Civil Libertarians Are In A State Of Denial
Posted on August 29, 2006
Glenn Reynolds and his wife interview Judge Richard Posner on terrorism and the Constitution. Judge Posner has just released his new book, Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency. From the title of the book alone you can probably guess the jest of his argument.
It is interesting to compare the philosphy that the Constitution is flexible when it comes to national security with the philosphy so many of us fight against from the left of a “living constitution”. I definitely agree that many civil libertarians are in a state of denial. What is even more scary is that they are not alone. There are many others that need to wake up too.
Here is a short summary of the main points covered in the interview.
A few selected quotes from the interview:
The worst thing that could happen to civil liberties is another attack. Many civil libertarians lose sight of this.
Many civil libertarians are in denial. They must diminish the severity of the threat in order to be convincing that the government needn’t be as active as it is trying to be. Sometimes they seem simply nostalgic for the days of McCarthy.
The judges think they know lot about civil liberties, and they don’t know anything about terrorism, so when they’re confronted with a civil liberties issue involving terrorism, they’re much more likely to give weight to the civil liberties concerns, because that’s what they know about than the terrorist concerns, which they don’t know about.
The entire interview is quite interesting. Judge Posner gets some good reviews and some that are more critical. I think I will hold my judgement until I read the book I just ordered.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
15 Responses to “Civil Libertarians Are In A State Of Denial”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
“Many civil libertarians are in denial. They must diminish the severity of the threat in order to be convincing that the government needn’t be as active as it is trying to be. Sometimes they seem simply nostalgic for the days of McCarthy.”
Ah, the old tactic of making a vague accusation without any specifics. Which civil libertarians “diminish the severity of the threat”, Jay? Which civil libertarians “seem… nostalgic for the days of McCarthy”?
Name us some names, Jay, and then back up those claims with evidence.
You seem quite over eager to attack and discredit me meatbrain. The quotes above are not mine but those of Judge Posner. I said that I agree that many civil libertarians are in a state of denial. I also said the civil libertarians are not alone in this. This is just a general blanket observation of those I personally know and different commenters and writers. As for anything else he said, I neither stated agreement or disagreement.
I clearly stated that I was holding off judgement of his philosphies until I read his book. If you want the questions you asked answered and backed up with facts…I would suggest getting in contact with the person who said them.
Before you do that, I would advise you to actually listen to the interview. Its free, and you may find that some of your questions are already answered there.
Ah the old tactic of not reading for comprehension and ignoring the blockquotes.
The preamble of the U.S. Constitution states that one reason for its establishment was to provide for the common defense and you can not compromise that purpose in order to protect the liberties of those you are defending. There has to be a balance and where that balance is worth debating.
“The quotes above are not mine but those of Judge Posner.”
You posted those words here, on your site, Jay. Now, either find a backbone and discuss what you post, or run away.
Which civil libertarians “diminish the severity of the threat”, Jay?
Which civil libertarians “seem… nostalgic for the days of McCarthy”?
Name us some names, Jay, and then back up those claims with evidence.
Which is it, Kerwin? Do we “not compromise”, or do we seek a “balance”?
The two options are mutually exclusive. Which do you favor?
Do your own home work meatbrain. Anyone who spends more than 5 minutes reading through political blogs of any distinction has come across many civil libertarians whining about their rights being trampled. Since they don’t care if what they’re griping about is helping to find and catch terrorists I’d say that qualifies. Want a specific one? How about the ACLU. They are far more concerned with how prisoners are being treated in Gitmo despite that these animals would brutally kill any one of us if given the chance. One might say that they’re diminshing the the threat of these people. And they’d be right. Besides that, putting a quote up on a site doesn’t make it your opinion…it makes it a quote. Jay posts quotes from ACLU officials up here all the time too. Are those his opinion?
Fess up. You misread - either on accident or on purpose - and are trying to deflect this back at Jay because your initial argument is stupid.
“Anyone who spends more than 5 minutes reading through political blogs of any distinction has come across many civil libertarians whining about their rights being trampled.”
Which, whether true or not, is relevant to neither of the claims Posner made in the quotes Jay posted above: that civil libertarians “diminish the severity of the threat” and are “nostalgic for the days of McCarthy”. That was an especially clumsy attempt to derail the discussion, John.
“You misread - either on accident or on purpose - and are trying to deflect this back at Jay because your initial argument is stupid.”
What’s my “initial argument” in this thread, John? Do remember to post evidence that I’ve actually made the argument you refer to…
Your original argument is that Jay didn’t back up some one else’s quotes (from a book he readily states he hasn’t read yet) with specific evidence. That was stupid. So now that you’ve quoted me I demand that you back up what I’ve said with specific evidence.
