Civil liberties under threat: The real price of freedom

[question everything]

Civil liberties under threat

The real price of freedom
Sep 20th 2007
From The Economist print edition

It is not only on the battlefield where preserving liberty may have to cost many lives

“THEY hate our freedoms.” So said George Bush in a speech to the American Congress shortly after the attacks on America in September 2001. But how well, at home, have America and the other Western democracies defended those precious freedoms during the “war on terror”?

As we intend to show in a series of articles starting this week (see article)*, the past six years have seen a steady erosion of civil liberties even in countries that regard themselves as liberty's champions. Arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention without trial, “rendition”, suspension of habeas corpus, even torture — who would have thought such things possible?

Governments argue that desperate times demand such remedies. They face a murderous new enemy who lurks in the shadows, will stop at nothing and seeks chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. This renders the old rules and freedoms out of date. Besides, does not international humanitarian law provide for the suspension of certain liberties “in times of a public emergency that threatens the life of the nation”? There is great force in this argument. There is, alas, always force in such arguments. This is how governments through the ages have justified grabbing repressive new powers. During the second world war the democracies spied on their own citizens, imposed censorship and used torture to extract information. America interned its entire Japanese-American population—a decision now seen to have been a cruel mistake.

(snip)


When liberals put the case for civil liberties, they sometimes claim that obnoxious measures do not help the fight against terrorism anyway. The Economist is liberal but disagrees. We accept that letting secret policemen spy on citizens, detain them without trial and use torture to extract information makes it easier to foil terrorist plots. To eschew such tools is to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind your back. But that — with one hand tied behind their back — is precisely how democracies ought to fight terrorism.

Take torture, arguably the hardest case (and the subject of the first article in our series). A famous thought experiment asks what you would do with a terrorist who knew the location of a ticking nuclear bomb. Logic says you would torture one man to save hundreds of thousands of lives, and so you would. But this a fictional dilemma. In the real world, policemen are seldom sure whether the many (not one) suspects they want to torture know of any plot, or how many lives might be at stake. All that is certain is that the logic of the ticking bomb leads down a slippery slope where the state is licensed in the name of the greater good to trample on the hard-won rights of any one and therefore all of its citizens.

(snip)

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9833041


* Is torture ever justified?

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9832909

[jody]

1. When discussing civil liberties, remember the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. n/t

[lips]

2. When...

will the vast majority of Americans who, by all accounts, were not using the liberties given them by the Bill of Rights care about the principles that found the rights in this countries?

Most people haven't felt the squeeze by the devolution of liberties in the US. Should the American people be pushed that far if it means that people will start to stand up for the liberties that given to everyone, even if they aren't using them?

I also have a feeling that our liberties, other than the ill-defined right to privacy, have just been distracting us from doing anything about the mass death perpetrated by our government in select areas of the world for the last few generations.

I beg all of you, someone needs to find a way to make a fire hazard out of the capitol lawn.

[JDPriestly]

3. Our American Constitution answers this question.

The Fifth Amendment states unequivocally "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF . . . .

Any discussion about torture that does not start from this absolute prohibition on self-incrimination which is the very core of our Constitution is un-American. The Founding Fathers made this one a no-brainer. Congress needs to pass a resolution reminding every member of any government in the U.S. including anyone in the military or civilian police or attorney general offices that the Fifth Amendment applies to any person not just American citizens. The Fifth Amendment is a prohibition of certain kinds of government action. It is a "protection" against certain kinds of government acts. It is absolute. There could not be a clearer statement of the fact that torture is off the table for any American government agency. This should end the discussion.

Have you heard any discussion of the Fifth Amendment from the clowns in the news or even in Congress? If anyone mentioned it, I missed it.