Trading Freedom For Security
By Tony DiPasquale (01/06/04)
Ben Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” No time in our history has this statement become more relevant than today with our current war against terrorism. The Second Circuit seemed to understand the dangers of this trade-off with their decision in the Jose Padilla case; still others prefer the Hobbesian approach, which suggests that all liberties are expendable in the name of security.
The questions before the court amounted to whether a United States citizen, on American soil, could be detained without being charged, and refused both legal council and his day in court. Amazingly, many have argued that Padilla’s actions amounted to that of an enemy combatant, not a common criminal, and therefore are not privy to the same protections of due process that other citizens enjoy. The inherent dangers of giving a government these sweeping powers should go without saying. Our Founding Father George Washington put it best when he said that “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
It is expected that proponents of the suspension of these liberties will point to both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt as proof that such actions are not only acceptable, but have not led to the tyranny and oppression many opponents fear. It is true that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and that FDR sent many Japanese-Americans to internment camps, both of which violated Americans’ rights. It is also true that shortly after these wars lost liberties were restored, but like a child playing with fire that eventually gets burned, how many times can we relinquish our precious liberties and still expect them back?
Still, if a citizen is guilty, why not take the steps necessary to prove his guilt in court? Perhaps there is a fear of breaching national security, but this seems to be a broad brush to which many can be unjustly imprisoned. Besides, the vast majority of experts have predicted that this war on terrorism could last for generations. With this in mind, a person could conceivably be imprisoned for life without ever having been able to defend himself in a court of law. This seems to be more in tune with the actions of a dictatorship than a free society.
Unfortunately, it appears that much of the public is so fearful of a terrorist attack that they are willing to allow fellow Americans suspected of terrorism to be imprisoned as a means of achieving some perceived level of security. What about the security of not being falsely arrested because of a possible mistaken identity? Imagine for the moment that you have just come home from work, are ready to sit down to dinner, when you hear a knock on the door. Upon answering the door you learn that you are believed to be a terrorist, possibly due to an uncanning resemblance, and are taken away, never to be seen by your loved ones again. Now the kicker, you are told that you will not be informed of the charges against you, nor will you be able to defend against these unknown allegations. I will concede that an error of this type occurring is probably slim, but is that enough reason to deny a citizen of their right to due process?
Needless to say, the use of these measures could have severe consequences if they were to fall into the hands of an unscrupulous person. While I am not suggesting that any of our current leaders would abuse this power, there is always the possibility that a future leader could use these tactics to suppress opposition. A bit dramatic possibly, but we must not forget that history is filled with men that have succumbed to the lure of corruption that their power has offered them.
Let me also clarify that I do not propose that non-citizens fighting against our troops in foreign lands need to be afforded the protections of due process. Some will inevitably argue that the only difference is the location of the battlefield and that we need to use all the means available to stem the threat of terrorism. Again, the benefits do not outweigh the threats to our liberty. As for me, I do not wish to exchange a few unpredictable terrorists, at home and abroad, for the constant and predictable terror of an oppressive government at home.
Admittedly, something more has to be done to prevent future terrorist attacks on our country. With the number of illegals currently in the U.S. estimated as high as eleven million, a good start would be to tighten our appallingly lax borders. If we cannot prevent eleven million people from illegally entering our country, how on earth can we hope to prevent terrorists from entering the country? Rather than combating the problem at its source we are increasing its chances exponentially by leaving our borders wide open.
Of course, the apparent answer to this problem has been to legalize those that are here illegally. How does this send a message to terrorists that we are serious about protecting our country? Is it not ironic that we appear to be more aggressive towards our own citizens than to those illegally entering our country? This says nothing of the millions spent on illegals that could be more effectively used to prevent undesirables from entering our country.
While no one is advocating that Congress sit idly by while our country is threatened by terrorist attacks, we should not be so quick to relinquish our liberties in order to “feel” safe, especially when little is being done to control our borders. If we choose to sacrifice our liberties in the name of security, then the terrorists have already won by destroying our way of life.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tony DiPasquale
