Rights Under Siege

Quote of the day:
“Before I began watching this show, I had no strong opinion about illegal immigration. Now, I’m in favor of not only granting illegal immigrants citizenship, but also giving them each a fancy car and a semiautomatic weapon, if for no other reason than to watch ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight’ and see if a man can literally explode from bluster.”
--Gene Weingarten, San Diego Union-Tribune, June 17, 2007.

Yesterday I talked about privacy concerns that have been raised against Google. I said I was not especially concerned.

I am, however, very concerned about violations of privacy on the part of the government. And I am hugely concerned about the suspension of due process in criminal investigations. And furthermore, I am even more concerned about the real or implicit suspension of the Geneva Convention.

The same reason is given, mantra-like, for all three of these things. We hear it over and over and over again: “If it enables us to stop terrorists, it is worth this suspension of our rights.” More facilely, it’s referred to as giving up “a little bit” of freedom for increased security.

There is a fundamental flaw in this reasoning. The assumption is that “the ends justify the means.” We forget that this cliche is not supposed to be a statement, but rather a question. As in “Do the ends justify the means?”

This is meant as an open-ended, Socratic question, intended to stimulate thinking and conversation.

My view is that ends and means really cannot be separated. I agree with what Martin Luther King said in a 1964 San Diego speech. He was addressing those who argued that the way to achieve civil rights was through violence.

King said that it was impossible to use violent means to achieve non-violent ends. He said, “the means are the ends in process.”

So our goal is not to achieve the result of a peaceful, free and just country by whatever means we think will work. Instead, our goal is to simply be a peaceful, free and just country.