IP: The real threat to US values

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: richard pauli <rpauli () speakeasy org>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:36:51 -0800
To: farber () cis upenn edu
Subject: The real threat to US values

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,664194,00.html

The real threat to US values

The September 11 attacks struck at the heart of America. But emergency
measures to combat terrorism could undermine the country's most cherished
freedoms, argues Ronald Dworkin

Saturday March 9, 2002
The Guardian

What has al-Qaida done to the American constitution, and to the country's
national standards of fairness? Since September 11, the US government has
enacted legislation, adopted policies and threatened procedures that are not
consistent with established laws and values and would have been unthinkable
before. On October 25, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which sets out a
new, breathtakingly vague definition of terrorism and of aiding terrorists:
someone may be guilty of aiding terrorism, for example, if he collects money
for or even contributes to a charity which supports the general aims of any
organisation abroad - the IRA, for example, or foreign anti- abortion
groups, or, in the days of apartheid, the African National Congress - that
uses violence, among other means, in an effort to oppose US policy or
interests.

-snip-

The Bush government's dubious laws, practices and proposals have provoked
surprisingly little protest in America. Even some groups that traditionally
champion civil rights have broadly supported the government's line. Polls
suggest that nearly 60% of the public approves the use of military
tribunals. We should not be surprised at any of this. September 11 was
horrifying: it proved that America's enemies are vicious, powerful and
imaginative, and that they have well-trained, suicidal fanatics at their
disposal. Respect for human and civil rights is often fragile when people
are frightened, and Americans are very frightened. The country has done
worse by those rights in the past, moreover. It suspended basic civil rights
in the civil war, punished critics of the draft in the first world war,
interned Japanese-Americans in the second world war, and then encouraged a
red scare that destroyed the lives of many of its citizens because their
political opinions were unpopular. Much of this was unconstitutional, but
the supreme court tolerated almost all of it.

-snip-

We are ashamed now of what we did then: we count the court's tolerance of
anti-sedition, internments and McCarthyism as among the worst stains on its
record. That shame comes easier now, of course, because we no longer fear
the Kaiser, or kamikazes, or Stalin. It may be a long time before we stop
fearing terrorism, however, and we must therefore be particularly careful
now. What is lost now, in the commitment to civil rights and fair play, may
be harder later to regain.

-snip-

Do we really face such extreme danger from terrorism that we must act
unjustly? That is a difficult question. We cannot yet accurately gauge the
actual power of the linked terrorist organisations and cells that apparently
aim to kill as many Americans as possible. Indeed, we scarcely know the
identities and locations of many of them. The September attack was made more
feasible by our own failures and we could do much to correct those failures
without sacrificing traditional rights. The FBI and other agencies failed to
investigate important warning signals, and there were unpardonable defects
in airport security that we have apparently still not repaired. It is
unclear, moreover, how far the administration's new measures, including
military trials, will actually help to prevent future attacks.
-snip-
 Ronald Dworkin 2002. Ronald Dworkin is Professor of Law and Philosophy at
New York University and Quain Professor of Jurisprudence at University
College, London. He is the author of Life's Dominion, Freedom's Law: The
Moral Reading of the Constitution, and, most recently, Sovereign Virtue: The
Theory and Practice of Equality, published in paperback this month by
Harvard. A longer version of this article appeared in the New York Review of
Books.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,664194,00.html






------ End of Forwarded Message