The Freedom Bulletin

Despite the small steps the TSA is taking to be slightly more respectful of people’s freedoms (eventually no more removing of shoes, reducing pat-downs for kids, non-naked scanners, etc.), stories like the following one show that there is still a long way to go toward restoring liberty in airport security. On September 11, after her flight landed in Detroit, Shoshana Hebshi was, for no apparent reason, handcuffed, interrogated, and strip searched:

“Silly me. I thought flying on 9/11 would be easy. I figured most people would choose not to fly that day so lines would be short, planes would be lightly filled and though security might be ratcheted up, we’d all feel safer knowing we had come a long way since that dreadful Tuesday morning 10 years ago.

But then armed officers stormed my plane, threw me in handcuffs and locked me up.”

I’m thankful to Hebshi and others like her who have taken the time to share their stories of mistreatment by the government and spread awareness of individual liberty. Read the rest of this truly awful story at her blog, and this article at CBS News.

Today is the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that changed America. In speeches, articles, and on TV, people remark about how America has triumphed because it is just as united as it was before, just as strong, just as safe. But in all the discussion of the anniversary of 9/11, I have heard hardly anyone mention freedom or liberty.

Is America as free as it was before September 11, 2001? Sadly, no. Far before 9/11, the federal government passed various laws that violate people’s rights, but in the past ten years, many people have used the horrific terrorist attacks as an excuse to rob Americans of even more freedoms.

In November 2001 the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration were created. Just a month later, when Richard Reid attempted to blow up an airplane with bombs in his shoes, the government reacted by punishing everyone, requiring us to remove our shoes in order to board a plane. Then in March 2005 they banned lighters from planes. In April 2006, when a plot was discovered involving liquid bombs, the government again punished everyone by banning liquids. In December 2009, after a would-be terrorist hid a bomb in his underwear, this punishment of everyone was taken to new levels, as the government accelerated, and still continues to accelerate, the deployment of scanners that reveal people’s naked bodies beneath their clothes.

Efforts to track and monitor more and more aspects of people’s lives extend beyond airports. Due in part to the Patriot Act, passed the month after the attacks, the federal government analyzes bank records (and is trying to expand this tracking to prepaid cards), phone calls, computer activity, and more in what the ACLU’s Carol Rose sums up as a “vast, secret domestic spying infrastructure aimed at ordinary Americans.” Security cameras are everywhere, giving law enforcement a permanent record of people’s movements on streets, in stores, and on public transportation. People can be singled out for additional surveillance for activities as benign as taking photos, taking notes in public, or having unusual viewpoints. It is becoming impossible to buy anything, use a computer, or even leave your house without your actions being monitored and logged.

Plus, those people unlucky enough to be declared “enemy combatants” can be imprisoned indefinitely and even tortured without being charged with any crime.

To destroy individual rights and freedom is to destroy America, which is giving the terrorists victory. As James Alan Fox writes, ”By curtailing our freedoms and inconveniencing ourselves any more than is necessary, we play right into the hands of our enemies.” And Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights accurately wrote that the loss of our liberties ”destroyed many more lives than those lost in the attack.”

There are some reasons for hope, however. The TSA is deploying scanners that do not show people naked, planning eventually to let people keep their shoes on, and generally moving towards a strategy of assessing each person’s security risk instead of trying to make terrorist attacks physically impossible. We have managed to prevent, so far, the implementation of a National ID card, as well as, for the most part, increased gun control. And in general I have noticed a growing number of everyday people, politicians, commentators, and organizations that support liberty.

These changes are a step in the right direction, but we can not let them be the only steps. Americans must resist at all costs the gradual erosion of our liberties. We must not let the events of September 11, 2001, permanently change the ideals of freedom that America was founded upon. Let’s remember the 2,996 people who lost their lives 10 years ago, and also remember liberty.

For a fantastic speech by Congressman Ron Paul on this topic, check out my post from a year ago.

In honor of 9/11, I give you a truly magnificent speech by Ron Paul. He gave this speech on May 22, 2007 to address the erosion of our liberties, especially after 9/11, and the difference between blind obedience to government policies and true patriotism, which sometimes entails fighting back against government policies that destroy liberty.

“The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.”

Read the rest here at LewRockwell.com.

President Obama said a few days ago that Muslims have the right to build a mosque near the site of the September 11th attacks. According to Obama…

“Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

Later, he added that he was “was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom” of the plan but merely the Constitutional right to do so.

I, believe it or not, agree with Obama.

Building a mosque near Ground Zero is not the greatest idea. It is a little strange and not very fitting to have a mosque right near the site of the worst act of terrorism in American history, which was committed by terrorists who happened to be Muslims. If I was in charge of building the mosque, I would choose a different location.

But it would not violate anyone’s rights to build the mosque. If you buy a plot of land, you have the right to build whatever you want there, even if most people disapprove of it. New York City could offer to buy up the land and turn it into a public memorial, but as long as the mosque developers own the land, they can build whatever they want.

Newt Gingrich compared building a mosque near Ground Zero to putting Nazi signs next to the Holocaust museum. Although I am a Newt fan, I have to object to this particular analogy. Nazism is the ideology that is responsible for the Holocaust, while Islam itself is not responsible for 9/11, just certain individuals who happened to be radical Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, while all Nazis are, well, Nazis. Putting a pro-terrorism memorial or terrorist training camp at Ground Zero, now that would be the equivalent of Nazi signs at the Holocaust museum.

In conclusion, although perhaps not a wise idea, there is no Constitutional or moral reason why a mosque near Ground Zero should be forbidden. The First Amendment gives people the freedoms of, among other things, religion and speech. 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism in American history. The feelings of its victims are important, and the potential Mosque builders should take them into account. But in America, we do not and should not deny people the right to practice their religion just because this would offend people.

Take a moment to remember the victims of 9/11. I hope America stays a strong and free nation and that our leaders realize that our liberty is what makes America great. Sacrificing liberty in the name of security would truly be letting the terrorists win.

Remember when the Phoenix airport installed those scanners that show passengers’ naked bodies as they pass through security? Logan Airport, in my hometown of Boston, is following suit. Starting in October or November, the TSA will install the invasive full-body scanners at Logan. Luckily, they are not going to be used on everyone, but only on people who set off the metal detector or who are marked as “persons of interest.” Additionally, people can refuse and instead be patted down or scanned with a handheld metal detector. Still, this is a violation of people’s privacy rights.

Right now, it seems as though no one is forced to be exposed by the scanners, which is a good thing. However, it gives me the creeps that technology like this even exists. What if the TSA someday decides to use the scanners on all passengers? What if they eliminate the option of being scanned (less intrusively) by hand?

Airport security is invasive enough as it is. There is no good reason why anyone needs a technology that enables them to see other people’s naked bodies through their clothes. Security is important, but privacy rights are even more important. The government has already drastically increased national security since 9/11, and full-body scanners are taking it too far.

Source: Boston Globe

Thanks to Tom Harpel for WTC photo; image can be distributed under these terms.