Give me liberty

Recent intelligence reforms defy small government principles

By Ben Chapman
From the November 2004 Print Edition

In conducting the war on terror and keeping America safe, the one thing Americans must keep in mind is that we need safety from the government, too. Benjamin Franklin’s oft-repeated cliché comes to mind: “Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The responsibility of the government is to protect the homeland and the public, but so too is it the role of government to defend our ideals. The moment we sacrifice our rights, the terrorists win, and we lose what we were fighting to protect in the first place.

That is not to say that our government should be careless or unresponsive in the face of events such as the 9/11 attacks, but there is a reasonable approach to practically apply the lessons learned three years ago while at the same time defending people’s rights and liberties. We need to demonstrate that we are better than our enemies.

Yet we have failed to do so in the terrible case of Abu Ghraib. Although what occurred there was nowhere near the magnitude of Saddam Hussein’s torture, it nevertheless does not justify our bad behavior. We must seek to ensure that such atrocities are never repeated if we are to democratize the Middle East and stand for human rights. The swift and transparent court martials of those involved, and the immediate investigations, serve as a good start to heal the damage.

One example of how we have better treated our enemies is how we have been respectful of the religious customs of our detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We have provided them with copies of the Koran and facilitated their prayer. Howerver, these 585 internationals being held at Guantanamo have, for the most part, been sitting there, slowly being forgotten.

There needs to be a system in place to give these men fair hearings and a chance to present their cases and defend themselves. Giving a terrorist a trial does not compromise our safety — the suspect is already detained and separated from the public and therefore can do no harm — but rather reinforces the fairness of our system, as well as demonstrating our principles to the rest of the world. Such machinery already exists within our military and the court systems. Military tribunals are the obvious and appropriate way in which the prisoners’ voices can and should be heard, so that we might ethically rise above the enemies we are fighting.

In regards to the Patriot Act, many of the reforms are common sense. For instance, it tears down the barriers between the CIA and the FBI, between intelligence gathering and law enforcement, and between federal and local authorities. Also, it expands the powers of law enforcement; such expansions of power are unfortunate, but necessary. However, there needs to be proper oversight and due process of law, in accordance to the Constitution. For instance, the government should be able to look at library records, but only if due process of law sanctions it. The government should be able to show probable cause on the part of the suspect being searched. Before the use of such expanded powers, the burden of proof should be on the government, thereby protecting innocent people from undue detainment or surveillance.

Some would argue that MI5, the British intelligence-gathering model, is the best example we should follow, due to its effectiveness. However, MI5 has far less oversight from the people and their elected officials than does the U.S. model. There is little separation of powers in Britain, so there is very little to prevent the government from overstepping its bounds. With less oversight come less accountability and transparency. In fact, MI5 is capable of vetting elected government officials and cabinet members. Most would agree that this sort of power is a bit unsettling. Efficiency is necessary, but tactics aimed at achieving such efficiency can lead to a police state, and when that happens, we are no better than the terrorists.

It should be noted that the Patriot Act currently does make U.S. intelligence gathering and law enforcement more effective, while working within the confines of the Constitution. It would be naive, too, to release all of the Guantanamo detainees, and the handful that have been released have in fact been caught fighting U.S. troops again. We must always remember that the government is not “out to get us”; rather, the current changes in intelligence and security are well-intentioned efforts to protect us. However, without acknowledgment of what we are fighting for within the system, without responsible oversight, without accountability, the very people protecting us could turn out to be a threat.

Most importantly in this debate regarding liberty and safety, we must keep in mind that the two are not mutually exclusive. There is a proper balance to protect ourselves from external attacks while at the same time applying the appropriate safeguards to protect our liberties from attacks from within.

Click to read a different viewpoint from Errol Tremolada

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot