A friend recently asked me what I thought of the Patriot Act. My response:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been about 10 year since I considered that issue. To reacquaint myself with the opposing argument, I just skimmed two pieces at the Cato Institute on the Patriot Act and the relation between civil liberties and terrorism.
Unfortunately, they generally take a one-size-fits-all approach.
Libertarians have a legitimate distrust of gov't and abuse of power. However, the libertarian objection to the Patriot Act, at least what I've read or recall, involves a false premise, or erects a false dichotomy between liberty and security.
The false premise/dichotomy is that all of us must choose between liberty and security. It's predicated on equal treatment: treat known terrorists, accused terrorists, suspected terrorists, probable terrorists the same as normal American citizens who don't begin to fit a likely terrorist profile. Indeed, the very notion of "profiling" is verboten.
Well, if you presume an indiscriminate policy, then, of course, everyone loses some of his civil liberties in exchange for greater security. Everyone is subject to random screening, &c.
I've seen Ron Paul defend this one-size-fits-all approach.
That, however, is the epitome of politically correct ostrich posturing. I think we should profile and target the high-risk groups, viz. those at higher risk of fomenting terrorism (e.g. 20-something Muslim men). Likewise profile and target Muslim institutions in the US.
If we did that, then the vast majority of Americans wouldn't have to give up any civil liberties. That would be pretty much confined to Muslim-Americans (especially naturalized citizens) or Muslim foreign nationals (e.g. students from Muslim nations who study in the US).
Unfortunately, this is where libertarians make common cause with the liberal establishment.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSince you agree that the dichotomy is not false under the condition where an indiscriminate policy obtains, I think it's worth noting that libertarians like Ron Paul understand the Patriot Act to be an indiscriminate policy.
From _Liberty Defined_:
The Patriot Act represented a radical departure from the protections of the Fourth Amendment. It authorized self-written search warrants (FBI and other agents) and national security letters and essentially undermined the privacy of all Americans protected by our Constitution. No records are now safe from the government. All Americans are potential terrorists and subject to unrestrained searches by our government 'protectors'."
Perhaps Paul is wrong in his understanding of the Patriot Act. But I don't think it is accurate to portray him as operating under a false dichotomy.
-Joel
Ron Paul himself champions an indiscriminate policy: he simply reverses the presumption:
ReplyDelete"And terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a person. It isn't a people. So this is a very careless use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there are terrorists? You're the judge and the jury? No, they're suspects."
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1111/22/se.06.html
He's the flip side of the same coin.
The concern is not necessarily with how policies such as this will be used now, but how they might be used in the future.
ReplyDeleteAn indiscriminate policy works well when those who are in power are trustworthy, the policies are properly aimed, and the laws are appropriate.
What happens though, when Christians become the target of discriminatory laws (a process already begun)? The Founding Fathers' concern was with regard to the majority oppressing the minority.
The precedent is a dangerous one, in my opinion.
***
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
Ron Paul himself champions an indiscriminate policy: he simply reverses the presumption:
"And terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a person. It isn't a people. So this is a very careless use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there are terrorists? You're the judge and the jury? No, they're suspects."
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1111/22/se.06.html
He's the flip side of the same coin.
***
Ron Paul champions criminal law as the way in which to treat terrorists.
As the quote you offered reveals, Paul is concerned about policies where due process is absent in the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. This is not a smoking gun for an "indiscriminate policy" in the pejorative sense you intend. Otherwise, anyone who champions due process would be guilty of the same.
By the way, are you familiar with Paul's position on the TSA's pat-down policies?
-Joel