Yearning for Pre-Revolution America
There is an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal by David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey that merits a good thrashing. The title is “The British Way,” but I think my title describes the piece more accurately. The tone of the article is one of pretentious totalitarianism. The usual blood-boiling theses are raised: essential freedoms can and should be traded for temporary safety, existing is a higher goal than existing freely, and privacy is only of use to criminals. Humorously, the article contains a illustration which depicts a giant Union Jack on the ground, with a human form being restrained and restricted by the flag’s stripes, which are raised up as giant ribbons of oppression.
Britain’s successful preemption of an Islamicist [sic] plot to destroy up to 10 civilian airliners over the Atlantic Ocean proves that surveillance, and other forms of information-gathering, remain an essential weapon in prosecuting the war on terror.
Doesn’t it just prove that it is an effective method?
Al Qaeda’s preferred targets are civilians, and civilians have a right to be protected from such deliberate and calculated attacks.
There is, of course, no such right. Such a right would be impossible to preserve. Plus, if you have a right to be protected from harm, doesn’t that mean you can force other people to act as your personal bodyguards?
[...] it is worth considering some of the aspects in which the U.S. and U.K. anti-terrorism systems differ and what lessons can be learned. Of course, we begin with the proposition that the U.S. and Britain share a common law heritage, with its emphasis on individual rights and limitations on state power, and many of the same basic political values. That said, British law, political culture and sensibilities appear to be far more attuned to the practical needs of preventing terrorist attacks than do their American counterparts.
Preventing terrorist attacks: practical. Individual rights and limitations on state power: conducive to terrorism — thus, impractical.
The article continues, ad nauseum, praising the U.K. for how completely they have swept civil liberties aside in the name of temporary safety. Then, at the very end, there appears to be a ray of hope… will the authors finally realize that this anti-American fantasy can never be allowed to come to fruition?
The United States cannot, of course, adopt all aspects of the British system; our constitutional systems are really quite different. Nevertheless, there are clear lessons that can be drawn from the British experience–especially in affording the police greater investigative latitude and in accepting some compromise of privacy in exchange for greater security.
The thing about whoring your privacy and freedom out for security is that while the loss of freedom is guaranteed, the increase in security is not. All of the Orwellian freedom-zapping happenings in the U.K. did nothing to stop the London subway bombings. And try and sell the “safety for freedom” program to the innocent Brazilian kid who got his face blown off by overzealous London cops.
Rivkin and Casey have an obvious disdain for freedom, and a great love for the idea of mere existence as the highest good. They’re big fans of the restrictive, authoritarian Brits. My question for them is this: imagine yourself in America in the year 1776. Would your coats be red?
