John Whitehead's Commentary
An "End Game" for Civil Liberties: Terrorism and the Threat to Our Freedoms
"Forget about 'exit strategies'; we're looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines."
These words, from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a recent New York Times editorial, may be the most realistic way to view the war against terrorism in a world transformed by the tragic events of September 11. However, the lack of a definite horizon or "end game" to this conflict raises fundamental questions about the future of our civil liberties--questions that must be addressed openly and honestly, questions that, as of yet, have been overlooked, even by vigilant defenders of freedom. In light of Attorney General John Ashcroft's continuing call to expand "police power" within the United States itself, we must be especially vigilant about debating and understanding these potential limits to our freedoms.
Essentially, the problem can be structured as follows: Engaging in war often involves a host of restrictions on one's way of life, including curtailments of certain civil liberties. Even if such infringements do not occur to the degree they did, for example, in World War II--and we should all pray they do not--they are sure to come about. While we grudgingly accept this as a necessary sacrifice, at least with regard to less egregious measures, we do so with the understanding that when this particular enemy is defeated, things will return to normal--and liberty will move forward. This time, however, as Rumsfeld noted, there is no end in sight--this "war" could be perpetual. Thus, any civil liberties we barter away now will likely never be returned.
To amplify, we all understand that the war on terrorism will not be just another war but a way of life for every American from this day forward. In the same way, any decisions we make about limits to our freedoms today won't just be wartime decisions--they will become the American way of life.
This isn't necessarily a bad outcome. Ensuring the security of our husbands, wives, children and friends may be worth some price paid in a loss of freedom. Americans have expressed a willingness to give up some liberty for greater security, but we certainly aren't willing to pay any price, as a recent Gallup Poll illustrates: 70 percent oppose allowing police to stop people on the street at random to search their possessions. But whatever bargain we ultimately strike, we should barter with eyes wide open, and not with the misconception that freedoms lost today may be regained tomorrow.
After the Civil War, habeas corpus protection revived. The free speech we lost in the aftermath of World War I was restored. Japanese-Americans returned home after World War II. This time, there will be no truce to signal the return of our freedoms.
To that end, albeit not in those terms, civil liberties groups around the country have urged Congress not to trample on American freedoms in the rush to pass anti-terrorism measures. The ACLU has published a 10-point manifesto entitled "In Defense of Freedom at a Time of Crisis" that has been endorsed by 127 different organizations. And Congress is paying some attention--several Senators have questioned the constitutionality of proposed anti-terrorism measures.
But the truth is that concerns for security and freedom will always conflict to some degree. Measures to increase security will inevitably curtail freedom, and vice versa. Irregardless of how attentive we may be about safeguarding our civil liberties, we will certainly experience some infringements as Congress grants its approval to popular, of-the-moment security measures. Yet even small infringements over time could become major compromises.
The important thing for Americans to realize is that, due to the new paradigm this war on terrorism represents, there is no horizon for recapturing any freedoms we relinquish today. This isn't World War II, when Americans justified--albeit wrongly--interning Japanese-Americans in camps because they would be released as soon as the danger passed, a decision explicitly endorsed by the Supreme Court as a necessary measure for war-time security.
In today's world, once we place a barbed wire fence around our civil liberties, they might never be freed. Thus, it is time for a fundamental rethinking of what we consider basic freedoms. We may decide--and I, for one, hope we do--that certain freedoms are simply too precious to sacrifice, at any cost, on the altar of security. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, "give me liberty, even if it might mean death."
Yet the outcome, at least for now, is perhaps less important than understanding that we are operating in a new paradigm. Americans must understand that not only is this a new kind of war on terrorism, it is a new kind of challenge to civil liberties. There is no end game for this conflict. The U.S. Constitution, if compromised now, will never be the same again.
Americans may decide that giving up some freedom is worth it. But they should do it with not only their own liberty in mind, but their grandchildren's as well. That will give Operation Enduring Freedom a whole new meaning.
These words, from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a recent New York Times editorial, may be the most realistic way to view the war against terrorism in a world transformed by the tragic events of September 11. However, the lack of a definite horizon or "end game" to this conflict raises fundamental questions about the future of our civil liberties--questions that must be addressed openly and honestly, questions that, as of yet, have been overlooked, even by vigilant defenders of freedom. In light of Attorney General John Ashcroft's continuing call to expand "police power" within the United States itself, we must be especially vigilant about debating and understanding these potential limits to our freedoms.
Essentially, the problem can be structured as follows: Engaging in war often involves a host of restrictions on one's way of life, including curtailments of certain civil liberties. Even if such infringements do not occur to the degree they did, for example, in World War II--and we should all pray they do not--they are sure to come about. While we grudgingly accept this as a necessary sacrifice, at least with regard to less egregious measures, we do so with the understanding that when this particular enemy is defeated, things will return to normal--and liberty will move forward. This time, however, as Rumsfeld noted, there is no end in sight--this "war" could be perpetual. Thus, any civil liberties we barter away now will likely never be returned.
To amplify, we all understand that the war on terrorism will not be just another war but a way of life for every American from this day forward. In the same way, any decisions we make about limits to our freedoms today won't just be wartime decisions--they will become the American way of life.
This isn't necessarily a bad outcome. Ensuring the security of our husbands, wives, children and friends may be worth some price paid in a loss of freedom. Americans have expressed a willingness to give up some liberty for greater security, but we certainly aren't willing to pay any price, as a recent Gallup Poll illustrates: 70 percent oppose allowing police to stop people on the street at random to search their possessions. But whatever bargain we ultimately strike, we should barter with eyes wide open, and not with the misconception that freedoms lost today may be regained tomorrow.
After the Civil War, habeas corpus protection revived. The free speech we lost in the aftermath of World War I was restored. Japanese-Americans returned home after World War II. This time, there will be no truce to signal the return of our freedoms.
To that end, albeit not in those terms, civil liberties groups around the country have urged Congress not to trample on American freedoms in the rush to pass anti-terrorism measures. The ACLU has published a 10-point manifesto entitled "In Defense of Freedom at a Time of Crisis" that has been endorsed by 127 different organizations. And Congress is paying some attention--several Senators have questioned the constitutionality of proposed anti-terrorism measures.
But the truth is that concerns for security and freedom will always conflict to some degree. Measures to increase security will inevitably curtail freedom, and vice versa. Irregardless of how attentive we may be about safeguarding our civil liberties, we will certainly experience some infringements as Congress grants its approval to popular, of-the-moment security measures. Yet even small infringements over time could become major compromises.
The important thing for Americans to realize is that, due to the new paradigm this war on terrorism represents, there is no horizon for recapturing any freedoms we relinquish today. This isn't World War II, when Americans justified--albeit wrongly--interning Japanese-Americans in camps because they would be released as soon as the danger passed, a decision explicitly endorsed by the Supreme Court as a necessary measure for war-time security.
In today's world, once we place a barbed wire fence around our civil liberties, they might never be freed. Thus, it is time for a fundamental rethinking of what we consider basic freedoms. We may decide--and I, for one, hope we do--that certain freedoms are simply too precious to sacrifice, at any cost, on the altar of security. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, "give me liberty, even if it might mean death."
Yet the outcome, at least for now, is perhaps less important than understanding that we are operating in a new paradigm. Americans must understand that not only is this a new kind of war on terrorism, it is a new kind of challenge to civil liberties. There is no end game for this conflict. The U.S. Constitution, if compromised now, will never be the same again.
Americans may decide that giving up some freedom is worth it. But they should do it with not only their own liberty in mind, but their grandchildren's as well. That will give Operation Enduring Freedom a whole new meaning.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
