How Patriotic is the Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security in the Age of Terrorism

America is about our freedom. It is the most important thing we have. The slogan on the New Hampshire license tells how very important our freedom is. It reads "Live Free or Die." If the American people allow fear to change their thinking - it will be a very sad day. Fear of terrorism could very well be far more dangerous to us than actual terrorism. The tragedy of 9/11 is far more than the terrible suicide attack of that day. The greatest tragedy could be in our own hands. If the American people give up their freedoms to the government for the illusion of safety from terrorism it would be a huge tragedy. The worst terrorism in history has always been committed by out-of-control governments such as what happened in Russia and Germany in the last 100 years. American People, do not ever give up your freedoms to the government such as some of the provisions in the patriot act that give away your freedom. The entire vitality of the American experience has been and always will be, if we are to stay vital, the placing of individual freedom as the most important value in the land. No amount of marginal illusionary additional security gained by giving up our freedoms could ever be worth it as we would watch the destruction of the vitality of our land.

On Amitai Etzioni's How Patriotic is the Patriot Act?: Freedom versus Security in the Age of Terrorism, comments by Robert B. Smith, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Patrick Henry proclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Amitai Etzioni asks: If you are dead, what good is liberty? He then assesses the trade-offs between stricter governmental security measures designed to prevent deaths due to terrorists, and the consequences of these measures for reducing freedom. Drawing upon interpretations of the fall of Germany's Weimar Republic (pp. 12-14), Etzioni suggests that governmental ineffectiveness will precipitate a breakdown of democracy. To preserve its legitimacy after 9/11, the US government needed to effectively combat terrorism; the Patriot Act, with all its flaws and restrictions on liberty (p. 9), was designed as a means to that end. An alternative interpretation of the breakdown of democracy in the Weimar Republic explains the reasons for governmental ineffectiveness as the result of the polarization between the far Right (the aristocracy, big business, nationalists, and antisemites) and the far Left (communists); all of these groupings denied legitimacy to the Republic at its inception. Their failure to support the Republic prevented effective governmental actions that would minimize the impacts of hyperinflation and unemployment. It was in this environment that Hitler rose to power. He was not elected to office; rather a group of ultra conservatives persuaded the senile von Hindenberg to give Hitler power, which he then used to restrict civil liberties, annihilate Jews, and wage war (Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Hitler's Thirty Days to Power: January 1933. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996). The Patriot Act enables the government to restrict civil liberties in order to provide security, thereby alleviating the public's fears of future terrorist attacks. But governmental agencies can manipulate the climate of fear of terrorists and thus may garner support for tightening restrictions on civil liberties. Etzioni's analysis of public opinion data (pp. 16-21) documents that after 9/11 the apprehensive public wanted security and, unlike Patrick Henry, not death; therefore the public supported restrictions on civil liberties. As time passed, and as their fears abated, the public desired fewer restrictions on freedom. However, the Patriot Act lowered the level of freedom in the US and, apparently, the public has accommodated to this change, believing that that these measures, although they have been somewhat softened, are now at the appropriate level for the US (p. 21). After the threats are removed, rolling back the restrictions on liberty may be difficult because some elites may resist a rollback, and the general public may not sufficiently value liberty (p. 20). Etzioni advocates a national ID card that would uniquely identify an individual and prevent identity theft. He states: "It is essential to develop reliable means of iden

In the new book, HOW PATRIOTIC IS THE PATRIOT ACT?: FREEDOM VERSUS SECURITY IN THE AGE OF TERRORISM (Routledge, 2004), a communitarian way of thinking is applied to one of the hottest topics of the day. The author, Dr. Amitai Etzioni, argues that when it comes to national security we face two profound commitments: protecting our homeland and safeguarding our rights. Demonstrating that extremism in the defense of either security or liberty is not a virtue, the book charts a middle course between those who are committed to the preservation of our liberties but blind to the needs of public security and those who are willing to sacrifice our cherished freedoms for the sake of preventing terrorism. For the unfamiliar, communitarianism is a moderate brand of political and sociological philosophy that seeks to balance rights and responsibilities in our society. Led by Dr. Etzioni, The Communitarian Network actively seeks to engage people in this ongoing discussion of communitarian thought, policy, and society, and very much encourages anyone interested in joining into a dialogue to e-mail the Communitarian Network office at [email protected]. Below are comments from various leaders and scholars about the book. NADINE STROSSEN PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION PROFESSOR OF LAW, NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL "Amitai Etzioni presents a thoughtful assessment of the controversial post 9/11 measures and proposals that undermine civil liberties in the name of national security. Even for those of us who disagree with some of his conclusions, this book provides valuable insights into the essential task of maximizing safety while minimizing invasions of liberty." LARRY D. THOMPSON SENIOR FELLOW, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL "Etzioni has produced a detailed, very thoughtful, balanced but provocative examination of how our nation MUST respond to the very real threat of terrorism. He demonstrates decisively that the notion that we should not increase governmental authority to protect innocent civilians from ruthless terrorists, lest we sacrifice our precious freedoms, is simply based on a false premise." MARK KNOBLAUCH BOOK REVIEWER, BOOKLIST "Etzioni concerns himself less with the Patriot Act itself than with broader questions of how well in a post-9/11 environment American society can protect citizens against terrorist threats without damaging or discarding those individual rights that are the nation's legal hallmarks...Etzioni saves his most profound criticism for current American efforts to build democratic societies in countries lacking either the social or political institutions and traditions within which to build rational orders respectful of individual rights and tolerant of diverse opinion. Readers looking for a rigorous legal encounter with the Patriot Act may be disappointed, but Etzioni has provided a very approachable resource for student essays and debates." DOUGLAS W. KMIEC CHAIR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PEPPE