Liberty and Security
This powerful piece was recently brought to my attention by this post of John's. Extended discussion lies beneath the cut.
Keith Olbermann believes that by signing the Military Commissions Act with the intent to execute it, President Bush has injured American civil liberties. Though I disagree with Mr. Olbermann in some of the particulars, I agree with his thesis.
A plain reading of the Military Commissions Act shows that the President of the United States has asked for and received the official, legislated power to indefinitely detain non-citizens suspected of terrorist activity. Make no mistake, this is a very long way from claiming the power to detain citizens in such a manner - the Constitution is a contract between the sovereign citizenry and its servants, after all. But the potential for abuse of such a program (how does one in fact prove that he is a citizen?) makes it a clear and present danger to the liberties of the American people.
And yet I find that, for the time being, I still support the President and his Adminstration. How could this be? Is it that I do not care for our ancient liberties as much as the esteemed Mr. Olbermann?
My answer is simply this: America finds herself at war. And war, as surely as night follows day, does violence to liberty. Look at the three historical examples that Mr. Olbermann pointed to as precedents to buttress his case against the President: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the Red Scare of 1917, and the Japanese Internment Camps. All of them corresponded with eras when America was fragile and threatened from abroad. All of them were deemed necessary at the time. All were harshly criticized at the time and by history as unconscionable power grabs. And most importantly of all, when the crises had passed, all were eventually repealed.
Most Americans do not like to admit the fact that there is, in fact, a trade-off between liberty and security. There are societal configurations that are not Pareto-optimal in this regard, in that there are ways to increase security without it coming at the expense of liberty, or vice-versa. The U.S.A., circa 2006, is not one of these. After 230 years or so of hashing this out, we're running pretty close to the possibility frontier.
Now, were it up to me, I would turn the knob as far toward liberty as I could and take my chances. After all, I am on record as supporting such radical ideas as complimentary firearms on airliners to deter hijacking. Unfortunately, my fellow citizens repeatedly demonstrate that such an imbalance - a devolution of risk and responsibility - is unacceptable to them. They demand security and they demand that the State provide it.
Given this state of affairs, I think that the President has done as well as could be expected. To test this assertion, think of all of the war powers that the President has not claimed. He has not raised taxes to stratospheric levels - in fact, Federal taxation is on a downward slope despite large increases in defense spending. He has not instituted a draft, even though he could have easily had one at any point between September 2001 and March of 2003. He has not closed down newspapers for releasing State secrets. He has not had his political opponents jailed. He has not even tried to commit forces to battle without Congressional approval.
So, for those of you who were alarmed and dismayed by Mr. Olbermann's piece, be calm. Understand that such things happen in wartime. But nurse your hatred over these long months, for there can be no doubt that this expedience is a stain on the national honor. And when the war is over and the troops come home, revel in the shredding of the Military Commissions Act.
This too shall pass.
-Nick
Keith Olbermann believes that by signing the Military Commissions Act with the intent to execute it, President Bush has injured American civil liberties. Though I disagree with Mr. Olbermann in some of the particulars, I agree with his thesis.
A plain reading of the Military Commissions Act shows that the President of the United States has asked for and received the official, legislated power to indefinitely detain non-citizens suspected of terrorist activity. Make no mistake, this is a very long way from claiming the power to detain citizens in such a manner - the Constitution is a contract between the sovereign citizenry and its servants, after all. But the potential for abuse of such a program (how does one in fact prove that he is a citizen?) makes it a clear and present danger to the liberties of the American people.
And yet I find that, for the time being, I still support the President and his Adminstration. How could this be? Is it that I do not care for our ancient liberties as much as the esteemed Mr. Olbermann?
My answer is simply this: America finds herself at war. And war, as surely as night follows day, does violence to liberty. Look at the three historical examples that Mr. Olbermann pointed to as precedents to buttress his case against the President: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the Red Scare of 1917, and the Japanese Internment Camps. All of them corresponded with eras when America was fragile and threatened from abroad. All of them were deemed necessary at the time. All were harshly criticized at the time and by history as unconscionable power grabs. And most importantly of all, when the crises had passed, all were eventually repealed.
Most Americans do not like to admit the fact that there is, in fact, a trade-off between liberty and security. There are societal configurations that are not Pareto-optimal in this regard, in that there are ways to increase security without it coming at the expense of liberty, or vice-versa. The U.S.A., circa 2006, is not one of these. After 230 years or so of hashing this out, we're running pretty close to the possibility frontier.
Now, were it up to me, I would turn the knob as far toward liberty as I could and take my chances. After all, I am on record as supporting such radical ideas as complimentary firearms on airliners to deter hijacking. Unfortunately, my fellow citizens repeatedly demonstrate that such an imbalance - a devolution of risk and responsibility - is unacceptable to them. They demand security and they demand that the State provide it.
Given this state of affairs, I think that the President has done as well as could be expected. To test this assertion, think of all of the war powers that the President has not claimed. He has not raised taxes to stratospheric levels - in fact, Federal taxation is on a downward slope despite large increases in defense spending. He has not instituted a draft, even though he could have easily had one at any point between September 2001 and March of 2003. He has not closed down newspapers for releasing State secrets. He has not had his political opponents jailed. He has not even tried to commit forces to battle without Congressional approval.
So, for those of you who were alarmed and dismayed by Mr. Olbermann's piece, be calm. Understand that such things happen in wartime. But nurse your hatred over these long months, for there can be no doubt that this expedience is a stain on the national honor. And when the war is over and the troops come home, revel in the shredding of the Military Commissions Act.
This too shall pass.
-Nick