Ron Paul: Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security?

It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th century shows that the Constitution is violated most often by Congress during times of crisis; accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression.

Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution- break the law- in the name of law enforcement.

The"anti-terrorism" legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or others from fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not made available to members before the vote! These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake.

Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; you now may be considered a terrorist if you belong to a pro-constitution group, a citizens militia, or various pro-life organizations. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of other Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.

The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable cause standards for these tools are relaxed or even eliminated in some circumstances; warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without your knowledge; and wiretaps can be placed on you without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide without even demonstrating that a particular phone or computer is being used by a criminal suspect.

The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously-held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.

In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union- its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty, its excessive militarization- all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

"Pacifist libertarian" is one with the entire complex of beliefs familiar to you: that the US was asking for it with its imperialist foreign policy; that the US should bring the perpetrators to justice but not fight any foreign wars to do so; that individual efforts of armed militia and international bounty hunters would be sufficient to combat terrorism.

I don't care if we send FBI or whatever other agency to Afghanistan. the point is, the lawlessness originated there so law enforcement is lacking there. This is imperialist policy and that is the right one for the occasion. I am therefore, an Imperialist Libertarian, at your service...

Thanks, I read that before. He is right in many ways, but he misses the big picture: that we were attacked from a foreign soil; that if Afghani government adhered to international norms of catching criminals on their soil, the problem would have been drastically abated; that therefore it is our government's duty to install in Afghanistan and possibly elsewhere a government that catches mice, by force.

I am therefore, an Imperialist Libertarian, at your service...

Don't let the anti-libertarian crowd catch wind of this! Repeat this until it is true; "Libertarians are all the same, Libertarians are all the same, Libertarians are all the same." I feel better already! LOL!

You do bring about an interesting dimension of international relations and Libertarian Government. I think there is certainly room for "empire" in dispensing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness outside our borders. But I really don't like the current model of oligarchial driven nation building.

For right now I am totally committed to the skinner method of foreign policy. Totally destroy the enemy in Afghanistan and demand an unconditional surrender. Then permit free market development in which parties in Afghanistan contract with private investment. If the Afghanis choose not to participate in free markets, let them live their way, not a way dictated by a Marshall Plan. The Afghanis have a thirst for liberty. To give it away or order it spoils the taste. Let them earn it, so they can respect it.

I am therefore, an Imperialist Libertarian, at your service...

My most sincere symphaty for your loss, please accept it. I believe that 9/11 happened partly out of arrogance, and complacency on our part, we were too far from the hotbed of terrorism to be affected by it. Mainly, due to the administration of X42, who did not do his job inspite of the many terror attacks on US assests abroard. He weakened the CIA, and the Military, thus encouraging the evil ones. I truly believe that the current administration is trying very hard to correct the present weakness to avoid another(perhaps much worst)9/11. If we do not help our law enforcement agency to be more effective in doing their job now, then if another 9/11 happens, there will be such an outcry from the people of this country for more protection, that we will indeed lose everything we value: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happeness. I have not lost confidence on our Government, but I will watch very carefully what they do with the extraordinary power they have got. If I see abuse, I will be among the first to cry foul! So far in MHO, the President is doing a good job of protecting our values. These are extraordinary times, which require extra ordinary actions, let's pray that our leaders will succeed in keeping this country safe. We have to trust each other, or we are lost.

the lawlessness originated there so law enforcement is lacking there.

It most certainly did not originate there. As a matter of fact it had little if anything at all to do with the Taliban.

Secondly, there is no such thing as an "Imperialist" libertarian. If you are an Imperialist, you are opposed to all libertarian principle because you must oppose libertarian principle in order to carry out Imperial policies.

There is no evidence that our previously-held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.

The fact is they DID NOT do their job! Rather than clean up their own mess they try to take the easy way, at OUR expense!

These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake.

America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution- break the law- in the name of law enforcement.

We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

Please! This law does not into effect until March, we have time. Almost this identical law was blocked when Clinton and Reno tried to get it passed. We CAN get the terrorists without this law! At least READ it for yourself!

Thanks for the ping, tex-oma.

A libertarian government protects individual rights and doesn't care one bit about national sovereignty, which is a statist construct. If the perpetrator is in Afghanistan, then a libertarian government goes to Afghanistan to get him. Of course it doesn't matter if he himself is an Afghani national.

This makes any libertarian government at least potentially imperialist, but very few understand that. Sh-h.

Have you READ the law? Do you know that before passing it, CONGRESS did not read OR debate it? I KNOW you care for the constitution! Do you know that this practically mutes the Fourth Ammendment? Based on that alone, isn't it worth at least DEBATING?

If Clinton had signed this would you have had a problem with it?? I believe GWB has good intentions, but this bill isn't good. Please, IF you haven't already, look at it honestly. Look at it as though a democrat had access to it's power. Please.

If the perpetrator is in Afghanistan, then a libertarian government goes to Afghanistan to get him

There's nothing "imperial" about doing that. Where you'll run into trouble is trying to establish or manipulate the government of that country to your own perceived needs while or after you "get" the perpetrator[s] and there's nothing libertarian about that.

A libertarian government protects individual rights and doesn't care one bit about national sovereignty, which is a statist construct.

National soverignty is not a statist construct. It is an extension of your own personal liberty and soveriegnty.

If national soverignty is a statist construct then so is freedom.

trying to establish or manipulate the government of that country to your own perceived needs

If that government is illegitimate, I am free to manipulate and establish whatever I want there. Things would be different if the Taliban government was representative of Afghani citizens and respectful of the rights of American citizens.

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.