|
 oviet
dictator Nikita Khrushchev is said to have quipped that American
capitalists would sell Communists the rope by which to hang them.
I've thought
about that quote repeatedly when hearing about the ease by which
Middle Eastern terrorists navigated American freedom for their diabolical
ends: enrolling in American flight schools, using Internet access
at public libraries, traveling freely from place to place.
One immediate
and logical response is to curtail the freedom. At least temporarily,
or for certain people.
Such calls
in times of crisis are inevitable. Senate Minority Leader Trent
Lott laid the groundwork by commenting, "When you are at war,
civil liberties are treated differently."
Indeed, our
history is replete with examples of just that; and not always even
in times of war. John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts designed
to punish activity considered adverse to American interests. Andrew
Jackson gave orders to intercept mail carrying inflammatory anti-slavery
rhetoric. Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus
during the Civil War. Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to nationalize
American industries in World War II. Most shameful was the internment
of Japanese citizens during that same period. And of course, the
Cold War gave rise to unparalleled surveillance of American citizens.
Sordid examples all.
America never
has effectively protected its interests by suspending individual
liberties. Such efforts typically deprive us of our most potent
weapon, which is freedom. That is what sets us apart, first and
foremost, from our adversaries.
We are always
at our strongest when we fight not just with bombs and bullets,
but with a real effort to win the hearts and minds of the world's
people. And we do that by steadfastly adhering to our principles.
A potent example: In our war against Hitler, America set aside its
racist policies and began to vindicate our own ideals of equality.
It not only established clear moral superiority but made us a stronger
foe.
If we are not
mindful of our true objectives, we could go badly astray in our
noble quest to rid the world of terrorism. Already there is talk
that security officials are employing ethnicity in antiterrorist
profiling, stopping people not because they are foreign nationals
of governments known to harbor terrorists, but because their skin
is dark or they wear beards. An efficient antiterrorism device?
Perhaps. A violation of our core belief that the state must treat
people as individuals, not as members of racial groups? Definitely.
Once that absolute principle is compromised, it is only a matter
of degree before we return to the nightmare of Japanese incarceration.
Likewise, we
hear calls to allow government to step up electronic surveillance,
and to require national ID cards so that government can monitor
our travels. Even before last week's bombings, the Supreme Court
struck down by a slender 5-4 vote the use of thermal imaging in
law enforcement. The requirement of warrants is an essential protection
of civil liberty — in times of peace as well as war. So too
is the right to travel.
Do these rights
impair the fight against terrorism? In a certain sense, yes. It
would be easier if government could monitor our conversations and
activities, or could stop or segregate those whose skin color or
religious beliefs resemble the terrorists'. It is tempting to trade
freedom for security. But to do so sacrifices both. For the freedoms
we have not only make America a moral exemplar but provide us with
the wealth and means to effectively combat terrorism.
To be sure,
Americans will have to surrender convenience in this war. But not
their freedoms. Whenever a politician or pundit argues for a suspension
in civil liberties, we should ask: Isn't that what this battle is
all about? If we surrender our freedom, haven't the terrorists won?
So as we wage
this war, we need to keep our priorities straight. If freedom is
the objective, it ought not constitute the first casualty. Our most
potent weapon is the system that rests upon the sanctity of our
Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Senator Lott
is correct. We have treated civil liberties differently in wartime.
Let us remember those horrible mistakes so we do not repeat them
again.
And Khrushchev
was right, too. Funny thing though: Communism in the Soviet Union
is dead, but we're still selling rope.
|
