There are Quotes...And There Are Quotes
A group of would-be champions of civil liberties staged a little demonstration at a speech by Attorney General Gonzales yesterday. Gonzales was presenting the Administration's case for domestic surveillance at Georgetown a few members of the audience turned their backs and held up a purported quote by Benjamin Franklin "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
As Michelle Malkin points out, this is not the actual quote by one of Founders. Rather, it is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
These are, of course, critical qualifiers. As Michelle says "Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made."
The Founders, unlike many critics of the Administration, were not opposed to the use of certain practices during times of war or insurrection that otherwise would be unacceptable.
For more, check out the CIA's history of Intelligence operations during the Revolutionary War or the handling of the Whiskey Rebellion. At other periods of our history - for example, the Civil War and World War Two - actions have been taken (some later upheld, others repudiated) to ensure the safety of the country during time of war or strife that would be unacceptable during peacetime.
In short, those among us who are mature, realize that our liberties may have to be infringed at times in order to ensure the survival of the country. There are two questions to be asked. First (and with a nod to Franklin) is the tradeoff of liberty for security worth it; essentially, what he is warning against, is the suspension or curtailing of liberties when the benefit is marginal. Second, are there sufficient guarantees that, when we return to a more 'normal' status, will those restrictions be lifted. Hence, the reason sunset clauses in something like the PATRIOT Act are critical. We should never lightly, nor indefinitely surrender our liberties; however, we must also realize that, when our way of life is being threatened with destruction, a sacrifice of parts of that way of life for the duration of the conflict or crisis may be necessary.
Of course, the people who staged this protest really don't care about any of this. They believe that Bush is some kind of proto-Hitler, ready to turn America into a Neo-Fascist empire. And this puts them beyond rational thought.
As Michelle Malkin points out, this is not the actual quote by one of Founders. Rather, it is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
These are, of course, critical qualifiers. As Michelle says "Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made."
The Founders, unlike many critics of the Administration, were not opposed to the use of certain practices during times of war or insurrection that otherwise would be unacceptable.
For more, check out the CIA's history of Intelligence operations during the Revolutionary War or the handling of the Whiskey Rebellion. At other periods of our history - for example, the Civil War and World War Two - actions have been taken (some later upheld, others repudiated) to ensure the safety of the country during time of war or strife that would be unacceptable during peacetime.
In short, those among us who are mature, realize that our liberties may have to be infringed at times in order to ensure the survival of the country. There are two questions to be asked. First (and with a nod to Franklin) is the tradeoff of liberty for security worth it; essentially, what he is warning against, is the suspension or curtailing of liberties when the benefit is marginal. Second, are there sufficient guarantees that, when we return to a more 'normal' status, will those restrictions be lifted. Hence, the reason sunset clauses in something like the PATRIOT Act are critical. We should never lightly, nor indefinitely surrender our liberties; however, we must also realize that, when our way of life is being threatened with destruction, a sacrifice of parts of that way of life for the duration of the conflict or crisis may be necessary.
Of course, the people who staged this protest really don't care about any of this. They believe that Bush is some kind of proto-Hitler, ready to turn America into a Neo-Fascist empire. And this puts them beyond rational thought.
posted by Jeff at 1/25/2006 12:42:00 PM
2 Comments:
You bought the inside-the-Beltway binary frame that the President's FISA violations are about security-versus-liberty hook, line, and sinker. Just for future reference, when your copy of the DC Talker arrives, you might want to fact-check it. Inserting the Revolutionary War into this discussion is irrelevant because -- wait for it -- the Constitution hadn't been written yet, so it couldn't be trampled! But to put the discussion in relevant terms, Americans are glad to relenquish some liberties temporarily when the moral authority of someone like a Lincoln or FDR is at the helm. Feel free to make the argument that President Empty Flightsuit is on par with those luminaries, and inspires American people's trust just as much as they. Hell, he didn't even convince half of them to vote for him the first time around.
The logic of your argument is flawless. You just forgot about human nature.
I'm a little late reading this post. I'm doing a small research project tying the current Israel/Hezbolah/Hamas/Lebanon crisis to our own early history. People say today that states like Lebanon and Iraq can't crack down on armed militias for fear of starting a civil war. The Palestinian Authority claims they can't control Hamas because it would lead in that direction. I cite the Whiskey Rebellion as an example of a state acting to control lawlessness without leading to civil war. It's just a matter of power and force.
And by the way, the Whiskey Rebellion happened after the ratification of the constitution, not before as the commenter seemed to believe.
Post a Comment
<< Home