Defining Libertarianism Down
Steven Chapman – a Big-L Libertarian I’ve always respected – has jumped the shark. Read what he has to say about Britain’s promise to expel “preachers of hate”:
The problem with Blair’s program is not that he wants to crack down on terrorist activity undertaken by imported radicals. Violence and other forms of criminality deserve vigorous prosecution and punishment. But his plan goes beyond targeting terrorist acts to penalizing forbidden thoughts and words. Just venturing into a radical bookstore could get you the boot.
If a radical Islamic leader is recruiting suicide bombers, helping them plan their crimes or inciting them to kill people, he shouldn’t be deported — he should be convicted and locked up. Blair, however, wants to expel anyone who merely expresses ideas that might conceivably be dangerous.
In case Chapman hadn’t read it the paper he works for, the UK is at war. She’s in a new kind of war – where the parameters have expanded to include civilians. Civilians who hide behind their rights, while calling for the abolition of those very rights. Civilians who, in the case of Abu Qatada, aren’t even subjects of the Queen (or “citizens” as we call them in the US).
No nation at war has any duty to respect the rights of enemy nationals. When the parameters of war have expanded to non-nation state actors like al Qaeda, then the definition of “enemy national” must be extended to those, like Qatada, who declare themselves our enemies by the company they keep and the words they speak.
Tony Blair has no need to wait for them to act. During war, words are enough. During war, even words aren’t needed before taking action. Enemy-national civilians may be deported or locked up, for any reason, period.
Chapman argues that “shutting up a few radical preachers won’t silence their ideas.” True enough. But what Chapman doesn’t say is why Britain should continue to play the lavish host to rude houseguests.
UPDATE: QandO performed a full-frontal fisking on Chapman’s piece. Read it.
I was going to post on this as well, but you and Q have done a great job. It seems to me that what people like Chapman don’tget is that we are at war.
I can’t imagine, for example, German Nationals in the U.S. during WWII being allowed to recruit for the Nazi cause. Yet this is exactly what some of these characters are doing in London. Blair is correct to stop it.
When you consider that in WWII we wrongly rounded up all CITIZENS of Japanese decent, then the practice of rooting out foreign nationals that speak and recruit against the country that hosts them is both reasonable and correct.
What exactly does it mean to say, “where the parameters have expanded to include civilians.” I am sure the millions of civilians more or less deliberately annihilated in WW2 would be rather surprised to find out they had not been targeted.
doug
I don’t recall the UK declaring war on anyone, is there a link for that?
Ugh,
I suppose the memory is a bit hazy but it was bin laden that declared war on America. Perhaps you just forgot? Easy to do I suppose.
I won’t bother you with the details in how this also includes London. My guess is you can figure it out.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
I live in Poland and people here would be astonished to think that civilians are only being involved in war now.
And so it begins…
From the International Herald Tribune:The British government, moving against suspected Islamic extremists after the July bombings, said Thursday that 10 foreign nationals seen as a "threat to national security" had been seized for deportat…
I’m just wondering how Stephen supports England deporting people under the notion that it is “at war” when it hasn’t declared war on anybody.
Freedom means following the rule of law- Going outside the laws to punish the religious leaders isnt going to help. If you havent noticed, the ones carrying out these missions (the terrorists) are the dregs. You cant export them all, but everytime you make a martyr out of one of their leaders by treating them unfairly, you are going to create more terrorists. If these leaders break the law, imprison them by the laws of the country they live in. If you export them somewhere else, it doesnt do anything in the technological age. They will be heard. What needs to be heard right now and projected is not a blind fear of all muslims- is by putting more and more of the Religious leaders of Islam who are condemning the terrorists on television. By only focusing on the bad eggs, Most mainstream British muslims are going to believe that what is really just a tiny minority of Islamic clerics spouting these anti-koranic statements to be the norm. More and more true leaders of Islam need to be heard to help prevent their disenfranchised youth from doing these attacks.
No, “Ugh,” you’re not wondering that at all.
You come in, you snipe a line or two, then leave. Your most recent comment is yet another example.
Declarations of War are out of vogue – and have been for 50-plus years. This country hasn’t declared war since 1941, and yet we’ve still been involved in plenty – and taken full, wartime actions during those many of those not-quite-declared wars.
The same goes for the UK, only more so – their Parliament hasn’t declared war since 1939. And yet, here we are at war again.
Got it?
In this country the UK: The United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales)and Northern Ireland, sometimes also known as Britain for short but equally interchangeable with ‘the UK’ but not England, in response to one comment on this post (which is only one country within this nation state) from which some foreign nationals may very well soon be deported, we are citizens, albeit historically also ‘subjects of the Queen’. Those who wish to gain a British and thereby European Union passport and who are not Commonwealth nationals have to go through a citizenship ceremony where they swear allegiance to the Crown. Those from Commonwealth countries do not need to go through this formal procedure in and of that they recognise the Crown as the head of their respective parliaments, and were historically also British subjects. Nevertheless in the latter as well as the former case on fulfilling the basic requirements of residency and criminal record check, a foreign national will receive a certificate of naturalisation and will thereafter be known as a ‘British citizen’. Please feel free to fact check this information at your nearest Brtish Embassy, High Commission, Consulate, or British Council office. Otherwise great post.
You’re right, I’ve been coming in here an sniping and then leaving. That is annoying and I will stop. However I tend to do that especially when I see people who I consider reasonable and thoughtful say things I consider unreasonable and unthoughtful (obviously that does not make them so).
You state that
During war, even words aren’t needed before taking action. Enemy-national civilians may be deported or locked up, for any reason, period.
You previously state that:
When the parameters of war have expanded to non-nation state actors like al Qaeda, then the definition of “enemy national” must be extended to those, like Qatada, who declare themselves our enemies by the company they keep and the words they speak.
I take the combination of those two statements to imply that you think Britain can deport anyone it sees fit for any reason whatsoever, with the possible exception of UK citizens, who can only be deported if they “declare themselves our enemies by the company they keep and the words they speak,” because the UK is at war.
My understanding that this is a sweeping change from previous UK law/policy and is justified because the UK is “at war.” I wanted to suggest that such a sweeping change should be brought about by something more than executive fiat, though the UK system differs from ours so perhaps it would not be necessary there.
However, I also take it from your comments that such a policy would be appropriate here, again under the notion that we are “at war.” Again, I would like to see a little more coordination between branches before we start deporting people because we’re at war and the executive branch doesn’t like them.
Yes we’ve been involved in wars since last formally declaring war back in 1941, and so such silly constitutional requirements are “out of vogue,” as you put it. However, when the country who is at a non-declared war wishes to alter its treatment of people residing within that country, citizens or non-citizens, I would suggest something requiring agreement of the legislature should be required.
Ugh,
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. My final sentence in the original post ended with, “why Britain should continue to play the lavish host to rude houseguests.”
“Houseguests” refered (rather obviously, I thought) to non-citizens. Citizens do now, and (I hope and pray) always will be afforded full protection under the law. Those protections include the right not to be deported.
Non-citizens enjoy no such protection. They may be asked (or forced if needed) to leave at any time.
During peace we’re a lot more lax about who we let in, and who we let stay – and that is how it should be.
During war, we’re required to be a little more strict about it.
I hope that clears things up.
One of the great things about laws, is that they can be changed.
For example, during wartime, conscription laws can be enacted to forcibly enlist people in the armed forces for a nations defense. People can be hanged for desertion or mutiny as well during wartime.
The UK is at war. The law can and should changed to aid the state in defending itself.
Those like Ugh who wish the UK to do nothing special to defend itself are idiots and should be drafted and sent Iraq to be used as human shields.
(In reality I don’t wish that as it would be a waste of human resources)
Executing traitors (like Lord Haw Haw during WWII) would get the enemies attention – especially an enemy that preys on what it perceives as weakness.
Invading Afhganistans main benefit was the destruction of training camps. I don’t see why the UK should continue to allow what are essentially Al Quada training camps to continue to operate in the UK.
Perhaps more appropos to your headline, there is a reason Ayn Rand used to call liberterians “hippies of the right,” and it was, partly I believe, because of their tendency to take positions that defy common sense. You have happened upon one such position.
Currently one of the statutes discussed as a possible legal mechanism in these cases is treason, a law that incidentally predates parliament. As far as I understand the last use of this was namely Lord Haw Haw, immediately after the second world war, so not for nothing that it was used in that case against an aristocrat. However ‘other’ statutes are seen as being more appropriate. Furthermore in and of that Britain is signed up to Council of Europe charters, not to be confused with the European Council, an administrative body of the European Union, the death penalty is out of the question. Deportation orders against naturalised British citizens requires their first being stripped of citizenship. In a scenario where British born citizens were indicted under these sorts of orders, (which has not happened yet), High Security long term imprisonment is the only real current legal option. It would seem that the reason there is resistance to the idea of going down the treason route is precisely because the idea of stripping British born citizens of their citizenship, with the intention of deporting them is a non starter.
