Upholding Liberty in America

Financial Times ^ | June 24, 2003 | Edward Crane and William Niskanen

[Oldie]

In the aftershock of September 11 2001, there is a greater awareness among most Americans of how precious their freedom is. They also realise the need for better government intelligence work to fight terrorism. But they should not let the government usurp basic liberties.

This is a danger as more and more anti-terrorist laws and rules strait-jacket the nation. There is a congruent danger: the rise of neo-conservatism on the right. The movement is using the threat of terrorism to expand government at home and abroad. America must safeguard its freedoms in the fight against terrorism, but protect itself from pernicious policies that erode freedom in the name of liberty.

Since September 11, Congress and the Justice Department have implemented laws and rules to protect America. But some of these new steps threaten civil liberties. One example is the Patriot Act. This 131-page law, which few legislators read, abandons procedural norms and expands the power of the executive branch, which is already too powerful.

Under no circumstances should an American be held captive in the US indefinitely, with no charges filed and no legal representation afforded. Yet this has happened under the Patriot Act. And now there is talk of a Patriot II. James Buchanan, the Nobel laureate, argues that governments will acquire more power when the opportunity arises. History shows this to be true, and the Patriot law reflects it. Today, with the war on terrorism, the opportunities for the state to expand are ubiquitous. Both liberals and conservatives are turning a blind eye to unnecessary usurpations of power, if not openly calling for them.

Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, has mooted the idea of "torture warrants", by which courts could authorise the use of torture to elicit information. The neo-conservative agenda is a particular threat to liberty - perhaps greater than the ideologically spent ideas of left-liberalism. Always a movement of bright intellectual leaders, neo-conservatism has mostly been a movement with a head but no body. One rarely runs into a neo-con on the street.

Underlying neo-conservatism is a desire to reshape America and the world through the efforts of a robust federal government. For years The Weekly Standard, the neo-conservative magazine, has pushed for initiatives to reinforce US international power. Merely living in a free society appears to be insufficient for neo-conservatives.

During George W. Bush's campaign for president, the neo-conservative influence was felt in domestic policy ideas such as faith-based initiatives that would involve the federal government in private local charities, often with a religious orientation. It was also seen in the call for a greater federal role in local education. These are both inconsistent with the concepts of limited government and federalism.

But neo-cons tend to be dismissive of the idea that the federal government should be limited to the protection of an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As William Kristol, editor of the Standard, has put it: "Are we willing to say that the country is worse off because of FDR or JFK or LBJ? I'm not willing to say that." So much for limited government.

During his campaign, Mr Bush said many sensible things about foreign policy, including the need for the US to have "humility" in its relations with other nations. But since September 11, neo-conservative influence on US foreign policy has reached new heights. We have grave concerns over the doctrine of preventive war and the seeming abdication of the responsibilities of Congress with respect to committing lives and treasure to armed conflict.

Some in the neo-conservative movement have openly called for an American empire around the globe. Max Boot, the writer, recently praised what he termed America's "imperialism" and said it should impose its views "at gunpoint". James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has called for a decades-long campaign to reorder the entire Middle East along neo-conservative lines. Such thinking is profoundly un-American.

All is not gloom. What is needed now is for limited government conservatives of the variety exemplified by President Ronald Reagan and Senator Barry Goldwater to join forces with libertarians and enlightened liberals who respect civil liberties. They should speak out in support of America's heritage of liberty.

Globalisation has been primarily an American undertaking and it has been good for the world's poor. The country's science, technology and entrepreneurship are healing the sick, cleaning the environment and making the world a better and more enjoyable place in which to live. The US is a great nation with little to apologise for. It has an enemy to defeat. The challenge is not to defeat itself.

[Ff--150]

The neo-conservative agenda is a particular threat to liberty - perhaps greater than the ideologically spent ideas of left-liberalism

Just change colors from blue to red, and get the job done--but with a different political party...

[Oldie]

Of course the paranoia in this article about the neo-conservatives is silly.

But, I do think that the authors do have a point about changing attitudes on liberty and freedom.

[Noachian]

How did this Republic survive all these years, against so many enemys, without a Patriot Act? Don't tell me it's because the world is now smaller than it was - that line doesn't wash.

