Freedom vs Security
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."
Initial clause of the Fourth Amendment to the Constititution of the United States
We all want both security and freedom, but must recognize that, given the threats that exist in today's world, sometimes one must be offset against the other. The debate now taking place in Washington over the renewal of the Patriot Act, Pentagon monitoring of anti-war activity and National Security Agency electronic eavesdropping on telephone calls illustrates the tension between the two concepts.
We all want to avoid a repeat of the September 11 attacks, and also prevent bombings like those that hit both Spain and England. Looking back, however, the problem was not lack of information, but failure to act on information our government had.
On August 8, 2001, President Bush received a CIA memo warning that Al-Qaeda was planning to use hijacked airliners in a terrorist attack. French police had recently thwarted a hijacking in Paris that was intended to crash a plane into the Eifel Tower. Did Presdient Bush immediately warn all US airlines? Did he tighten rules for bringing knives (including box-cutters) in carry-on luggage? Did he alert the FAA to require stronger cockpit security and insist that hijackers under no circumstances be allowed to fly a plane? (1) Did he order a check of American flight schools to see if any known al-Qaeda members were enrolled? The answers are no, no, no and no. Although he has frequently spoken about September 11, he has never even mentioned that he blew the best chance to prevent the tragedy by ignoring this memo.
After the attacks, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which granted the President and Executive Branch sweeping new powers to fight terrorism. This Act expires December 31, unless renewed. While only Senator Russ Feingold objected to the original bill, many other Senators (including a few Republicans) oppose renewal without some changes.
Most controversial is Section 215, which allows government agents to collect personal data on Americans, such as medical and library records without evidence linking them to a crime, and makes it illegal to reveal that the information was collected. (2)
Since conservatives are opposed to a big and intrusive federal government, you would expect them to object to 215. Yet most of the self-described conservatives in Congress want the Patriot Act passed without any changes at all.
Similarly, President Bush claims the right to monitor telephone conversations without a warrant, even though warrants are readily available for true national-security wiretaps through special secret courts. The Bush Doctrine on Security can be summarized as follows:
1. If the US is attacked, the President must be granted more power to deal with the threat.
2. If the US is attacked again, that is proof that the powers granted in Par. 1 above were not enough, and he needs even more power.
3. If several years pass,and the US is not attacked again, that is proof that the powers granted the President have worked, and should continue in the future.
4. During wartime, the President has the power to do whatever he deems necessary to defend America.
5. During peacetime, the President has the right to attack any country he believes is developing weapons of mass destruction. If he does so, it is then wartime, so Paragraph 4 applies, and the President can do anything.
September 11 has become George Bush's "Reichstag Fire" (3). There is no conceivable set of circumstances that would convince him or his backers that excessive presidential power is a threat to the liberties of the American people. If not challenged now, the precedents now being established can result in derogatory information about Americans landing in some federal database, where it can later be used for political smears, blackmail, or unjust denial of government employment.
Congress must take a strong stand against these encroachments on our freedom and privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Until September 11, 2001, flight crews were instructed to co-operate with hijackers, since hijacked planes had never crashed before.
(2) Library records can be especially misleading. For example, the fact that I read a library copy of Islamic Government by Ayatollah Ruallah Khomeini does not reveal my attitude toward jihad.
(3)After a fire destroyed the Reichstag (German Parliament)Building in 1933, the body granted drastic new powers to the government of Chancellor Adolf Hitler to deal with subversion.
Initial clause of the Fourth Amendment to the Constititution of the United States
We all want both security and freedom, but must recognize that, given the threats that exist in today's world, sometimes one must be offset against the other. The debate now taking place in Washington over the renewal of the Patriot Act, Pentagon monitoring of anti-war activity and National Security Agency electronic eavesdropping on telephone calls illustrates the tension between the two concepts.
We all want to avoid a repeat of the September 11 attacks, and also prevent bombings like those that hit both Spain and England. Looking back, however, the problem was not lack of information, but failure to act on information our government had.
On August 8, 2001, President Bush received a CIA memo warning that Al-Qaeda was planning to use hijacked airliners in a terrorist attack. French police had recently thwarted a hijacking in Paris that was intended to crash a plane into the Eifel Tower. Did Presdient Bush immediately warn all US airlines? Did he tighten rules for bringing knives (including box-cutters) in carry-on luggage? Did he alert the FAA to require stronger cockpit security and insist that hijackers under no circumstances be allowed to fly a plane? (1) Did he order a check of American flight schools to see if any known al-Qaeda members were enrolled? The answers are no, no, no and no. Although he has frequently spoken about September 11, he has never even mentioned that he blew the best chance to prevent the tragedy by ignoring this memo.
After the attacks, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which granted the President and Executive Branch sweeping new powers to fight terrorism. This Act expires December 31, unless renewed. While only Senator Russ Feingold objected to the original bill, many other Senators (including a few Republicans) oppose renewal without some changes.
Most controversial is Section 215, which allows government agents to collect personal data on Americans, such as medical and library records without evidence linking them to a crime, and makes it illegal to reveal that the information was collected. (2)
Since conservatives are opposed to a big and intrusive federal government, you would expect them to object to 215. Yet most of the self-described conservatives in Congress want the Patriot Act passed without any changes at all.
Similarly, President Bush claims the right to monitor telephone conversations without a warrant, even though warrants are readily available for true national-security wiretaps through special secret courts. The Bush Doctrine on Security can be summarized as follows:
1. If the US is attacked, the President must be granted more power to deal with the threat.
2. If the US is attacked again, that is proof that the powers granted in Par. 1 above were not enough, and he needs even more power.
3. If several years pass,and the US is not attacked again, that is proof that the powers granted the President have worked, and should continue in the future.
4. During wartime, the President has the power to do whatever he deems necessary to defend America.
5. During peacetime, the President has the right to attack any country he believes is developing weapons of mass destruction. If he does so, it is then wartime, so Paragraph 4 applies, and the President can do anything.
September 11 has become George Bush's "Reichstag Fire" (3). There is no conceivable set of circumstances that would convince him or his backers that excessive presidential power is a threat to the liberties of the American people. If not challenged now, the precedents now being established can result in derogatory information about Americans landing in some federal database, where it can later be used for political smears, blackmail, or unjust denial of government employment.
Congress must take a strong stand against these encroachments on our freedom and privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Until September 11, 2001, flight crews were instructed to co-operate with hijackers, since hijacked planes had never crashed before.
(2) Library records can be especially misleading. For example, the fact that I read a library copy of Islamic Government by Ayatollah Ruallah Khomeini does not reveal my attitude toward jihad.
(3)After a fire destroyed the Reichstag (German Parliament)Building in 1933, the body granted drastic new powers to the government of Chancellor Adolf Hitler to deal with subversion.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 11:46 AM
1 Comments:
Im am going to strongly disagree here. The President must use the means necesary to protect American lives, first and foremost.
Few would argue that spying on Al Queda types is the wrong thing to do. At best, one can argue that this policy causes a slippery slope to a "big brother" society.
I dont believe that to be true. There have been other times in US history when personal rights were abridged for the sake of national security (WW II and the Civil War for example). In each case, rights were reassigned FOLLOWING the threats end.
Given the hisotrical record, the overwhelming need to save lives and the fact the spying is focused on the enemy, Bush policy needs bipartisa support
Dag
Post a Comment
<< Home