Is Freedom Just Another Word for Not Being Bombed?

Matt Welch | February 14, 2005

Glenn Reynolds, while linking to our February interview with Neal Stephenson, tosses off this snappy one-liner:

I think that the best thing for civil liberties in America is that we've gone over 3 years without another 9/11 style attack.

In one sense this is undeniably true -- the next attack will certainly cause further encroachments on our constitutional liberties (let alone the liberty of those who are slaughtered), and this is an excellent reason to be worried. But this logic, can be -- and already has been -- used to justify any number of government activities that not only harm civil liberties, but very arguably make it more difficult to prosecute the war on terror. One of the most infuriating things about Jane Mayer's must-read New Yorker article on extraordinary rendition is how the practice has crippled a number of prosecutions against, um, terrorists, in addition to producing a bunch of -- surprise! -- utterly useless and misleading confessions and intelligence information.

If civil liberties and national security were a zero-sum game -- and this is not (as far as I can tell) what Reynolds believes, but it is within logical spitting distance of his sentence -- then totalitarianism would be the safest form of government. It's not.

Comments

Xrlq|2.14.05 @ 2:44PM|#

If you can spit all the way from Reynold's common position that some minor restrictions on civil liberties may sometimes be necessary to protect national security to your beet-red herring about civil liberties and national security being a zero-sum game, all I can say is damn, I'm impressed. That's one hell of a loogie.

|2.14.05 @ 2:44PM|#

This looks like a nice, quiet thread.

|2.14.05 @ 2:49PM|#

Get your glasses fixed, Matt, your aim's way off this week.

|2.14.05 @ 2:56PM|#

Not to put words in Glenn's mouth (Heh), but it would seem he's pointing out pessimistically that the war on terror is an excellent excuse for statists to put undue restrictions on civil liberties - and to judge from many of the criticisms of the Patriot Act, he's nailed it.

Perhaps Libertarians and the Left might find it's better to support winning the WOT as soon as possible so the Patriot Act can get scaled back sooner, too.

Steve Smith|2.14.05 @ 3:05PM|#

Come to think of it, it wasn't as if there was a "9/11 style attack" happening every year before 9/11. In order to successfully have a "9/11 style attack", you need to have detailed planning, a couple dozen very motivated terrorists, and fantastic luck (especially in regards to your adversary, which was asleep at the wheel with regards to the threat). Why should the Bush Administration (or the Patriot Act) get any credit for stopping something that was unlikely to happen over a three-year period anyway?

|2.14.05 @ 3:10PM|#

Excellent point Steve, and one that I've often made myself over the last three years: foreign terrorism was almost non-existent on US soil before 9/11. And 9/11 is the deadliest terrorist attack in history by almost an order of magnitude over the runners-up. It is a total outlier and thus not an appropriate standard for determining what security measures should be taken.

|2.14.05 @ 3:14PM|#

"Perhaps Libertarians and the Left might find it's better to support winning the WOT as soon as possible so the Patriot Act can get scaled back sooner, too."

What does victory in the War on Terror look like Paul? What does defeat look like?

Your post easily reads as a suggestion that we stop paying attention to the people who are flushing our Constitutional liberties down the toilet and ask why they're flushing our Constitutional liberties down the toilet. ...Root cause of the problem, huh? Are you one of those guys?

Terrorist bombs or Americans who want to flush my Constitutional rights to protect me from terrorists--I don't know what's worse.

I still think America will be the home of the brave even if it isn't the land of the free anymore. ...One of the worst things about cowards is that they're so frickin' loud.

|2.14.05 @ 3:26PM|#

When the USA PATRIOT (woot woot) Act was passed, there were sunset provisions included, out of recognition that some of its powers were emergency powers, that should rightfully lapse as the emergency passed. Remember, we didn't know if there were more attacks coming, if there were sleeper terror cells all over the country, or what. The argument was made that when the situation returned to normal, when we were no longer living with a strong possibility of similar attacks, the powers would not longer be appropriate.

But now, three years later, with no further attacks, the lack of attacks is being used not to justify allowing the PATRIOT powers to lapse, but to justify making them permanent.

Talk about a bait and switch.

Xrlq|2.14.05 @ 3:42PM|#

Terrorist bombs or Americans who want to flush my Constitutional rights to protect me from terrorists--I don't know what's worse.

... he said, posting from a prison cell, on his illegally smuggled laptop computer that just happened to be within WiFi range of the nearest Starbucks, shortly after being sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for expressing a viewpoint in violation of the Flushing Our Constitutional Rights Down The Toilet Act.

|2.14.05 @ 3:53PM|#

Warfare has invariably led to attacks on civil and political liberties in this country. For example, witness what the U.S. government did to The Masses in WWI.