For over a generation Soviet agents have walked the streets of American cities plotting ways to damage and destroy our way of life, but they were stopped without a Patriot Act.

In the 1940's Japanese and German saboteurs also walked the streets of our cities trying to cause death and destruction, but they too were stopped without a Patriot Act.

We now have another enemy to our way of life walking the streets of our cities, but this time we have a judiciary that's willing to subvert the Constitution in order to stop them and they have allies in the Congress.

The People seem to have little to say about what's being foisted upon them in the name of security, and some welcome the idea without a thought to future consequences. They seem to think more laws equal more security. They're fools, but fools who vote.

Once a law is on the books it's very difficult to remove it even if it has a time limit. Once the guarantees of the Constitution are usurped they too will be very difficult to reobtain. The idea is not to give up any freedoms. This may make the Feds job harder, but if it comes to the Feds having to sweat more or Constitutional rights I'll take the latter.

If the idea of those crazies on 9/11 was to change the American way of life then they succeeded. Go to an airport, and look at the donut cops with automatic machine guns, for proof of that. Those same crazies gave a green light to some in government, with a Pax Americana mentality, to come down hard on Constitutional rights. Socialism in this country is scary, but at the other extreme Facism is even scarier.

So, the post 9/11 government mentality has taken away some Constitutional rights with others being looked at, instituted a semi-police state, instituted a siege mentality among the American people, and none of this has stopped the bad guys.

The point to remember on all this is that it's the Judiciary that's out on point as far as suspending Constitutional law. There's a bunch of intelligence agencies out there doing their job without asking for Constitutional changes. Only the judicial branch, whose role is to protect our Constitutional rights at all cost, has gone that far. This is the same Judiciary packed with unelected law-makers wielding unaccountable power. Think about that.

[Ff--150]

Of course the paranoia in this article about the neo-conservatives is silly.

Yeah! And the constitution of the United States is "silly"! It's a "living, breathing document" that must be set aside when things get a little rough. Sheech!

[4CJ]

Just change colors from blue to red, and get the job done--but with a different political party...

Damn the Constitution - Full speed ahead?

'[T]he nature of federal-state relations changed fundamentally after the Civil War. That conflict produced in its wake a tremendous expansion in the scope of the Federal Government's lawmaking authority, so much so that the persons who helped to found the Republic would scarcely have recognized the many added roles the National Government assumed for itself.'
Justice White, [dissenting]New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

[Oldie]

Let me put this straight. I believe that some aspects ot the Patriot Acts are very disturbing .... after all, that is why I posted the article.

On the other hand, I do not believe that most of the neo-cons share the notions attributed to them in the article. Frankly, I am puzzled about the neo-con paranoias of some libertarians (and I do consider myself a libertarian).

Granted, many neo-cons do want an expanded role for government in some specific cases (but most of them still share the basic conservative ideas on limited government in general), and they are too blasé about government deficits. Still, when it comes to issues of liberty, they are no worse than the social conservatives.

[Ff--150]

a tremendous expansion in the scope of the Federal Government's lawmaking authority

Buckminster Fuller wrote that whenever something becomes too big it dies or becomes much, much smaller. Sadly, this national government is way too big and must die.

[Ff--150]

Frankly, I am puzzled about the neo-con paranoias of some libertarians (and I do consider myself a libertarian).

Frankly, I don't read of libertarians being paranoid about neo-cons. Frankly, it's the neo-cons savagely attacking libertarians with name-calling and bizarre accusations.

No, the neo-cons are a ruse to drive off the conservatives from the Republican Party to the libertarians, let's say, so the Republican Party can be the vehicle to destroy our freedoms and rights, now the demoncrats have been humilated by semen on a blue dress...

[Oldie]

?

[4CJ]

No, the neo-cons are a ruse to drive off the conservatives from the Republican Party to the libertarians, let's say, so the Republican Party can be the vehicle to destroy our freedoms and rights, now the demoncrats have been humilated by semen on a blue dress...

I do believe you are right. There are DIMS, liberals, etc on this forum posing as conservatives - but their every post is an attack upon those that support the Constitution. Their political philosopy is that of the liberal 9th CC and the non-conservative justices of the US Supreme Court - their position is that it is toilet paper.