"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
-Benjamin Franklin
This quote has been invoked often in the debate over NSA-FISA. But as I have pointed out in the past, it is the word "essential" that is often either left out or supplanted with the word "little."
In my opinion, and I say that because one of my commenters accuses me of having strong opinions but a weak intellect (or at least I think so; she can't spell all that well) this quote resonates better in the matter over the Mohammed cartoon rhubarb. Those advocating that the cartoons shouldn't have been published at all, or that myriad apologies should be issued, are tacitly saying that they are willing to give up an essential liberty--that of speech--for a little temporary security--that of not having their embassies burned or their nationals abused. The security is only temporary because this is a game of degrees, in which the pressure is applied by those inciting violence in reaction to a rather minor slight. What this means is that the next time, editors will be more likely to self-censor not because they suspect that what they print is scurrilous, but because they fear the coming backlash.
In this case, the Islamists have won this latest round. Those who say that the West has made its point and should now clam up ignore the ongoing tension and the underlying strategy. This is an effort to shut the mouths of critics of radical Islam and to accord Islam special status, even in regions and countries where Islam is not the law of the land.
Before WWII there was to that time the largest protest in Britain for world peace. The demonstration was not against Hitler, but against Churchill, who was seen by many in the UK as a warmonger. Those protesting were eager to give up essential liberty for temporary security. And we all know how that turned out.
Today, there are people who feel that the acts of the current administration, including pushing for expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act, proclaiming the right of the President to ignore any law in the name of "national defense in time of war" and circumventing the FISA courts are the government infringing upon essential liberties. Then there are those who are saying "the world changed on 9/11" and say that we must do these things to prevent "the terrorists" or in other words, to gain security that is illusory.
Yet... many of those same people saying the world changed on 9/11 and we must give up certain essential liberties are decrying "giving in" on the issue of free speech. I wonder how they would react if it were a different group that was offended and over-reacting, say Hindus.
Posted by: Jack | February 11, 2006 at 07:47 PM