>> The example that is often used is the response of AQ to the trial >> of the first WTC bomber.
> Sure. That's an example, but your country was founded on freedom and > liberty. Ben Franklin had something to say about trading liberty for > security. Lets first consider the specifics of the case, and then the general question: is every restriction of liberty for security wrong? With respect to the first question: 1) Constitutional rights have not been, traditionally, granted to foreign soldiers, spies, and saboteurs. Foreign soldiers have been afforded certain rights. Foreign spies and saboteurs have not. The law we are considering is very consistent with precedent here. 2) Considering the problem faced at the time; a multi-national organization that was the senior partner with a foreign government that gave them sanctuary. We know that, subsequent to this attack, the group was able to make four more attacks on US soil/ships (with 9-11 as the last and biggest one). Between these two, we can see the decision on UEC as a change from considering the activities of AQ as crime to considering it foreign sabotage. There are definite risks for aliens that result from this...particularly when the decisions are made by the gang that couldn't shoot straight....but it's nothing like the risk to liberty the US has already weathered. To consider the general case, let me give an example of requirement of a tradeoff between security and liberty from a time I was on the jury. The highway patrol caught a woman speeding. They followed her onto private property (her boyfriend's house) to give her a ticket. Her boyfriend told her to just go inside, because the cops couldn't follow them there without a warrant...which would not be given for speeding. She was home free because she was on private property. He was stupid enough to interfere with the officer giving a ticket, and we convicted him. If he just talked, he would have been fine, but he pulled her away from the cop...which is illegal. Now, the courts have decided that private property is not a sanctuary from speeding tickets. Even though a cop usually needs a warrant to search a house, they do have a right of hot pursuit....even for a traffic stop. If she did go inside, they could follow her. I really don't have a problem with this. It is an infringement on liberty, but it does seem like a reasonable tradeoff. Maybe people could argue that there would be little harm in requiring a search warrant with respect to a traffic stop, but I don't think police following a gunman onto private property while in hot pursuit should be illegal. The bets at the time of the US revolution was that such a government couldn't last. It would either fall into tyranny or anarchy. Franklin rightly warned against accepting tyranny as a protection against anarchy. But, balancing the two risks is not the same as trading security for liberty. Most historians have considered Lincoln's balancing act to be a good thing...even though he arrest people right and left with no real legal basis for doing so. I have very significant differences with Bush's view of the proper tradeoff. I think he is wrong, and that his actions do pose a danger. You probably have differences with me. But, I'd guess that there'd be some point where you would favor security in the security/liberty balancing act. My second amendment quote had a smiley, but it does point out a case where I'm almost certain that you'd favor restrictions on the liberty of citizens to own any arms they wished. This is one case where I strongly believe that limits on liberty for security purposes are well founded. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
