Random Thoughts 5

Does the war on terror threaten civil liberties in the US?

Short answer: No

Long Answer:

What are Americans’ “civil” liberties?
- The freedom of religion?
- The freedom of speech?
- The freedom of the press?
- The freedom to freely associate with others?
- The freedom to peaceably assemble?
- The freedom to seek redress of grievances?
- The freedom to own property?
- The freedom to travel?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government in our private lives and affairs?

Before we determine if the war on terror is threatening American’s civil liberties, we have to define what civil liberties we are talking about. Then we can rationally discuss what those threats are and how we should we deal with them.

First, freedom of religion, the right we have to worship (or not worship) god/gods in our own way (I hope that definition is sufficient for most). How has the war on terror affected this? Well, it has drawn scrutiny to Muslim mosques and for a very good reason: So far almost all of the terrorists who have attacked Americans at home and around the word recently have been Muslims. It stands to reason that a mosque, where Muslims congregate, would garner more attention from government’s limited resources than a Quaker meetinghouse. Quakers are not likely to go around blowing things up; so far, Muslims have done most of that. It makes sense to observe the Muslim community, where most of the latest crop of homicide bombers has emerged. To do otherwise, then those who are paid to protect and serve people and society at large would be terribly remiss. However, the government has not closed any mosques or threatened large numbers of Muslim-Americans with prison without charge and without recourse to judicial review.

Granted, a small number of Muslims (and yes a couple of thousand among six billion on the planet – or even less the 300 million in the United States – is a relatively small number) have been detained by the U.S. government, mostly non-U.S. citizens. Many, if not most, of those who have been detained already have been released. Some even have been documented as to having had returned to waging war on America and Americans.
Now, a brief digression: The U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and all the other codes and laws that govern American life are not a suicide pact. Vested in the power of the American government is the inherent power of doing whatever is necessary to protect the nation and its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. And we are at war ... and have been at war for many years ... with members of the Islamic civilization/culture/religion. We may not acknowledge this fact, but it is the truth, as the Jihadists go to some length to keep reminding us. The government of the United States (made up mostly of citizens of the U.S.) has an affirmative obligation to take measures, consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to protect Americans from these enemies. To do otherwise, would be malfeasance of the highest order. From all accounts, for better or worse, President George W. Bush is taking this task with utmost sincerity.

Other than observing, what has the Bush Administration actually done to infringe upon the right to worship freely in this country? No action whatsoever has been taken that I have heard and I doubt you will hear of any soon.

Freedom of Speech: No laws have been passed restricting speech as part of the war on terror that I am aware of, except maybe the PC codes at a variety of major colleges and universities and a number of “hate speech” laws aimed at criminalizing thoughts. I have seen no politicians of any stripe being hauled off to detention merely voicing their opinion. There have been a few, whose conduct has been less than savory, who have been hauled off for doing things that really were blatantly criminal ... bribery, selling votes, etc. However, no one has been hauled off to prison for saying vicious things about Dubya and accusing him of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, not that the president and his advisors don’t probably wish they could.

Freedom of the press: After one remembers that the freedom of the press extends only to he (or she) who owns the press, I know of no law or regulation stemming from the war on terror that has been used to shut down or limit any person, organization or business for saying whatever they want about the war on terror (which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, and a multitude of other fronts in a truly global conflict), even if some of which would be libel or slander if directed at a truly private citizen; or, if not that, considered treasonous in an earlier day and age. The only assault on the freedom of the press that I am aware of is the campaign to bring back the so-called “fairness doctrine”, which truly is an assault on the freedom of the press because injects government into decisions about what will or will not run or be aired those who own the presses (or radio or TV stations).

Freedom of association: Again, I know of no law that has been passed to criminalize associations ... unless you want to count local and state laws intended to curtail the criminal activities of gangs and organized crime. There, however, have been no laws passed that criminalize political associations whose views, tactics, outlooks may be less popular in the mainstream quarters. Yes, right-wing militias and black and white supremacy organizations still exist.

