Essential Liberties
Posted on January 25, 2006
Michelle Malkin has an excellent post up called Hijacking Ben Franklin. It is about a protest banner held up by a defiant little group at Georgetown University. These kids disrupted a speech by Attorney General Al Gonzales defending the NSA’s terrorist surveillance program yesterday:
Michelle says:
The Ben Franklin quote that has been so misused and abused by the civil liberties absolutists since Sept. 11 originally appeared in 1755:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
The version that appears on the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal reads:They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The omission of those key qualifiers–”essential” and “little”– makes all the difference in the world. 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.Is there a single adult on campus who will correct the miseducated protesters and teach them to think rationally about trade-offs? Or is Georgetown’s educational mission to produce the next generation of ignorant Chicken Littles who’ll proclaim the collapse of civilization every time our government fingerprints a temporary foreign visitor, detains an illegal alien, interrogates an enemy combatant, prevents bogus charities from raising money for terrorism, refuses to admit radical Muslim clerics into the country, or monitors the internationally routed e-mails and phone calls of known and suspected al Qaeda operatives?
Indeed. I have tackled this topic before.
�Absolute� is the key word to understanding the ACLU. Its absolutist philosophies, just as any extremist view, endangers the very civil liberties it claims to protect.
In the debate on civil liberties and National Security you will hear a Benjamin Franklin quote thrown at you often that states, �Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.� First of all, we are not talking about a little liberty for a little security, we are talking about the very real possibility of thousands being blown up, that may be prevented by minor inconveniences. Second, I want someone to show me where one person�s liberties have been violated through the Patriot Act, or one person who has been damaged by a phone tap that was actually innocent. You can�t.
In his book �Twilight of Liberty�, William Donahue compares the ACLU’s views of liberty with that of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said, �A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country, by scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us: thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.�
The Conservative Cat is correct in saying:
“[I]t’s worth noting that Franklin was talking about liberty, not privacy. There is a relationship between the two, but I find it strange that no one bothers to quote Franklin when we’re talking about the liberty to choose how your children are taught or smoke cigarettes in public.”
Absolutism is what is dangerous. What is essential to keeping our liberties is keeping America safe. If there is any quote that the liberals need to hear, it is this one:
“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”– Albert Einstein
Junkyard Blog show us how to connect the dots.
Rightwing Nuthouse has some thoughts on the topic.
Other sources: The Washington Post
MSNBC
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “Essential Liberties”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I hate kids my age. They protest simply for the sake of being a rebel. Its not important what they are rebelling against, just thay they rebel. There is a fad among today’s youth to bring back the ’60s. I doubt if any of these students even grasp the idea of a Republican government.
I’m confused about the Einstein quote. It obviously isn’t directed at the protesters. Are you asserting that requiring the NSA to obtain warrants is tantamount to doing nothing to fight terrorism?
“I want someone to show me where one person’s liberties have been violated [...] You can’t.”
Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy argument.
Alvis, sounds more like a lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy response.
I wonder what the left would say if the NRA, or another group of concerned gun owners held up a similar banner the next time Feinstein, Kerry, and Kennedy brought more useless gun legislation to the floor?
“Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy argument”
A quicker way to get a point across would be to actually point out the civil liberties being violated as the challenge stated.
“A quicker way to get a point across would be to actually point out the civil liberties being violated as the challenge stated.”
That would require access to classified information. That’s why it’s a lazy argument on Michelle’s part. If civil liberties have been violated, it will hopefully come out during the course of the investigation. Or you can take Bush’s word for it if you’re comfortable with that.
The full quote still applies to this situation.
I don’t know about you guys, but I consider the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights to be an “essential liberty” and I also think the NSA warrantess wiretapping qualifies as providing temporary safety.
Then again, I actually care about the Constitution. Maybe that is my problem?
You mean the amendment that mentions illegal search and seizure without reasonable cause? Because I don’t think you will find any mention of a right to privacy in there.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.