The Civil Liberties vs. Security Conundrum
Sometimes safety is the greatest liberty of all.
In war, the first casualty is truth. In terrorism, the first casualty is civil liberties. Societies under siege do not put a premium on terrorists’ rights. Legal scholars might bemoan the attrition of liberty as a society under siege juggles freedom and order. But no one who worries about whether he is going to end up as a body part is likely to engage such concerns. Common sense and survival instincts militate against it.
If you think civil liberties have been compromised as a consequence of one attack, consider what the second one would have done. The experience of Western democracies is that one terrorism attack can create fear, but ongoing terrorist attacks create a siege mentality.
In 1972, IRA terrorism crossed the Irish Sea with the bombing at Aldershot. This carnage was followed by a series of pub bombings that gripped Britain in fear.
Parliament passed, without debate, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, incorporating measures that even its impassioned sponsors called “draconian.” Western European countries confronting terrorism responded similarly. In September 1986, France thoroughly revamped its judicial system in response to terrorism by integrating the judicial and intelligence systems in ways unimaginable to Americans. Germany passed stringent laws because the 9/11 terrorists used Hamburg as a base.
Lord Shackelton, author of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, told me that there was no greater freedom than the ability to leave your home and not be blown to bits. Lord Shackelton articulated what Britons felt: without security there is no such thing as liberty.
For seven years, the Bush administration has kept us from another 9/11. If you think this is the result of dumb luck, think again. If you think the Bush administration undermined civil liberties, take a moment to reflect on what this society would look like after another attack.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and a former head of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
19 Comments
1. Marc Malone:I think there’s a good solution to this. Declare non-citizens not protected by our Constitution and its guaranteed Rights. Such an amendment would solve lots of problems, like terrorism and illegal immigration, while protecting our own citizens’ rights. One must first define the enemy.
Oct 19, 2008 - 2:02 am 2. Chris in Toronto:Thank you for this!
I hadn’t paid much attention to the whole Able Danger thing as it was unfolding. Thanks for the synopsis. I knew Jamie Gorelick had wrecked the intelligence infrastructure, but I didn’t know the specifics.
Oct 19, 2008 - 3:56 am 3. SAF:Only Nixon could go to China. We can only hope that if Obama is elected he has the sense to beef up our own security.
Oct 19, 2008 - 6:47 am 4. Mark:It shouldn’t be forgotten that the most appropriate response is to root out those who support terrorists–in particular those states that sponsor them–and remove them from existence. It’s probably impossible to protect against terrorist attacks through internal security, which is why it’s doubly important to remove the root causes of terrorism.
Oct 19, 2008 - 8:38 am 5. R a Z o R:Does anyone think that we as Americans go way overboard in order not to offend a groups feelings ?
I am reminded of the waste of time and money that have been wasted strip searching granny at the airport . My mother had to throw away her yarn needles this last Christmas .
Oct 19, 2008 - 9:10 am 6. The Civil Liberties vs. Security Conundrum « American Truths:[...] Liberties vs. Security Conundrum Posted on by twana Jamie Gorelick Cross posted from Pajamas Media October 19, 2008 – by Abraham H. [...]
Oct 19, 2008 - 9:36 am 7. Humbled Infidel:Thank you so much for this history lesson that all citizens of the United States needs to learn.
Oct 19, 2008 - 9:39 am 8. thegr8_1:Read Bill Gertz latest book The Failure Factory it explains fantastically how liberals have screwed up our national security. There are pages devoted to Jamie Gorelick who should be charged with treason. If McCain is four more years of Bush in terms of national security I will be happy to have it. Without National Security no other issues matter.
Oct 19, 2008 - 10:15 am 9. notutopia:I am most presently concerned about an active US Army brigade being tasked with homeland security response. While there are no immediate concerns about martial law (consider that this is 3,000 soldiers in a nation of 300 million well-armed civilians). The use of Federal troops for civilian law enforcement would clearly be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. If you are also concerned about this, then please contact your paid to represent you, congressional representatives, and give them a piece of your concerned mind.
http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/093008.html
US Northern Command Gains Dedicated Task Force
Oct 19, 2008 - 12:27 pm 10. njcommuter:Notutopia, the Posse Comitatus act was created to stop the Federal Reconstruction of the South after the War Between the States. It allowed segregation, Jim Crow, the Klan, and unanswered violence against blacks to continue for decades. That’s not such a good thing, is it? But even Posse Comitatus allows the governor of a state to ask for military aid.
For a much deeper analysis of why we have to at least consider taking down internal/external walls like Posse Comitatus, see Philip Bobbitt’s Terror and Consent. (Bobbitt is a lifetime Democrat, by the way, and is IMO unfairly harsh on George Bush, but his analysis is strong enough that it should be accepted or refuted.) For why these responsibilities fall to this generation, read his previous work The Shield of Achilles. But if you have the guts to take on TSoA, be warned that if you don’t read and re-read the introduction until is seems (almost) obvious, you will probably miss the point of the book.
