn't allowed to play with one of the kids down the street because my parents believed (correctly, as it turned out) that the family was Communist.
This, however, is not the point. The point is, that during WWII many civil liberties were suspended. The Japanese in my city were taken off to reservations--some would say concentration camps but I wouldn't. I will always believe that was the right thing to do, given their sentiments. We didn't want to have to fight an enemy WITHIN as well the enemies WITHOUT. We might have to do the same thing in this war--and I would support it.
We also had to "do without" a large number of products, including gasoline, butter, and meat. Most of us did that willingly. And then there were the curfews and the blackouts--these are what I recall most, but I'm sure there were more.
You said it perfectly, "We cannot win this war, or any other, while providing all peacetime civil rights"
Just look at our own Civil War. IMHO, we would still have slavery in our country, if Lincoln had not had the courage of his convictions to suspend habeus corpus in Baltimore and imprison all the city officials & their families who were sympathetic to the Southern Cause. Certainly, we would still have slavery if not for the siege of Vicksburg or Sherman's march to the sea.
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.