The freedom to peaceably assemble: How has this been infringed on in the past five years? Well, I don’t see large groups of protesters of any stripe being hauled off to jail, much less concentration camps. In fact, other that Guantanamo Bay (which is more of a war prison than a concentration camp), I have heard no reports, or even rumors, of any detention facilities for such protestors. Now there was the case of the imams on that airplane who as a group were asked to deplane after they made a disturbance and acted in such a fashion as to arouse the suspicions of the passengers and airline crew. It is like a supreme court justice once said, people do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you are acting like a duck, then you are liable to be treated like a duck and that is reality.

The freedom to seek redress of grievances: Just because Congress or the State Legislature or County Commission or City Council doesn’t act on your petition the way you want does not mean that your right to petition for redress of whatever grievances you may have has been infringed upon in any way ... just means other people disagree with you. No, the war on terror has had no impact on this right.

The freedom to own property? Again, at last look, we still have the right to own just about anything we want, except maybe drug paraphernalia but that is unrelated to the war on terror. So, I don’t see how the war on terror has impinged on our right to own stuff ... unless you count the prohibition on owning machineguns and other implements of war, which by all rights should be covered under the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Again, nothing in the government’s war on Islamic extremists have affected this right.

The freedom to travel: Other than have to undergo identity checks in airports and screening for carrying potential weapons, our freedom to travel anywhere in the U.S. (except a few top secret military bases in Nevada and Utah where they secretly test alien technology) has not been infringed upon. Granted, you do have to prove you aren’t carrying anything that might be classed as a weapon when you fly, but you have say that is an understandable requirement (although definitely overkill) in light of the events of 9/11/01.

The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property: Ah ha! Herein lies the rub, so to speak. Just how much expectation can we have of privacy from unwanted, versus unwarranted, intrusion on our property? Well, given the technology available to just about anybody with the right price, we have more to fear from our neighbors than we do than the government, which easily has the money to invest in the equipment. Unless every other person starts working for a government surveillance agency, government usually has to target its resources rather just cast wide nets.

In our modern world of web cams, cell cams, ubiquitous surveillance cameras, global telecommunications, the Internet, we are going to have to redefine our expectations of privacy. A junior high school hacker could do more to intrude on our privacy than the federal government ever can. Given the diffuse nature of the Internet, it is impossible to expect that anything you pass electronically from point A to Point B can truly be expected to be private. The same for anything said over the telephone or conveyed by any electronic means. In this world, there literally is no place to hide and no way to keep secrets. Too many people, mostly non-governmental actors, can find ways to monitor our communications, our activities, our lifestyles. The war on terror has done nothing to changes this, other than to make us all aware that some who are charged to watch over the safety of us all want the legal authority to do things Jack Bauer on “24” does on every episode (which is fantasy, but not reality).

Now, there is the question of the freedom of cruel and unusual punishments, which I supposed includes interrogation techniques for suspected and known terrorists seeking to do harm to Americans and/or America. Do different rules apply for non-U.S. citizens who have declared war on the U.S. and refuse to honor the Geneva Convention rules for combatants in wartime? Besides, what is “torture”? It reminds me of necessities and luxuries ... what is one man’s luxury is another man’s necessity. Again, unless the interrogators are more like Jack Bauer, I suspect that their techniques are a bit of a stretch to really call torture. Besides, at least we don’t videotape our interrogators slitting throats and cutting off heads, which we know the Jihadists do. And if you call the hijinks at Abu Graib prison torture, then I think you really must have led a sheltered existence. A fraternity hell week was worse than that.

No, the war on terror has not eroded Americans’ civil liberties. Those they had before are still there, unaffected by this administration or its opposition. If anything, technology poses a greater threat than the government but the American government, by design, is too incompetent and inefficient to be such a threat.