Oct 19, 2008 - 4:01 pm 11. Marc Malone:I’m not concerned about Posse Comitatus. I don’t view it as sacrosanct. Besides, we are at war with terrorism. If we have to use troops within our borders, it’s because there would be enemies within our borders. Just because the enemy is a terrorist, doesn’t mean he’s not an invader.
Oct 19, 2008 - 5:39 pm 12. whiskey:Mark — the root causes of Terrorism are really, polygamy. Which leaves a few men with four wives and most men with none. It’s estimated that about 30% of men in the Arabian peninsula have more than one wife, and 60% have none. This leaves them without any role in their society, except through Jihad which is the only means to find “wives” through 72 virgins in the Afterlife.
There is no way to eliminate the root causes because Islam’s pillar IS polygamy. Polygamy is indeed Islam’s reason for existence. Heck Obama’s father was a polygamist, who got his then 17 year old mother pregnant while married to other women in Kenya, and who returned to Kenya to marry multiple women at the same time.
Unless we kill about 45% of men 18-44 in the Muslim world, a horrifying prospect, eliminating root causes is simply impossible. Since the polygamy will continue, with most men losing out and thus becoming Jihadis.
Thus, the need to impose serious anti-terror measures, including overt profiling of Muslims and over discrimination, shutting Muslims out of the West as much as possible.
Because nuclear proliferation, in weak, divided, tribal-oriented states means obscure would be tribal leaders in places like Pakistan or Iran can decide if Copenhagen or NYC lives or dies. One Western city WILL die from a Muslim nuke, delivered by shipping container, and THEN you will see a totally different world. You will not like it.
All the more because the nuclear death of up to 6 million Westerners in a nuclear bombing by Muslim terrorists — is totally preventable.
Oct 19, 2008 - 8:22 pm 13. John Moore:Civil libertarians have been absolutists for a long time. One of these days, there will be another major terrorist attack, probably with a WMD (although that most recent major attempt was to blow up airliners over major US cities – stopped just in time by the British).
I have long urged civil libertarians to pre-emptively prepare for terrorism related laws by working on ways to cooperate the government in order to maximize security and minimize true abuses.
We have had a fetish of privacy in the US. Privacy (outside one’s home) is going away. Civil libertarians need to figure out how to protect our more important liberties in light of this fact, rather than constantly fighting it (and having librarians destroy records).
Oct 19, 2008 - 10:47 pm 14. deguello:Security is nothing less than the excuse of the bipartisan plutocracy,to strip americans of their first and second amendment rights,in order to intimidate and opress them. Wait until Obama wins, you’ll see all of Bush’s national security poison,dumped on blogs, talk radio,and groups unacceptable to liberals,such as ther boy scouts, the NRA, and The Heritage foundation.Watch for the ACLU and the NYT “discover” situations where torture is permissible,and watch for the IRS to tsart harassing people who write on this blog.
Oct 20, 2008 - 7:16 am 15. Susan W.:Interesting post. I wasn’t aware of the Clinton administration’s negligence or how it contributed to 9/11. Thanks.
Oct 20, 2008 - 10:14 am 16. deguello:Marc Malone: the biggest enemy free Americans face is an Obama presidency with a Dem-controlled congress,armed with the Bush national security “laws” .If Dems achieve this, guantanamo bay will soon be full of talk radio hosts, libertarians, gun owners,and Thomas Jefferson enthusiasts .The main reason terrorism hasn’t struck the US, is to undermine the Bush presidency, and make him look like an overeacting fool,not the efficacy of measures that clearly threaten civil liberties.One question for the Shrub:”If Islam,as you said,is a religion of peace,then why do we need extra-legal national security measures? Oh I forgot, it’s those dangerous angry white males ,and their guns!Why some of them ,after the massacres at Waco,and The Weaver farm had the nerve to call the Bush senior’s ATF/FBI thugs “storm troopers”!Arrest the impudent hicks,send’em to Guantanamo!
Oct 20, 2008 - 3:04 pm 17. NotASheep:This video was shot in 1985 but is particularly germane considering the crises our country faces today and considering that one of the candidates in the Presidential race has undeniable Socialist/Marxist leanings.
Whatever else you may conclude about this video, after viewing it you will have a very different perspective on causes of the current financial meltdown.
http://www.darkskiesblog.com/2008/10/07/video-presentation-of-marxist-ideological-subversion-in-us-video-embed-very-interesting/
Oct 20, 2008 - 8:27 pm 18. Marc Malone:deguello – Um, what exactly was the point you were trying to make to me? It didn’t seem to attwach to anything I posted. Sorry if I’m dense tonight.
Oct 20, 2008 - 11:36 pm 19. Mitch:Another great article from Dr. Miller. His years consulting to the justice department give us a window to the inside that we would otherwise never have.
Oct 22, 2008 - 9:47 am