I'm Not Part of a Redneck Agenda

“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

“Give me liberty or give me death.” Sen. Russ Feingold (D- Wisconsin) quoting Patrick Henry in replying to Sen. Cornyn

The exchange between Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Feingold starkly summarizes the two contrasting philosophies within the American populace today, and it is Sen. Cornyn's view that truly endangers this nation.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in times of extreme emergencies, ceding a few civil liberties is necessary for national security. But the problem with Sen. Cornyn as well as those who place national security above civil liberties under this "War on Terror" is that they clearly view civil liberties as a luxury. Sure, due process, equality under the law, freedom of speach, and freedom of association make life easier in this nation, but they don't "matter much after you're dead." At least, that is the logic of Sen. Cornyn and anyone who sees nothing wrong with not just the Patriot Act, but with racial profiling, the FBIs spying on anti-war, environmental and poverty groups.

What Sen. Cornyn and those portions of the American populace who agree with his stance forget is that liberty is not a luxury in this nation, but in fact one of the fundamental cornerstones. They forget that the American Revolution was fought in part because many of the colonies did not have the due process afforded to British citizens. And as such, in this nation, national security serves civil liberties. National security is not an end to itself. Or I guess to put it another way, the United States was not founded upon the principles of pure survival alone. That is why Patrick Henry's cry of "Give me liberty or give me death" resonates still today.

Those who will say, “None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” I ask, "How are we different from Singapore or China if that is your belief?" Now, Singapore is prosperous, clean and almost totally free of crime. But say something against the government, and the next thing you know, you're charged with defaming the state. In China, everything is second to the State, and if you ask the typical member of the People's Congress, they would whole heartedly agree that "none of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead." And they would further explain that this is why their vision of Communism (this latest version a nascent free market without civil liberties) is superior to democracy.

The easy, intellectual lazy comeback to all this would be that the Founding Fathers didn't have jumbo jets flying into their buildings. But the Founding Fathers were fighting for the very survival of the new nation, as much as this nation is now fighting for its survival. Had they wanted to, they could have created a government and enacted laws to enshrine the primacy of national security. In fact, Congress during the late eighteenth century enacted a series of Alien and Sedition Acts purportedly because of national security (though in reality to shut up people like Thomas Jefferson), which lapsed at the end of John Adams presidency and were nevery used. Furthermore, although the Supreme Court never ruled on these acts, the Supreme Court, subsequent mentions of the Sedition Act in particular in Supreme Court opinions have assumed that it was unconstitutional.

Yes, we are fighting for our very "survival." But what Sen. Feingold, Patrick Henry, the much derided ACLU and likeminded folks realize is that "survival" in the context of the United States includes civil liberties. When civil liberties are viewed as luxuries, luxuries are unnecessary at best and dangerous hinderances to national security at worst, then those terrorists who "hate our liberty" are winning. If we can't or unwilling to retain the primacy of our civil liberties while protecting our national security, if we admit that we are a nation that solely cares about our physical existence, then what is the point?