What's interesting is that today, in many ways, we have far more liberty to say, write, etc., than we ever had in this country during past wars. This doesn't mean I want our liberty curbed, but it is good reflect on the lack of liberty in wartime the country experienced in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc.

|2.14.05 @ 3:56PM|#

Xlrq is being flippant. Why? He loves American paranoia in 2005. Loves it. Peace and prosperity would be hell - he wouldn't be able to scare anyone into consuming his topical falsehoods. Anyone who points out the possible consequences of Reynolds' apocalyptic logic is to be decried and derided - especially the journalist Welch. He'll get his reward after some Iraqi orphan sneaks a dirty bomb into Manhattan. XRLQ: mid-level functionary in the United State's Ministry of Truth!

|2.14.05 @ 4:05PM|#

"...nothing to fear but fear itself..."

americans have become sheeple waiting for the slaughter!!! and it is nigh.

i relinguish no freedoms/liberties for safety and no one holds a proxy vote for me on this.

fyodor|2.14.05 @ 4:06PM|#

GG,

If there were a forseeable end to this "war," that might be comforting.

gaius marius|2.14.05 @ 4:08PM|#

of course, reynolds talks about "winning" a war that can't be won any more than a war on drugs -- his opinion is worthless a priori.

but stephenson also errs when he says

terrorism is a much more formidable opponent of political liberty than government.

terrorism is the product of political desperation -- an inability to gain a voice, to change an intolerable situation. it is the consequence of the non-existence of political liberty. as such, al qaeda is best understood as responding primarily to american misrule by proxy in the mideast. it is the ally of political freedom for those who practice it.

but even if he means our liberty as imperators, having it practiced upon us, i think he is wrong. terrorism requires what statist, fascistic response? none. a responsible open society can continue to function essentially as it always did, dedicating police effort to undermine the criminal problem. the tyranny of the minority is not the inevitable outcome of civil rights and rule of law *if* individualism and its attendant ideology is prudently limited and has not destroyed the concept of rule of law.

the question of life or death to open society to me has nothing to do with two airliners and one building -- but whether or not we are still responsible to society and tradition, still limited in our individualism to the degree that we can (both right and left) trust the rule of law to see us through without either dramatic expansion or dramatic curtailment.

the american response to 9/11 of dramatic expansion has been TOTALLY irrational and disproportionate -- there's little rational about any of it, near as i can tell. and that is a function not of terrorism but of government, particularly our plebiscitarian model. government -- rule by a panicked mob, convinced that abstracted idealism born of individualism must supercede the laws borne of collective custom -- is what ails us.

9/11 simply exposed to the light of day that latent fascism that has been building within america society since the depression and fdr.

Xrlq|2.14.05 @ 4:10PM|#

Just keep telling yourself that, Yep. Anyone who mocks your paranoia must love someone else's.

|2.14.05 @ 4:16PM|#

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Justice William O. Douglas, (1898-1980)

Is it just me or is the light just a little dimmer?

|2.14.05 @ 4:18PM|#

"it is the ally of political freedom for those who practice it. "

Nothing says freedom like Islamic law, except maybe violence against innocent people.

gaius marius|2.14.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Nothing says freedom like Islamic law, except maybe violence against innocent people.

lol -- you misunderstand me, mr wellfellow, and maybe them.

when has bin laden explicitly stated that their goal is the implementation of a totalitarian state under his rulership? despite the american impression, the answer is never. as buchanan noted, they fight to get us out of the mideast. we too easily easily lose sight of that, imo.

my point is that if they were free to implement whatever they wanted, they would have no need of terrorism. they are fighting -- and have widespread sympathy among muslims -- because we are there and they have zero political capacity to address that situation. this is a common trait of most terrorist movements from ireland to algeria to palestine.

gaius marius|2.14.05 @ 4:35PM|#

and none of that, plainly, is to say i think their goals (beyond getting us out of there) have moral merit or my support.

that i even have to say that is bizarre, hm?

|2.14.05 @ 4:42PM|#

"... he said, posting from a prison cell, on his illegally smuggled laptop computer that just happened to be within WiFi range of the nearest Starbucks, shortly after being sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for expressing a viewpoint in violation of the Flushing Our Constitutional Rights Down The Toilet Act."

If I had my sentence to write over again, I would have dropped the "bombs" and just written:

"Terrorists or Americans who want to flush my Constitutional rights down the toilet to protect me from terrorists--I don't know what's worse."

...Feel better?

P.S. What does victory in the War on Terror look like? What does defeat look like?

|2.14.05 @ 4:47PM|#

fyodor,

Perhaps you are right.

Then again, think we have too much liberty in this particular war.

|2.14.05 @ 4:59PM|#

Gaius Marius wrote:
"terrorism is the product of political desperation -- an inability to gain a voice, to change an intolerable situation. it is the consequence of the non-existence of political liberty. as such, al qaeda is best understood as responding primarily to american misrule by proxy in the mideast. it is the ally of political freedom for those who practice it."

Indeed, it is only a tactic, nothing more. The issue becomes comical whenever politicians call for a War on Terrorism as if terrorism was a country or a group of people.

Whoever thinks of trading some liberties to obtain security, deserves neither liberty nor security - Benjamin Franklyn

|2.14.05 @ 5:12PM|#

"Indeed, it(terrorism) is only a tactic, nothing more."

Kinda depends on your point of view, eh?


"Whoever says that Islam is free from terrorism or wants to differentiate between Islam and terrorism is committing Al Juhoud and that is Kufr Akbar � and will take them out of the fold of Islam.