Deport. Radical. Foreign. Muslims. Now.
Should we be following the example of the Brits and deporting foreign nationals that support jihad? Steve Chapman says no. Stephen Green the Vodkapundit says yes. Dale Franks of the QandO blog agrees, and takes Chapman to task. And Goldstein…
It is hard being a libertarian in wartime. We have to gut up to things we don’t like in order to achieve victory.
“Citizens do now, and (I hope and pray) always will be afforded full protection under the law.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, they also have a responsibility to the law as well.
That’s the part that’s been allowed to erode, IMO. Much of the friction going on is people who are law-abiding getting fed up with those who are gaming the system.
Of course, when you set up a welfare state, you allow many more points of entry for said gamers.
During peace we’re a lot more lax about who we let in, and who we let stay – and that is how it should be.
During war, we’re required to be a little more strict about it.
Which is why I would like some delineation between peace and war.
For how long have we been at war with radical Islam? Since 9/11? Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? Since the twin bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzinia? Since the bombing of the U.S. barracks at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in June 1996? Since the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993? Since the Pan Am bombing in August 1988? The bombing of a German nightclub in March 1986? The bombing of TWA Flight 840 in March 1986? The cruise ship hijacking in October 1985? The Marine barracks destruction in Lebanon in October 1983? The U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut in April 1983? The takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979?
Perhaps we have been at war since 1979, or earlier, but you are making distinctions based on whether we are at war or not, and I would like some formal recognition of that distinction other than going on executive branch say-so.
As far as “houseguests” go, I still fail to see why your comment that the “definition of ‘enemy national’ must be extended to those, like Qatada, who declare themselves our enemies by the company they keep and the words they speak,” does not encompass UK (or US) citizens.
I guess, at base, that I am not convinced that your distinction between citizens and non-citizens will hold up if subjected to public scrutiny. If non-citizens are enemies for saying X, why aren’t citizens for saying the same? Non-thinking people will not see the difference, if there is one.
Ugh,
Non-citizens have no right to stay in the US. They are here purely at our convenience. If tommarrow we wish to deport every non-citizen that we can find it would be perfectly legal. A non-US citizens has no right to STAY in the US and can be sent home at anytime for any reason (even just looking crosseyed!). The idea that non-citizens have a right to be in the US is nonsense on its face – especially in a time of war.
Ugh,
You wrote:
There’s a very clear line between citizens and non-citizens. The defining line is – follow me closely here – citizenship.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled you can’t just take citizenship away from a citizen.
Your worries are as unfounded as your ignorance is profound.
There’s a very clear line between citizens and non-citizens. The defining line is – follow me closely here – citizenship.
Of course. I guess I wasn’t clear, I’m saying that I think that people will not accept the fact that person X can say all sorts of nasty things about the United States because he/she is a citizen, but person Y can’t because he/she is not. People will say “lock them both up,” which I take it you do not agree with.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled you can’t just take citizenship away from a citizen.
As it should have.
Your worries are as unfounded as your ignorance is profound.
If the first part ends up being true I will happily agree to the second.
I agree with you, Stephen, for the most part, but I think that Ugh is making a pretty good point. A formal declaration of war puts a time limit on the drastic measures taken during war time. We don’t want to live under perpetual war time conditions. If we allow the government to assume extraordinary powers without the time limit of a formal declaration of war, then we have established a bad precedent. It progress just as RICO did, from a law aimed against criminal organizations to a weapon to beat honest citizens over the head with. RICO was aimed at drug lords in the War on Drugs. Now we have a similarly vague War on Terror, and don’t be surprised if the measures adopted to deal with Islamic terrorists are later turned on US citizens.
I know you say that declarations of war are “out of vogue,” but isn’t that a large part of the reason why we haven’t won a war since WWII? If we had a formal declaration of war on Iraq, the American people would not settle for anything less than victory. In WWII, our goal was not to liberate Germany and Japan, but to obliterate them. When we had reduced their cities to rubble, and killed a large percentage of their populations, there was no fight left in them. We were able to do the job of occupying and liberalizing the country without a bunch of idiots trying to blow up our soldiers.
The lack of a declaration of war is going to cost us victory overseas, and freedom here at home.
Ardsgaine,
While I share your concerns – man, do I – I don’t agree with your reasoning. (For the “man, do I” part, search the archives for “Patriot Act.” You won’t find a kind word from me. Or search for Goldstein + slutty + cheerleader. Anyway.)
The three times our federal government expanded its powers the most, and most egregiously, was during the Civil War and the two World Wars. All three were declared wars.
