While I understand the fundamental principles that the ACLU is arguing in favor of when they state, “Random searches of people without the suspicion of wrongdoing are contrary to our most basic constitutional values,” I believe that, given the nature of terrorist attacks, certain formerly innocuous activity does indeed provide a suspicion of wrongdoing that can justify random searches without violating the principle espoused by Benjamin Franklin, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Since I keep that quote in my sidebar here, obviously I hold the principle behind it very dear.
We must be reasonable, however, as Benjamin Franklin taught us to be.
If a man in the street in Boston lit the fuse to a grenade with equivalent explosive power of today in the time when Franklin abided there, he would certainly view that man in a different light than an average man on the street.
Unfortunately for our freedoms, large explosives now come in compact packages with no need of flint and tinder to ignite the fuse, and the suspicion of wrongdoing is proportionately lowered because “essential liberty” does NOT include the ability to kill large numbers with ease.
The struggle is between liberty and safety, as it always has been, but now the struggle is waged in a society and culture that has valued the freedom of the individual at the expense of a larger social responsibility that was so ingrained in the culture of the founders that it literally went without saying in most of their writings.
Some of that sense of social responsibility still exists in cultures based upon freedom, such as the heightened awareness of the riders of the Tube in London in the wake of the bombings on 7 July 2005 and their willingness to act two weeks later, even if unsuccessfully, in detaining people who are obviously trying to perpetrate harm.
The struggle is between liberty and safety, as it always has been, but we must be sure that we balance the two imperatives and do not allow fears to rule the day as they all too often do.
Who is “we”?
It is all of us.
Yet, our responsibility does not end in a heightened awareness and a willingness to act when we see people throwing backpacks onto crowded trains or buses.
Our responsibility is also to keep our government from over-reaching in a quest that claims to be to “defeat the terrorists” but in reality limits the freedoms and liberties of us all for insufficient reason and completely inadequate results.
Terrorists are criminals, evil that is not to be trusted.
However, despite any good intentions, expanding the power of government over the individual is also to eternally be regarded with extreme suspicion.
The best defense, a well-informed citizenry.
The worse defense, oppression by default.
Take the time to think.
—
Update: More can be found on the difficulties of the balance between Civil Liberties and apparent safety at The Christian Science Monitor.
Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, politics