Take My Liberty If You Spare Me Death

In the wake of the ever-growing revelations about the White House's domestic spying authorizations, many Bush apologists are blowing off criticism of the scope of these programs, insinuating that civil liberties and privacy are a pre-9/11 luxury we can no longer afford. It's amazing to see conservatives- small government advocates and constitutional absolutists- now desperately looking to Big Brother to keep them safe in our indefinite war on terror. Fox News pundits are particularly prone to this cowardice, as Jon Stewart recently highlighted. It was also on display this past week during Gen. Hayden's confirmation hearings, as the Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Roberts- master of the Bush era coverups- and other panel Republicans used every opportunity they could to remind everyone of how Al Qaeda will kill us all in the near future.

No doubt giving them my phone records is the key to preventing that, though.

Matthew Yglesias brilliantly summed this up. It's so well-written, I reproduce it in full-

"I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties," Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) remarked at yesterday's Hayden confirmation hearings, "but you have no civil liberties if you are dead." This comes via Dave Weigel and nicely encapsulates at least three different pieces of horribly misguided rightingery.

First off is the sheer cowardice of it. Sure, liberal democracy is nice, but not if someone might get hurt. One might think that strong supporters of civil liberties would be willing to countenance the idea that it might be worth bearing some level of risk in order to preserve them.

Second is just this dogmatic post-9/11 insistence on acting as if human history began suddenly in 1997 or something. The United States was able to face down such threats as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany without indefinite detentions, widespread use of torture as an interrogative technique, or all-pervasive surveillance. But a smallish group of terrorists who can't even surface publicly abroad for fear they'll be swiftly killed by the mightiest military on earth? Time to break out the document shredder and do away with that pesky constitution.

Last, there's the unargued assumption that civil rights and the rule of law are some kind of near-intolerable impediment to national security. But if you look around the world over the past hundred years or so, I think you'll see that the record of democracy is pretty strong. You don't see authoritarian regimes using their superior ability to operate in secret and conduct surveillance to run roughshod over more fastidious countries. You see liberalism prospering -- both in the sense that the core liberal countries have grown richer-and-richer and in the sense that liberal democracy has consistently spread out from its original homeland since people like it better. You see governments that can operate in total secrecy falling prey to crippling corruption. You see powers of surveillance used not to defend countries from external threats, but to defend rulers from domestic political opponents.

The U.S.S.R., after all, lost the Cold War, not because we beat them in a race to the bottom to improve national security by gutting the principles of our system, but because the principles underlying our system were actually better than the alternative. If you don't have some faith the American way of life is capable of coping with actual challenges, then what's the point in defending it?

What he said.

Is this really what we've become?