The one who says �we should fight against terrorism�, he is fighting against Islam. We know very well that USA meant no one else by the term �terrorists� but Islam and Muslims and the one who wants to avoid terrorism is avoiding Islam."

gaius marius|2.14.05 @ 5:26PM|#

The one who says ?we should fight against terrorism?, he is fighting against Islam.

but why is this so? al muhajiroun isn't saying this in the 15th c, after all. this is contextual to the times.

again, this is not that i support al-muhajiroun or its aims -- they seem a bit nuts, imo. but to say that terrorism is fundamental to islam is simply to lie; it's as fundamental to islam as it is to christianity or secularism or nationalism.

|2.14.05 @ 5:55PM|#

gaius marius is correct. You can argue both for and against the following examples, but they were meant to terrify, to smash the opponent not just physically, but mentally: The fire-bombing of Dresden and the dawn of the atomic age, the bombing of Japanese cities with nukes. Like I said, you can argue for and against such strategies, but now that we have the benefit of years of history, that was the purpose, definitive emotional and physical strikes. Creating terror in the hearts of our enemies.

Perhaps those who want to fight "terrorism" instead of specific enemies are acquiescing, perhaps even fully surrendering to Bin Ladens stated policy goal of the attacks in his first video statement. To destroy our freedom. Yes, he did give a boost to those who think like the Pres that "There ought to be a limit to Freedom".

|2.14.05 @ 7:08PM|#

So it's wrong to say that there should be a limit to freedom? So we should be free to murder and/or rape anyone we want?
I think we need to first ask ourselves whether we think NO government monopoly on force is EVER justified, or if a minimal state to enforce the no-harm principle is justified. If you think the latter is true, then I think you need to accept that SOME liberties will need to be sacrificed for the sake of security. I'm not saying that the Bush administration has drawn that line correctly.
But I think that declaring a war against the Islamic fundamentalists who seek to kill us is the right idea. I don't think that Bin Laden would stop attacking us if we refused to fight back... but then again, I'm not Neville Chamberlain.

|2.14.05 @ 8:55PM|#

"So it's wrong to say that there should be a limit to freedom? So we should be free to murder and/or rape anyone we want?"

So I'm guessin' you're new here?

"If you think the latter is true, then I think you need to accept that SOME liberties will need to be sacrificed for the sake of security. I'm not saying that the Bush administration has drawn that line correctly."

Sacrifice your own liberties and leave mine alone, thank you. By what authority does the Bush Administration draw that line? Has the President declared a State of Emergency?

"But I think that declaring a war against the Islamic fundamentalists who seek to kill us is the right idea. I don't think that Bin Laden would stop attacking us if we refused to fight back... but then again, I'm not Neville Chamberlain."

What does victory in the War on Terror look like to you? At what point do we win?

My picture of defeat in the War on Terror is of an America with much less freedom than we had before. What does your picture of defeat look like?

...You're not afraid of an Islamic fundamentalist America, are you?

|2.14.05 @ 10:32PM|#

Crash,

Your freedom cannot extend to exclude someone elses freedom. And your second point is good. So why won't the Pres declare war on those who attack us, like Saudi Arabia?

|2.14.05 @ 10:35PM|#

And I am suggestiong something more sinister, like maybe certain members of our government (and you) agree with the Bin Ladens of the world. "There ought to be a limit on freedom". How does it feel to agree with the enemies of the US?

|2.14.05 @ 11:50PM|#

"I don't think that Bin Laden would stop attacking us if we refused to fight back... but then again, I'm not Neville Chamberlain."

Try to learn a little history before mindlessly reciting neocon palaver.

Neville Chamberlain led Britain into WWII. He was primarily responsible for forging the mutual assistance pact with the Poles that guaranteed that the UK would go to war. When signing it, he knew, based upon Hitler's track record of abrogating treaties, that Hitler definitely would attack Poland. Thus, he definitely knew that Britian would go to war with Germany. He is the person mainly responsible for engineering Britain's entry into armed conflict with Hitler. This agreement was signed after Munich, BTW. He is the person who pushed the French into living up to their obligations, after they had so sheepishly failed to do so half a dozen times.

By working out the (politically popular) deal that put German-speaking residents of the Sudetenland back under German rule (as they had been up until 20 years previous) Chamberlain deprived Hitler of an excuse to seize *all* of Czechoslovakia, and bought himself an extra year to ramp up rearmament for the fight against Hitler that he knew was coming. You might be surprised to learn that after WW1, all the European powers disarmed themselves, and in the late 30s the British and French discovered that Germany had moved a lot further towards rearmament than either of them had. If they had chosen to go to war in 1938, the results for the Allies would have been far worse.

Chamberlain was basically the first in Europe to actively "fight back" against Hitler's agresssion. Thus, your simian recanting of the meme against him conflicts with historical reality.

If you take the Munich Pact at face value, you're a simple idiot.

|2.15.05 @ 2:34AM|#

fyodor,

Correction: Then again, many think we have too much liberty in this particular war.

Andrew Ian Dodge|2.15.05 @ 1:49PM|#

Nice line from Stephenson; thought that is not too shocking for such a good writer.