'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'.
Thomas Jefferson, that stalwart of individual freedom (at least in theory), purportedly said these famous words. Given the somewhat distrustful stance of the founding fathers towards tyrannical governments, having just defeated one after a prolonged armed struggle, it is not hard to construct a context for this phrase.
But what did he mean, exactly? Was he asking Americans to be vigilant against foreign invaders? Or was he concerned about threats to freedom from within the august borders of America? Who has to be vigilant, and against whom? The Department of Homeland Security could easily use this mantra as it's official motto. After the Boston Bombings, the whole security apparatus came down hard on the city, locking it down, making warrantless house searches, shutting down phone services etc. Weren't they being vigilant, trying to protect the liberties of it's citizens? You could also paste this message outside the gate of NSA's gigantic Data Center in Utah, through which it is estimated a huge percentage of the communication traffic, including calls and emails, is parsed. Add to this frightening infrastructure, the incessant efforts by Congress to create a legal framework justifying this surveillance through SOPA and CISPA, and a rather comprehensive picture begins to emerge. But again, isn't the government simply trying to be 'vigilant', in case a few miscreants among us are planning to rob us of our liberties?
The answer, as always comes down to the nature of Power. Does an individual, or a group of individuals, have the power to rob us of our freedoms?? Sure they can rob us of our lives, but thats not entirely the same thing. The loss of freedom is a loss of choice. Even a hundred bombers, can at most, threaten our lives. But they cannot destroy our ability to choose. For that, they need a structure, a legal entity that forces its will upon the citizenry through laws that operate through perpetuity. They need a government.
9/11 caused incredible damage to life and property through violence. But its long term consequences were not initiated by al-Qaeda. Osama did not create the TSA. It wasnt Osama that made torture official policy, that continues to this day in the starvation camp of Gitmo. Osama didn't sign the Patriot Act, FISA, NDAA etc. It is these incursions that substitute liberty for security. And so it was this power structure that Jefferson was warning against.
But a vital question still remains. What forms vigilance? If the government does indeed snap at the heels of liberty, when and what is the appropriate response? I fear the tragedy of current generation lies in the word 'response'. If you are 'responding' to a violation of individual rights, then its already too late.
Take the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was droned in Yemen along with his teenage son, also a citizen. He was essentially the head of Human Resources for al-Qaeda. A despicable career if there was one, but not worthy of an unceremonious end without a trial. No moral man would have shed a tear for this person if he had been found guilty by a jury and executed. But no trial was given. No evidence was presented. It was a summary execution, rather an assassination. Leaving aside the moral issues concerning bombing people without a trial on a weekly basis, Awlaki was special because he was still a citizen, not an 'other'. He wasnt armed when he was killed. There was no 'imminent' danger to anybody at the time of his death. So clearly, a legal conundrum has presented itself to the citizens of the USA. Can citizens be assassinated by the government if they are deemed 'enemy combatants'? Could the teenage Boston Bomber have been droned while he hid away in the boat? As police departments across the country begin to add drones to their arsenal, is now the right time to start being vigilant?
No. I'm afraid now is too little, too late. When the government has already crossed the Rubicon, and the media vultures are circling the dying right, it is too late. The time to act was before the government and the media got an opportunity to talk about it. The minute you get to talk about the loss of a particular liberty, you have already started on the narrow dark road to losing it. Americans, whether they realize it or not, have already lost the battle of the drones. Another exigent circumstance, this time on the home land, will be enough to let the local sheriff authorize a strike against a 'terror combatant', nullifying each and every right. Miranda rights? Bah. Lets talk about it. Habeous Corpus? Please. Lets talk about it.
The minute your rights are on prime time television, being deliberated upon by pundits, it is game over. It is too late. You just dont know it yet.
So vigilance, it is not a response. It is a pre-emptive strike at the heart of despotism. It is a prevention, not a cure. It is the price of freedom, and so far, we are failing miserably at it.
