National Security or Personal Liberty?

The title is somewhat misleading, because we are presented a false choice. Symbolically, we hold up personal liberty to establish our claim as the "beacon of democracy". National security is regarded by many as a disagreeable business, the "dirty secret" of our nation's history.

The Senate recently passed legislation that would give the President apparently dangerous powers to suspend habeas corpus to certain detainees as defined by the bill. It also seeks protection for members of the armed forces and/or agents of the government against actions filed for past treatment of detainees, and declares that the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to hear cases relating to suspension of the writ of habeas corpus if filed by an "unlawful enemy combatant". In addition, an unlawful combatant cannot invoke the Geneva Convention as a "source of rights".

This very contentious issue has many Democrats, and some Republicans, criticizing the administration for usurping unprecedented powers for himself. Many left-wing commentators call President Bush a "war criminal" for his treatment of detainees and portray him as passing this legislation in an effort to protect himself from prosecution.

Is this a fair assessment of the President? Many credible people, like former Secretary of State Colin Powell, have spoken out against the President, calling on him not to attempt to "redefine" the Geneva Convention. The ramifications are certainly on the minds of many, namely, that it would diminish our "moral authority" in the eyes of the world and possibly imperil our own military or civilian participants in the war on terror. Others call this legislation a "right to torture" bill, emphasizing that President Bush wants to torture people and impose a martial law to trample over civil liberties.

No one knows for certain how long the war on terror will last, or if we can even win it. One thing is certain: win it we must. In an era such as this, where our generation is engaged in a different kind of war, a war of ideologies, and our enemies would gladly strap a bomb to themselves in order to kill Americans or enemies of the jihadists, the decision we face is not whether we should sacrifice any civil liberties, but how many and for how long? National security and civil liberty are the twin sisters of our "Great Experiment" of self-government. We are faced not with our image perceived by countries looking up to us, but with our country's survival. This is a fact not fully appreciated by many, and certainly not acknowledged by the Democratic Party's leadership. Just as life and happiness are not guaranteed to us as individuals, so it is not to the country as a whole. Did the war in Iraq foment more recruiting opportunities for jihadists? One can safely make that argument without much force of opposition. The fundamental question, however, is: would recruitment stop if we were our of Iraq? That is much harder to prove. The most horrific terrorist attack on America, as we all know, occurred before our incursion into Iraq. Can one seriously believe that our war of ideologies with radical Islamists would subside if we simply pull out of the Middle East or pull out of Iraq right now? Their hatred may be fueled by our actions in foreign countries, but it is founded on the fact that we are their political and religious enemy. What is the cure for this cancer? Appeasement? The U.N. brokering between us?

It may be argued that President Bush has exceeded his authority, but let our system of governing be our guide. We have three co-equal branches of government. A Democratic Party controlled Congress may yield amendments more palatable to their base, the Supreme Court may issue yet another roadblock for the Administration, or we may be destined to fight this war in our own territory despite any measures enacted by the government. What he is seeking is the security of the country, not more power for himself. His tenure is almost over. He loves his country as much as any other, whatever side of the aisle.

What of Abraham Lincoln's historic suspension of habeas corpus? In a book titled, Abraham Lincoln, In His Own Words (Maureen Harrison & Steve Gibert, editors), he is quoted as saying, in an 1837 speech, "Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty". After the Civil War had begun, he explains his actions regarding habeas corpus in a July, 1861 speech:

Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to authorize the commanding general in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety...Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who has sworn to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' should not himself violate them...

Despot or patriotic American? National security or personal liberty?