Sometimes we mistake murder with terrorism. Murder is to take a person's life -- plain and simple. Terrorism is something much more pernicious. It shields itself behind murder and blood, only to accomplish its ultimate goal: incredible fear and a frantic departure from strongly-held principles.
As we removed a vicious criminal from power in Iraq, and wiped out another in Pakistan, the U.S. and the global community alike were ready to claim victory in the fight against terrorism. But while they may have gotten their revenge against murder, the effects of terrorism still remain. Unfortunately, some of the world's most powerful leaders are beginning to sound more and more like the ruthless dictators they used to condemn. And it's all in the name of the war against terrorism.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, President Bush and private industries teamed up to spy on innocent Americans without any warrants. This was, of course, illegal, but in the name of terrorism, the public kept quiet.
Recently, similar efforts to undermine the rule of law have seeped into American culture. The New York City Police Department, for example, is under investigation by the Justice Department for their unwarranted surveillance of innocent Muslims. In Britain, lawmakers passed sweeping legislation allowing the government to obtain information on innocent civilians' phone calls, emails, and Internet activity. The reason? You guessed it: terrorism.
The Supreme Court, which is meant to be the ultimate protector of justice, ruled on Monday that law enforcement may strip-search people arrested for any offense, even if their is no reason to suspect the presence of contraband. Most disturbingly, Senator Kelly Ayotte recently rose before the U.S. Senate and declared, "No member of Al Qaeda, no terrorist, should ever hear the words 'You have the right to remain silent.'"
Now, you may think supporting these efforts makes you seem "tough on terrorism." But I am aware of no time in history that the U.S. was so willing to abandon essential values with virtually no opposition. That, folks, is exactly what Al Qaeda wanted.
Make no mistake, what Americans and other global citizens have gone through in the past decade has been utterly excruciating. We have seen too many die and have spent far too much money. But when did it become acceptable or rational for government to use grief as an excuse to trample on our rights?
For some reason, our rights have become nothing more than technicalities -- nuisances that simply get in the way of the ultimate fight against crime. But our rights are essential, and are perhaps the best tool we have to eradicate terrorism, once and for all. If our most basic rights rights -- privacy, access to counsel, etc. -- were meaningless, then why did our founders devote an entire Bill of Rights to that cause?
Just as we have three branches of government to ensure one does not gain too much power, the same holds true for criminal justice. Rights serve as a check on law enforcement, pushing them to obtain as much evidence as they can and carry out legitimate investigations. That leads to more efficient and effective policing, with less attention paid on innocent individuals and more on the real perpetrators.
Rest assured: any terrorist who is watching right now, as the so-called "greatest nation on earth" questions and relinquishes its values, is proclaiming sweet victory. If we really want to get tough, let's see one of our leaders stand up and say, "You can kill us, and you can even level our cities. But you can never -- ever -- make us forget who we are and what we stand for."
Now that sounds tough.
Follow Jess Coleman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jesskcoleman
With that out of the way, I agree that the Government oversteps its bounds when it doesn't obtain the necessary warrant, and that across the board allowance of strip searches is overreach.
On Al Awlaki in specific, there should be a review of some sort before any American is terminated with extreme prejudice by the State. And it must have very specific stipulations. And it must be made public.
We cannot allow terrorists to hide in inaccessible war zones, organize attacks on our soil, and leave them alone because they have citizenship in this country which they are currently trying to destroy.
The question how you do that in a way that balances individual freedom and quality of life with security and minimal intrusion? There is nothing wrong with surveillance as long as it’s done for lawful purposes and is not exploited for political or criminal abuses. My take it is better to profile the travelers rather subject everybody to the inane and ineffective security screening in our airport that accomplishes nothing but waste of resources and harassment of travelers… All discoveries of impending terrorist acts were based on intelligence information, NOT Security measures at the airports that proved to be a complete farce…. Your assertion that Al Qaeda cares about the West human rights value is incredulous, they want to destroy the West and its modern life practices that are an anathema to their 8th century ways of life and Sharia law….
The war against terrorists is a war because the terrorists have declared war on the writ of all states around the world that challenge them.
These terrorists too often hide behind religion in the same way that other criminals, gangsters and thugs have hidden behind ethnic backgrounds, communities, families and friends.
It is possible to arrest these terrorists, but when battling someone in a war like this one (it is a war) then you have to be able to defend yourself against those enemies and their backers, often having to find the places where the criminals and gangsters are spreading their vile message in order to help them commit crimes and atrocities for the sake of destroying our ways of life.
Some of these criminals and thugs who hide behind religion may even have assistance from external states such as Iran.
BTW I agree with your assessment.
Semper Fi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
We may think that we are not the same as the other [Empires] but that is just not true.
Rome over extended its' power and into regions that it simply could not controll.Great Britton did the same.We tried in southeast Asia and 50 years later we still spend fortunes for little return.
i 'Hope' for your sake that you and your peers can make history and win this 'War on Terror';however it will come to the power of the 'Pen' and not the sword.War always breeds new Warriors!
Great post...keep on digging. The sad truth is that our whole political system and in turn, our foreign policy is clearly not operating in a way that is the for the best interests of the American people.
It makes me cringe when an American President proclaims that his #1 priority is to keep people safe. WRONG! The President's #1 priority is to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
I think Ben Franklin said it best: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
As someone who rides the NYC subway to work everyday and faces the reality that some terrorist could easily detonate a bomb killing me, I prefer to take that chance of being killed with my rights intact rather than give them up and hope that they stop the terrorist with the information collected from violating the constitution.
Looking forward to hear more from you on these subjects this summer at the beach in between our volleyball games.
Matt
The liberties referred to by Franklin, Hamilton, and others were basic liberties such as self-determination, freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly, and freedom from unlawful taking of property (e.g., lodging and quartering of soldiers).
I realize this comment may sound a little snide, but breaking out historical quotes in this context is anachronistic at best and manipulative at worst. It is simply not credible to suggest that the founding fathers would have ANY specific opinion on this matter as the concept of liberty and basic freedoms has changed so much in the ensuing centuries. Ergo, the Ben Franklin quote is really an appeal to a false authority.
The Star Chamber was still a criminal/civil court, where the defendent was physically aprehended. That was a different time and era. The whole point of extrajudiciary killings of American citizens abroad is that those citizens are not possible/practical to capture, making that a flawed analogy. Further, the impetus for carrying out the killings is that they are doing active harm to the US, (e.g., plotting events similar to the 9/11 attacks) and we have new technlology to eliminate them that did not exist decades or centuries ago.
Would Truman have avoided bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki if American lives would have been lost? We already have the answer to that: there were POWs and people with dual citizenship at the bombing cites.
Those POW's in Japan were not the target, but regardless, pursuant to today's standards Truman would be a war criminal. Look at all of the innocent civilians he killed. It's been a war crime since Nuremberg.
Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944)