Plain as day to me that Jay hasn’t decided whether he agrees or disagrees at this point. What part of this is difficult for you to understand?
Since the discussion is (supposed to be) about these quotes then the quotes themselves couldn’t possibly derail the discussion. I happen to agree with them based on evidence I’ve seen over the last few years posted by numerous civil libertarians in a myriad of places. Have I documented the location, dates, and names of those who said them? No I haven’t. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there and that I (or you) couldn’t find some fairly easily. If you disagree with the quotes then you can provide evidence to the contrary and make your arguments based on that. Or simply state why disagree. But instead you’ve decided to attack the delivery rather than the message. Asking for someone to prove some one elses idea because they happen to quote them is lazy if you’re trying to make an argument. The post before this one you did the same thing so we may have a pattern developing here.
Although a it’s probably a collosal waste of time, I’ve given you a specific example in the ACLU. They’re putting terrorists on the same level as American citizens at every opportunity. Like Gitmo. By putting them on par with an American Citizen you’re diminishing the fact that they are murderous animals and enemy combatants. And that’s a threat. Whereas your average American is not. This might not be the best example but since there’s probably no answer that you’ll find acceptable I’m not going to bother taking this any further.
“Your original argument is that Jay didn’t back up some one else’s quotes (from a book he readily states he hasn’t read yet) with specific evidence.”
Um, wrong. I challenged Jay to provide supporting evidence for the content of the quotes. Read for comprehension, bubba: that’s not the same thing.
“So now that you’ve quoted me I demand that you back up what I’ve said with specific evidence.”
That’s not how it works, sparky. It is your own responsibility to back up what you’ve said.
“I happen to agree with them based on evidence I’ve seen over the last few years posted by numerous civil libertarians in a myriad of places. Have I documented the location, dates, and names of those who said them? No I haven’t. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there and that I (or you) couldn’t find some fairly easily.”
Good. Post the evidence that you claim supports the sentiment Posner expressed.
“Although a it’s probably a collosal waste of time, I’ve given you a specific example in the ACLU. They’re putting terrorists on the same level as American citizens at every opportunity. Like Gitmo. By putting them on par with an American Citizen you’re diminishing the fact that they are murderous animals and enemy combatants.”
Which specific prisoners in Gitmo have been “[put] on par with an American Citizen”, and in what specific way(s)? Which specific prisoners in Gitmo have been shown to be “enemy combatants”, and what is the specific evidence to support that accusation?
Your claims, mumbles. You back them up — or run away.
Meatbrain,
If the security precaution is reasonable then it should be invoked. If is not then it should not. Debate it a good way to resolve what is and is not reasonable.
“It is interesting to compare the philosphy that the Constitution is flexible when it comes to national security with the philosphy so many of us fight against from the left of a “living constitution”.”
Originalists have, by definition, a pre-9/11 mindset.
“If the security precaution is reasonable then it should be invoked. If is not then it should not. Debate it a good way to resolve what is and is not reasonable.”
Here’s a free clue, Kerwin. In this country, what the government can and cannot do is not determined only by the standard of ‘reasonableness’. After the reasonableness is debated, then a law is passed, proscribing what is and is not legal.
There is no doubt that precautions must be taken, and terrorist plots must be investigated and stopped. But there is also no doubt that the current administration has bent, mangled, and in many cases broken the law in the name of ’security’.
This country will never become an Islamic dictatorship. The terrorists simply do not have the ability to overthrow our government — if they did, they would not need to use the tactics of terrorism. What they can and have done, however, is induce such panicked, irrational fear in the Western democracies (including the US) that governments have violated their own laws for the sake of ’security’. The electorates in those democracies have become so frightened by the threat of terrorist attacks that they are willing to turn a blind eye to these illegal tactics. And thus are the rights and principles that the democracies were built on whittled away, from the inside.
The terrorists destroy our society. Only we can do that. Bruce Schneier is right — when we allow ourselves to become terrorized, we hand victory to the terrorists without a fight.
correction: “The terrorists cannot destroy our society.”
Meatbrain,
You should read the Fourth Amendment. It is what I applied to the situation. This is a Republic and it is up to the people to decide what is and what is not reasonable. It is up to us to safeguard our own rights.
The idea of the people having control of their own rights is so they can ensure their own happiness and security. It is in the Declaration of Independence. If the people are possessed by terror then they do not feel secure so acting out of terror is a legitimate exercise of the peoples power to protect themselves.
I don’t believe the average person is concerned with their society being destroyed by either the government or the terrorist. If you are not aware our government on both sides of the aisle is constantly chipping at our rights.
You should strive to convince the people that terrorist are not planning on implementing more events like 9/11.