I almost hate it when others speak my mind better than I can myself: The Lie Of The U.S. Military / Tough gritty American soldiers protect freedom of liberal S.F. columnist? Or the other way around?. Soldiers don't protect freedom. The best they can do is to protect property and people. Physical things. They do nothing to ensure the sanctity of more abstract notions such as liberty. There was a time when other powers wanted to invade this country and destroy our liberty. Even then, however, the military did not protect freedom. What they did do was make it possible for us to protect our own freedom. We ourselves, the citizens. On occasion, freedom may be protected by the police or a district attorney or a judge, but the greatest part of this protection comes from us living by the principles of our Constitution. And now the threat to freedom comes from within. American citizens will willingly give up their freedoms and those of their countrymen for the promise of security. Claiming that external forces will deny our liberty distracts us and makes it easier for internal forces to do the same. It doesn't matter if it is the Communists or John Ashcroft who denies my freedom to speak.

The notion of trading reduced freedom for security is treated as a necessary exchange, but I have seen no evidence to indicate that it is a zero sum system. The only credible argument I have seen for denying natural freedoms is laziness on the parts of those meant to protect us. They say it would be "too hard" to protect this country without maintaining classified dossiers on its citizens. They say that they need to be able to conduct wiretaps and searches without warrants are necessary tools to make them more "efficient." It is simple laziness, on the part of the government and on the part of your fellow citizens, who want a panacea for their fears (reinforced by the government's reckless and effectively useless handling of potential threats), but don't want to pay for more agents or more judges, or face the ever-so-slightly increased danger of a free society. And what then? As an engineer, I often attempt many solutions to a problem before finding the right one. As such, I am used to thinking about what happens when my chosen solution fails. Unfortunately nobody in our government seems to think that way. So when denying my freedoms fails to make us more secure, what happens? Do I get my freedoms back? Or do they demand even more from me, claiming this time it will be different? Somehow I expect the latter. Freedom and security are not mutually exclusive. Those who would deny you your freedoms are your enemies, and the enemies of this country, no matter what excuses they manufacture.

I have tried very hard to use phrases like "deny freedom" rather than "take away freedom" because freedom is an inalienable right. Others may make it impossible for us to exercise our freedom, but it exists independently of any actions they may take. To state that they can take it away gives them the power to do so. This has already happened in some areas, with many people erroneously believing that the government has the power to regulate your speech. This is partly based on a misapplication of this statement by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Schenck v. United States: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Freedom of speech does not apply here because you are on private property. The owner of the property has complete discretion over what is said, not the federal government. If the owner of the property gives me the permission to yell "fire," they cannot stop me. Suppose you have a dinner party. At some point, you shout "Fire!" and panic your guests. You may anger your friends, but it is your right. Thinking that the government can regulate that speech is a misunderstanding of the concept and makes the public conception of freedom subject to further erosion. Here is an interesting discussion going further into this issue. Of course, I am not a lawyer, but it sure sounds right.

...putting the "fury" in righteous fury since 2002...

¶ 519 Posted at 05.12 PM ⇒ No Comments ( linkage | politics | iraq )