Marijuana.com

Murdock

The Pro-war Libertarian Quiz
How far are you willing to go to win the War on Terror?
Matt Welch


By now, we all know the pattern:

1) A new revelation is published or broadcast about a controversial new policy or by-product of the War on Terror. (Abu Ghraib/torture, extraordinary rendition, the outing of Valerie Plame, an alleged plan to attack Iran, secret propaganda in Iraq, FISA-free NSA surveillance of Americans, and so on.)

2) Some supporters of Washington's foreign policy wonder whether the reporter or news organization or leaker who revealed the information might be guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy.

3) The media, Democrats, and anti-war activists are criticized for piling on, for ignoring worse crimes committed by the enemy, and for hysterically exaggerating the underlying issue.

4) Think-pieces are written about how this controversial or possibly illegal policy should actually be legalized and embraced.

5) Some self-described small-government conservatives and libertarians exasperatedly ask if critics of the policy understand that we're at war, and explain how this latest kerfuffle illustrates why libertarians should never be invited to the grown-ups' table when discussing foreign policy.

I bring this up not necessarily to criticize supporters of George Bush's Executive-Power grabs, nor to play quien es mas libertarian (a game I generally lose), nor to belittle the real contributions to the debate they may have made during the previous go-rounds.

But rather, I'm interested in breaking the cycle for a moment, stepping back, and asking the Glenn Reynoldses and Thomas Sowells of the world one question: How far is too far in the War on Terror? I figure since their approach certainly has more resonance within the White House than mine, the answers would provide a more accurate weathervane than my feverish imagination. And given the eternal foreign policy divides within the libertarian big tent, it may help clarify the differences between camps.

The question is a bit open-ended, so here are 10 yes/no hypotheticals. My answer to every one is "no":

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?

My belief, crudely summarized, is not only that you do not need to imitate totalitarians to beat them, but that it doesn't actually help.

But that's just me; before the next scandal cycle of bloggery bickering begins, I'd love to know where my pro-war friends draw the line.

I'd love to know.


Associate Editor Matt Welch writes from Los Angeles. His work is archived at mattwelch.com, where he also blogs.

Link

 

Murdock

No, There is an emergency clause which allows for 72 hours of monitoring prior to submiting for judical approval, if after 3 days there isn't enough evidence found for probable cause from a court which approves a rediculously high percentage of FISA warrants I don't see any reason to continue. . It's too dangerous to provide unchecked power to any executive. There needs to be a paper trail for the courts and congress to back on to assure that the powers vested are being used in a prudent and legal mannor.

No, cut the judicial out of the loop and it's an invitation to tyrrany. The executive should always have to make an account for any charges it brings against an American citizen. Added to the fact that there is no end game, this "war" is expected to last for decades.

Yes, there are situations where I could imagine the need for such extreme measures to be used on an American citizen. But no, I wouldn't want to legalize or in any way condone it.

1 None that I know of off hand. And Sedition laws? Absolutely not. We will not win our war by crushing dissent at home.

Yes, if a single bullet could save a war from happening. Also it would give pause to foreign dictators assisting terrorist groups. With that said, it could potentially open pandora's box by legitimizing the act.

The powers given should be carefully weighed and if given for use in terrorisim cases, it should be limited to terrorism cases where they are used.

No

Yes, but only in extreme cases such as after Hurricane Katrina when an area's local and state authorities have lost complete control. It's dangerous though because the military is not trained to be domestic law enforcement.

No, I was for this before, but I'm against it now. If I have done nothing wrong, there should be no reason for a LEO to demand ID. This is a core American freedom, to be able to move around in public if one is not making a nusance or being otherwise obnoxious or dangerous.

Yes and No, on a case by case basis. On balance though I fall on the side of more government transparency.. You cannot have a working democracy without an informed populace.

Higher Logic

I thought they were making a National ID card though. We have a thread about it right here, equipped with the RFID chip as well. And I'm 100% against it. My dad loves the idea, because he thinks it will thwart terrorism. My mom disagrees however, there must be hope for her still.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

teufelfisch

"Novus ordo seclorum" indeed.

__________________
Posting Guidelines~Search~The Medical Garden~Drug Testing Info

killer12382

I wouldn't mind having a national ID card as it might be one tool in combatting illegal immigration. Punishing the employers of illegal immigrants is another.

 

Murdock

This deserves a bump, since the forum has become a bit more active, I wonder if anyone else would be intrested in taking the quiz.

^_^truth

I will state no to all of the questions; however, I do want to place two notes with in response to two different questions.

Question: 5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war? (simple answer: no)

- This is a tricky one to say no to. In terms of international policy, the answer of yes to the assassination of a certain political leader (kim jong il) may be in the best interest of the U.S; however, I could not condone such a behavior on two fronts. 1) I am a pacifist, by principle I am appalled by this option, along with war and violence and 2) this style of creating change in the world has yet to work in the favor of the US. Seriously, the US tried this method during the cold war and it got the US nowhere. Using it now may provoke a backlash of untold preportions.

-----------

Question 8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?
(simple answer: no)

- In cases such as katrina and other natural disasters, the Military should be primilarly focused on aid, not enforcement (unless an actual state of martial law is decleared with an approprate time limit on the power granted to the military). However, I feel this question is directed more in the broad sense, and in these cases, hell no! The military is designed to be a Killing force, not an enforcement system. Secondly, unless it is the national guard (which is really a state system), the control of the military rests in the hands of a small group of people, people with political agenda's. The slippery slope to military junta is the end result of the military being used in the domestic realm.

Oh, and for the record: The War on Terror, is an never ending excuse to centralize power because a few groups in the world believe they should rule the world by there rules. The War on Terror is an extention of the brewing termoal left over from centuries of bickering between cultures rather than trying to work together. But I digress, good quiz.

__________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Nietzsche

MickityMike

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

To use against someone in trial? No.

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?

No.

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

Just the ticking time bomb scenario, but I don't think waterboarding should be a legal practice. It should be extralegal.

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

I don't know... Can anyone think of a journalist who is granting aid or comfort to al-Qaeda?

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

Hell yes.

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

Sure. Thought that's not saying whether or not I have problems with the current set of 'tools' - 'cause I do. But legally, why should some cops get special treatment?

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

No.

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

Crime, no. Acts of War, yes.

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

Hell no.

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?

Nope. Let it all flow. Flow I say, flow.

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

dedbr

I don't understand the problem everybody has with it? We have social security cards, drivers licences, credit cards, library cards. I mean hell's fire we have so many things now it's rediculous, why sweat one more?

If they want to implant a chip in me to follow my movements, then I'm heading for the hill's folks....... wave bye bye...........


Some Where In Ded Land............

__________________
"We have met the enemy, and he is us" .......... Pogo (for Prez...)

Remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

MickityMike

1. I think it's unnecessary, because as you've just said, we have social security cards, licenses, etc. What good could yet another form of ID possibly do?

2. I really don't want to live in a republic that demands that its citizens present their papers upon request. Paranoid and slightly unreasonable of me? Yeah, probably. But I still think a national ID card completely unnecessary, and kinda unAmerican in a lot of respects.