A question sparks debates and increases understanding. That's a nice way of saying it though; as we humans tend to get mad and take it personal when someone questions our stance on an issue. An important issue that needs questioning is the fine line between security and our liberty during times of war. I will have different blog entries on a number of issues concerning security and our liberty. Texas Congressman and Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul has said, “There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom.” (Paul, Ron, "Is America a Police State?" speech delivered to the House of Representatives, June 27, 2002.) Benjamin Franklin once postulated on liberty and safety that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 [1963]). Congressman Dennis Kucinich previously stated, "America stands strongest in challenging terrorism when we do not give up an inch of our civil liberties" (
One area where our liberty and security has been dangerously blurred is the "battlefield" and who the "enemies" are in the so called, "War on Terror." I want to pause here and explain that you can't declare war on a tactic. I believe that this phrase "War on Terror" is another incorrect term regurgitated by political pundits and honest patriotic Americans; similar to "Democracy" in place of Constitutional Republic. This term is not only false but also a blanket statement. When you declare "war" on a tactic then any place can be deemed the "battlefield" and any person can be deemed the "enemy" (terrorist). This is true recently in America with the NDAA Bill which makes America a "battlefield" and all Americans as "terrorist" suspects with the option of "indefinite detention" at the Government's disposal. The bill's section 1031 specifically and vaguely states if you "substantially supported" forces "associated" with al-Qaeda or the Taliban (but according to VP Biden, Taliban is not our enemy, right...) that "are engaged in hostilities" against the US or coalition forces then you can be indefinitely detained by the President. No terms are defined hear, sadly. For example, who are forces or groups "associated" with al-Qaeda? That can be any group the Government sees as "extreme" or a "threat." We have seen similar fear mongering and excessive Government control throughout US history. A few examples in history do come to mind such as the Japanese Americans who were put in detention camps during WW2. Lincoln suspended the Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War to which the Supreme Court justice at the time, Taney, declared that executive order unconstitutional. How about the Sedition Act of 1918 or the Espionage Act of 1917 that placed our Bill of Rights over a candle stick to be decimated. Freedom of speech and of the press was infringed upon. Paul Johnson, a world renowned historian author, put it this way in reference to the Espionage and Sedition acts during a time of war:
Thus the war demonstrated both the impressive speed with which the modern state could expand itself and the inexhaustible appetite which it thereupon developed both for the destruction of its enemies and for the exercise of despotic power over its own citizens. (Johnson, Paul, Modern Times, pg. 17, [1991, revised 2001])
"The exercise of despotic power over its own citizens" is such a powerful and bold statement that holds true every decade of tumultuous times in America's history, especially now during this "War on Terror." We must believe that our own citizens whether bad or good should be protected by their Constitutional rights from "despotic power." A prime example is Anwar al-Awlaki who was an American citizen hiding in Yemen working with Al Qaeda. He was never charged with a crime and was targeted for assassination by POTUS. Now, I am not going to argue if he should have been assassinated. There could have been intelligence that proved he was an imminent threat at the time. But I wanted to bring this example up to question whether Constitutional rights are for all citizens and whether this is a slippery slope combined with the NDAA bill where American citizens can be targeted for assassination without due process.
A fine, bold line should exist between security and our individual liberty. If not, then we become suspect terrorists and America becomes the battleground. Senator Lindsey Graham shockingly stated in support of the NDAA, “Is the homeland (i.e. America) the battlefield? You better believe it is the battlefield.” Fear and Big Government during times of war is a dangerous concoction that leads to the suspension of Civil Liberties guaranteed by the Constitution-the Constitution becoming just another piece of paper with old guidelines. We need to ponder and consider what John C. Calhoun said in response to Andrew Jackson's defense of a stronger central government (stronger Union), "The Union, next (emphasis added) to our Liberty, most dear." Our liberty is first when the Government makes decisions on security in times of war.
