In this case, despite their mission, the ACLU is wrong and are NOT protecting Civil Liberties
by Jack GrantWhile 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
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
The random searches now allowed in New York are not a small thing … most of the population of NY has no other way to get around .. the police now have the right to seach a majority of the population of New York at random … the option to not take the subway is BS most of these people have no other way to get to work … who watches the watchers .. what are they allowed to look for …. I am a Vet that has been in combat .. though it was a long time aga .. Vietnam … and loss of freedom really bothers me ..
By Al Hill on 07.23.05 22:38
I guess misguided is in the eye of the beholder. I think it’s far more dangerous to lull the public into thinking they’re safer because of random searches. Either they search every single person - impossible of course - or they search no one. This strategy is like looking for a needle in a haystack. It only takes one bomber to get through and cause mayhem.
I’ve got a Kennedy half dollar that says a month from now, the NYPD will have netted a lot of small time drug possession busts but not a single bomb.
By The Impolitic on 07.24.05 00:21
:: DITTO :: Al and Impolitic ::
I get what you are trying to say Jack, yet giving up these civil rights is incredibly dangerous. In fact, it is doing exactly what your quote suggests. Where does it stop and who decides? Right now the field is wide open and it isn’t accomplishing a hell of a lot except giving the police abilities they don’t necessarily need and the FBI/CIA and Homeland Security the right to do just about anything they damned well please.
I refuse to live a life of fear, a fear perpetuated through Bush Tactics and real tragedy. Yet, life goes on regardless. At least in the US until someone is picked up and imprisoned without trial because they were in a vehicle with some washing machine timers that were not theirs and they were of middle-eastern origins.
Do you want to know my fear Jack? I belong to several groups, well-known ones for many many years, whose web sites and memberships have been tracked by the government because they protest the war, protest abuse and protest the environmental damage due to this administrations policies…as well as others. So, the gov has my name, they know my leanings, they have a database on me …and….I’m surpposed to feel more secure because of this, or you, or someone else? I think Not. Do you know how many times they have hit my site? Way more than necessary for an idle peek and it really creeps me out now…whereas, 10 years ago, I wouldn’t have cared. Too much info in the wrong hands is a very bad thing….. let’s just have another McCarthy era…cripes! Have you been strip searched at the airport before because someone saw the book you were reading, or didn’t like your tinted glasses or your clothing or ethnicity or the bag you were carrying and just picked you out of a crowd because of it?
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I agree with Franklin, 100%.
“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.” Jack, there is very little if any balance right now, reagrding just about anything. Granted, it could be a hell of a lot worse, but I still wouldn’t want to give up one single civil right, not ever. Once given up Jack, its rare to recieve back what was once a temporary solution. See Patriot Act renewal of grandfathered clauses as one example of this.
“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.” I agree wholeheartedly…but, …
When is enough, enough Jack? Where does it stop? I’m sorry Jack, but the ACLU is right. Your post kind of surprises me after the others you have provided about the Patriot Act and FISA, etc.
By Sinequanon on 07.24.05 07:09
Check this out:
Now we get the JOY of Random Strip Searches at Subway Stations
By Sinequanon on 07.24.05 08:55
Searching is a necessity and since we have no “right” to use the Subway (it is a service we pay for) then we must conform with what is needed to use that service. If you do not want to be searched, do not use the service.
If you cannot get around without it then I guess you have no choice beyond moving out of NY.
The ACLU should protect our inalienable rights. Using the subway without seach is not an “inalienable” right.
By Kevin on 07.24.05 14:11
Balance of Civil Liberties and Security
Random Fate has a good discussion of the balance of civil liberties versus security. This time the tension is with the searches in the NY subway system.
My position: We need to protect our inalienable rights of freedom. Riding the subway is not a righ…
By The Command T.O.C. on 07.24.05 14:28
It would be reasonable to expect that a person carrying a barrel of black powder with the intention of lighting it in a public area could be spotted.
Modern explosives require an appearance no different from that of ana verage person, and actions no different than one using a cell phone, or reaching for a wallet.
At which point the question becomes, how are random searches making the public safer? If the terrorists and criminals are becoming less susceptible to traditional methods, while the general populace has the same requirements of privacy, stepping up ’security’ has the result of less and less safety for more and more infringement of our rights.
That is, what we are doing is saying that we are prepared to hand over more and more of our rights in exchange for safety. Or, in this case, the perception of safety.
NY does not have the personnel nor the proper geography to make random searches effective. It is a sop to public fears that infringes everyone’s rights while not protecting society. Like modern US airport security, it is an example of not taking terrorism seriously, and instead focusing on ‘doing something’. And there are those who use the desire to be seen ‘doing something’ to protect Americans as a tool to get the powers they desire.
By Kerlyssa on 07.24.05 15:38
Liberty, Security, Privacy, & Social Responsibility
national identity card is not dangerous because it is at odds with some inherent truth, but because of the practical possibility that it could be misused by a government more intent on silencing its enemies than protecting its citizens.
By Choosing Hope on 08.01.05 07:49
Your doubting commenters may be right in this particular instance, -I’m not sure-, but your point stands in any case - there is a balance to be struck, and it will not invariably be the case that privacy should be sacrosanct over the greater public good.
By Walker on 08.01.05 07:54