The Cold War lasted much longer, was never declared, involved the deaths of nearly 100,000 American soldiers… and yet never saw the suspension of habeas corpus, or the internment of minorities, or the jailing of dissenters qua dissenters. All of those evils happened during our three biggest declared wars.
By not declaring war (and how does one declare war on a hostile ideology, anyway?) we may – may – be keeping the government from growing to its scary Wartime Strength.
Sorry gentlement but the issue here is whether a foreign guest, illegal or on a visa can be sent home and the answer is yes. Even foreigners with diplomatic immunity can be expelled so I am at a loss why Ugh and others find it difficult to surmise why Joe Abdul can be expelled in the same manner.
Also, I can argue that we are in a declared state of war as Congress gave the authorization to clean out Afghanistan and Iraq. Was it a formal declaration? I guess if you want to split hairs perhaps but it is a lot more than they gave over Korea or Nam.
I would be curious if there is a law on the books that actually gives foreigners the right to come in the country. If there isn’t, I’m somewhat at a loss as to why there should be one to kick them out. They go out the same way they came in.
Just so you know, when we have to start debating the rights and wrongs of deporting foreign foreign radicals who are essentially providing moral support for the enemy, we pretty much are losing the fight. I’d imagine that if Galloway was around in 1940, he would be demanding Lord Haw Haw have equal time on the BBC.
Billy,
The BBC is equal time for modern-day Haw Haws.
He’s right about locking people up instead of deporting them though.
Deport the questionable ones, lock up the one’s you are sure about.
That’s my libertarian view. Liberty doesn’t apply to people who incite violence.
“During war, even words aren’t needed before taking action. Enemy-national civilians may be deported or locked up, for any reason, period.”
So, to defend the principles on which the state is founded you support violating those rights?
That kind of thinking is what landed thousands of innocent American citizens of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry in internment camps during WW2. Yeah, we locked up a lot of people who actually were essentially 5th columnists, but the majority of the internees were completely innocent. I can’t think of very many people now-a-days who think that it was right or even a good thing to violate the rights of the many to punish the few.
By the way, for the Americans here at least…
If “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is true in its word and that one of the other associated rights is the right to free-speech as defined in the Constitution, doesn’t it follow that even non-citizen foreign nationals are humans and therefore imbued with the right to free-speech?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Brandenburg v Ohio established the idea of “clear and present danger” with relation to free speech. Speech is only limited if the violence/unlawful activity it promotes is “imminent” and only if the speaker explicitly urged the action. So, if someone preaches “go blow yourself up on trains and buses, crash airplanes into buildings” and someone in the audience does exactly that, then it violates free speech. There is certainly some fuzziness with respect to the imminence of the actioin, but we have to leave that up to the courts, not congress or the president.
A question for those who would like to have a clear delcaration of war; on whom would we declare it?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Brandenburg v Ohio established the idea of “clear and present danger” with relation to free speech.
Er, no. That was Schenck v. United States, in 1919. Schenck was a Socialist who tried to incite (peaceful) draft resistance. O.W. Holmes, writing for the court, said:
He obviously thought that Schenck’s words and actions represented a “clear and present danger”.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) involved some Klansmen who got dressed in their bedsheets and frolicked about for a news crew, which put them afoul of an Ohio law against advocating violence “as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform”. The Court’s decision overturned the Ohio law and established the “imminent lawless action”.
This case is much more relevant to our situation today, and much hangs on the word “imminent”. This decision comes down to us stripped of context (at least, for those of us too lazy to do any more Googling). Were there many instances of Klan-related violence in Ohio in 1969? If there had been a black family murdered the day after the Klan rally footage was aired, would the court have rendered the same decision? What if it were a week after, or a month after, or what if it were not in Ohio but in Mississippi? (Always assuming, of course, that the actual deed could not be put down to the Klansmen filmed at the rally.)
The relevance of any of this to non-citizens is left to the reader who is not tired of Googling.
A reminder to greg: it’s all very well to say “leave it up to the courts”, but the courts don’t make pre-emptive rulings. Courts rule on the lawfulness of deeds already done. We’ll have to toss out an Islamist, and he’ll have to petition for redress, and several courts will have to rule, before we ever find out if the decision to deport him was legal.
“(T)he UK is at war. She’s in a new kind of war[...]”
The 19th-century Frenchman (and proto-fascist) Louis Veuillot said: “When I am weak, I ask for my freedom because that is according to your principles. When I am strong, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
Not a new kind of war at all…