For an attack on many of the articles that get cited here, arguing that the US Government’s War on Terror is dangerous for civil liberties, see Straight Talk on Homeland Security by Heather Mac Donald in City Journal (lLink from Iain Murray). Penultimate paragraph:
When the War on Terror’s opponents intone, “We need not trade liberty for security,” they are right – but not in the way they think. Contrary to their slogan’s assumption, there is no zero-sum relationship between liberty and security. The government may expand its powers to detect terrorism without diminishing civil liberties one iota, as long as those powers remain subject to traditional restraints: statutory prerequisites for investigative action, judicial review, and political accountability. So far, these conditions have been met.
We here are mostly not opponents of the War on Terror, but we are opponents of it being used as an excuse to expand government power in ways that will then be available to government officials to use across the board.
We agree here that it isn’t a zero sum thing between liberty and security, but that’s because we believe security is best protected by free people protecting themselves and each other. Some of us might even agree that the government “may” expand is powers with no harm done, but that’s hardly the point, is it? “So far, these conditions have been met.” And there the disagreement really begins. But that “So far” suggests that we and Heather Mac Donald might in due course all be re-united.
