June 20, 2002

Having it Both Ways Matt

Having it Both Ways

Matt Welch comments on this piece by Nat Hentoff on the putative return of the bad old days of COINTELPRO:

There were many good reasons for the reforms introduced back then on intelligence & law enforcement agencies. If some of those restrictions no longer make sense while obstructing legitimate policing & defense, well, that’s worth talking about (preferably, with a Volokh-level of seriousness). But those who pre-emptively ridicule others who are worried right now about the Bill of Rights are performing an insulting disservice.

Matt is absolutely right about this. Being just a bit "worried about the Bill of Rights" ought to be a perennial state of mind. It's a form of patriotism, and an important part of being an American.

Yet it's not the only important part. The civil-rights-abuse-focused citizens among us perform a valuable service, but at times some of them seem to display signs of having lost touch with reality. Much as I admire Nat Hentoff, and even though I'm sympathetic to his general point, I cringe a little when I read a line like this: "I'd appreciate hearing from resisters who are working to restore the Bill of Rights." "Restore" the Bill of Rights? Last I checked, the Bill of Rights was still in effect, no Restoration required. (What he's really talking about, of course, is preserving the procedural rules and restrictions introduced in the aftermath of the Church commission hearings-- a worthy subject for debate, but hardly the same thing.) That kind of rhetorical overkill invites the "pre-emptive" ridicule Matt mentions. Not only that, but the same sort of inflammatory rhetoric is often used to warn against the apocalyptic dangers of things like allowing high schools to post "God Bless America" signs or failing to ensure proportional representation of ethnic groups on network situation comedies. No wonder people tend to tune (or lash) out, even when, as now, there are important, legitimate issues at stake.

Many perpetual "resisters" appear to value resistance for its own sake under all circumstances, regardless of how frivolous, inapt, or even nonsensical it may be. Each and every situation that raises the ghost of a concern about civil liberties is presented as proof of an incipient conspiracy to establish a Police State. I've been hearing about this impending American police state since I was a small child, and I've always noted that those who issue such dire predictions often seem downright eager for them to come to pass, relishing the "proof" of "what they've been saying all along," since the '60s. They've been jumping the gun ever since then, filling the alternative weeklies and radio airwaves (public- and talk-) with periodic premature announcements that this or that president or cabinet member has finally realized the long-cherished dream of abolishing the Bill of Rights. I hate to disappoint you guys, but it's not going to happen. And part of the reason it won't happen is, indeed, that people like Nat Hentoff will continue to raise holy hell each time there's the slightest chance of any infringement of anyone's civil liberties, trivial or not. About which I can only say: don't ever change, keep up the good work, and let me know if you need any help.

But preserving the Bill of Rights, as important as that is, isn't the only thing we need to demand of the government right now. We also need them to identify and apprehend the people who are planning to blow us up, preferably before detonation. Contrary to the claims of some, this danger is not imaginary. (Nor was the danger from radical groups entirely imaginary in the days of COINTELPRO, though there certainly was a great deal of abuse of power, and it is justly condemned.) Get it through your thick, lovable, authority-questioning, "alternative" skulls: John Ashcroft may be a bad guy, but that doesn't change the fact that there are people out there who are trying to kill you. It is inevitable that some innocent people and benign organizations will have to be investigated in aid of identifying the ones who are building the bombs or cooking up the anthrax. How much leeway the government should be allowed in such investigations, what constitutes an abuse of power under these circumstances, who is accountable, how decisions are made, etc.-- these and many other issues must be considered and debated, "resisted" and protested if necessary. But if you want to engage in a serious debate on the subject of civil liberties, a good place to start would be to learn to avoid speaking as though you believe you live in an imaginary alternative universe where, unbeknownst to everyone else, the Bill of Rights has been abolished.

For my part, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, monitoring and investigating groups and individuals who pose a threat to the lives of innocent citizens and the security of the nation is the most important of the responsibilities we entrust to the government, even if we run the risk of compromising civil liberties. On the other, preserving the rights of innocent individual citizens, protecting them from unwarranted molestation by agents of state power, is the most important of the responsibilities we must insist upon from the government, even if it means a compromise of security. I know that technically they can't both be the "most important." Call me schizophrenic, but that's how I see it, contradictions and all. In a way, it is insisting on one of these positions to the absolute exclusion of the other which reflects a kind of mental derangement.

Matthew Engel (of "Olive Garden" infamy) recently wrote, in a typically snide and pedestrian column about Jose Padilla and government "spin doctoring," that "it is difficult for the critics to have it both ways: accusing the government simultaneously of lack of vigilance and over-zealousness." On reading this, I realized that, in fact, I do want to have it both ways. It may be difficult, but it also may be the only appropriate attitude to strike in this matter. The government should be raked over the coals for failing to track down more would-be terrorists; when such activities improperly compromise the rights of innocent citizens, rake 'em over the coals for that, too. Make them jump through a certain number of hoops in order to do their job, and vilify them mercilessly for allowing the hoops to get in their way. It sounds a little crazy, but it's better than allowing the extremists on either "side" to get everything they want. Extremists are scary.

Posted by Dr. Frank at June 20, 2002 02:52 PM | TrackBack