The security of liberty

It is often argued that there is an ideal equilibrium between safety and freedom. Adherents of this view contend that Americans should resolve this tension by not overstepping in either direction. They assert that, however difficult, Americans must strike a balance between security and liberty.\nI don't accept this false dichotomy. The premise is rooted in the belief that "liberty" and "security" are two mutually exclusive and incompatible values rather than essential features of one and the same value. It might strike some as fickle to draw such a distinction, but to the Founders, it was no light matter. For any inclined to quarrel with this, they ought to consider Alexander Hamilton's explanation in Federalist Paper No. 1. \n"It will be equally forgotten," Hamilton writes, "that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty: that in contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their instincts can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government."\nHamilton's view of liberty and security as complementary assets is accurate. Liberty is the condition in which a man has leave to live by no man's leave. Insecurity, on the other hand, is the condition in which liberty can be extinguished. The pervasive notion that robust security is a threat to liberty is thus counter-intuitive. A thorough analysis, however, shows that security alone is not enough. Security without liberty is injustice. Still, security is a prerequisite for liberty. \nThis view does not appeal to many card-carrying members of the American Civil Liberties Union. They would have us believe that George Orwell's "1984" has arrived, ostensibly out of fear for rats tearing through cheeks to gnaw at our tongues in order to hush our dissent. But less extreme observers can still go astray. Many make the argument that allowing federal agents access to library records encroaches upon civil liberties. This is certainly grounds for debate. But as people the world over yearn for a book to read, it takes some nerve in a country of free libraries to protest oppression. For shame.\nThe temptation to move America toward a national security state would bring fail-safe security that isn't worth having. But it is ludicrous for others to talk as if Kristallnacht is impending under this administration's watch. It isn't.\nAre bin Ladenists captured planting bombs in mosques entitled to Geneva Convention protections? Are coercive interrogations ever justified? Anyone attending to my arguments can readily deduce that I am at a loss to see how those who aren't signatories to treaties on human rights deserve the protections they afford. Still, dissent is necessary over such tactical matters in this war. But on the main issue -- that of America's superior discretion -- all but our enemies should be in accord. Americans are fortunate to possess a system that guarantees the security of their liberty.