The
obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no
longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them.
Thomas Hobbes, “Leviathan”
Obligations
of government in balancing liberty and security
The name of this course, terrorism and homeland
security, gives us the purpose of the class.
At this point in the term, as we discuss the definitions and causes of
terror, we need to begin understanding how governments respond to terror and
how they should respond to terror. What
is the point of a government that does not protect its citizens? As American students, we will move into the
concepts and organization of homeland security later in the term, but it will
aid us to understand those concepts more fully if we keep in mind the purposes
of government as we discuss the gestalt of terrorism.
Although modern politics attempts to portray
this otherwise, the primary function of the Constitution of the United States
of America is to defend its citizenry. The Preamble of the document makes providing
for the common defense one of the defined purposes of the underlying law of the
land. Madison makes this duty to protect
clear in explaining Constitutional framework in The Federalist No. 10; protection of man and his property "is
the first object of government" (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 2001, p. 42). Heyman (2001) explains the legal and
philosophical background of this view in terms of English common law and Locke’s
view of the social contract.
However, we should also note that the
Constitution sets other principles as primary functions of our government; establishing
justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, and securing liberty are the concepts
that concern us in this discussion. The
concept of protecting liberty must be balanced by the duty to protect the
citizenry, and this balance must be weighed in terms of justice and
tranquility. Riley (2012) asserts that a
written set of laws, as exemplified by our Constitution, is the best method of
preventing tyranny. Separation of powers
is another concept that prevents tyranny.
We should remember that America is a Republic, not a democracy. Sutherland (1951) argues that Americans must
make constant calculations of risk in deciding security policy. You should know that many laws and policies
of the United Sates have been determined later to be unconstitutional and
abandoned…and that the constitutionality of some of these have been restored at
later times. Politics, and not adherence
to the Constitution, has created much of this law and policy.
Willis (2009) contends that here will always be
tension in the balance between liberty and security. Willis places this tension in the realm of
struggle for political power, but also demonstrates that a restriction on
liberty for some groups leads to an increase in security for others in the case
of gangs preying on pensioners. Lopach and
Luckowski (2006) suggest several facets of understanding to study to help grasp
the balance, including but not limited to: national security, liberty, separation
of powers, rule of law, growth complex, and civil virtue. We are not going to cover all of these in
class, but feel free to ask!
From our earlier discussion, we have seen
policy set with the purpose of protecting the citizen, but that had the actual
effect of harming his liberty. As we
advance through the term, you will be exposed to specific cases debates in
which this balance may apply. Is the
policy of banning Muslims from immigrating to this country an act of protecting
America, or is it a case of lost liberty?
Does the PATRIOT Act harm liberty, or protect Americans? Why was the NSA spying on all Americans rather
than focusing on known security threats?
Do, or should, aliens (whether
they be legal or illegal) have the same set of rights as American citizens? What about American citizens fighting under a foreign
banner? One thing to keep in mind that
any given policy may have both the results of security and liberty, neither
effect, either effect, or even a balance of tensions that must be maintained. For example, one possibility in a tension of
policy may be to temporally ban Muslims from entering while fixing the systems
of vetting that would satisfy both needs of America in terms of security and
liberty. For you as a student, a policy
maker, or a first responder, understanding the purposes of government and the
effects of politics on how those purposes are achieved is necessary to
understand how to respond to terror, or for any other threat to American
security and liberty.
Under our current educational standards, it is
possible that many students do not have a full understanding of liberty. Such students should not feel ignorant. West (1965) notes that before the concept can
sensibly be discussed, there must a definition of liberty, and further notes
that there are two conflicting notions of liberty in the positive and negative
senses. Political actors may seek to
define liberty in words that justify their own policies. In interpretations of liberty for the
American system of governance, therefore we should look to the sources that the
Founders defined the terms, Hobbes, Locke, and the evolving English
tradition. Two notes here; first, it is
NOT required to read this material for this course…it is hard reading, but it
is also worth the time for your own understanding. Second, Hobbes is often interpreted as being
an absolute statist (a person who finds all social solutions to be found in the
power of the state), but Harrington (2005) argues that it is the idea of
liberty that puts Hobbes’s philosophy into full sensibility.
So we have looked at the underlying function of
government, the stated purposes of the Constitution in American government and
the reasoning behind those purposes, the inherent tension between security and
liberty, some possible examples of that tension in the war on terror, and
sources of information to explain the idea of liberty. We have touched upon, but not gone into
detail, the implication of political influences upon these subjects. As we discuss terrorism, it’s effects upon
our country, and how to counter the threat of terrorism, we can keep these
concepts in mind.
References
and Suggested Reading:
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., &
Jay, J. (2001). The Federalist Papers. Hazleton, PA: Pennsylvania State
University.
Harrington, R. (2005). Hobbes and
liberty: the subject’s sphere of liberty in Leviathan. Retrieved from
http://www.artificialhorizon.org
Heyman, S. J. (1991). The first duty
of government: protection, liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment. Duke Law
Journal, 507–571.
Lopach, J. J., & Luckowski, J.
A. (2006). national security and civil liberty: striking the balance. The
Social Studies, 97(6), 245–248.
Riley, C. J. (2012). Constitutional law
as a bulwark against tyranny: The American experience. Moreana, 49(189/190),
89–116.
Sutherland Jr., A. E. (1951).
Freedom and internal security. Harvard Law Review, 64(3),
383–416.
West, E. G. (1965). Liberty and education:
John Stuart Mill’s dilemma. Philosophy, 40(152), 129–142.
Wills, M. (2009). Language and the
politics of liberty and security. Public Policy Research, 16(1),
34–37. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-540X.2009.00552.x
