The Challenge of the Times
Annelise Anderson, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution
Issue date: 10/1/01 Section: Perspectives
- Page 1 of 1
Our greatest risk in the current situation is the loss of liberty as we willingly grant government greater powers to deal with the threat of terrorism.
We have called terrorism an act of war, and it is a war I believe we have the will and the means to win. What we do in this time of war should be exceptional and temporary, even if “temporary” means a few years.
We need, no doubt, far more stringent security at airports, greater powers to detain those who violate our immigration statutes, perhaps more severe penalties for crimes we define as terrorist acts of war. During World War II all incoming and outgoing foreign mail was censored on the grounds that it could contain communications to and from our enemies. We enlisted the help of the Mafia in protecting New York’s harbors from sabotage. And we interned citizens of Japanese descent. But not forever.
One way to avoid a permanent loss of liberty--of freedom to travel, freedom to communicate in privacy, freedom to be anonymous when we choose to be--is to do everything we need to do, under this state of duress in which we find ourselves, in a way that is as temporary as possible and as easy to reverse as possible.
It is easier to reverse an executive order--or to let it expire--than it is to repeal legislation. An Anti-Terrorist Act passed in the heat of patriotism and fear is far less desirable than a temporary grant to the President of executive power to take such actions as may be necessary under conditions of war. Law enforcement agencies and investigative agencies are always eager to have all the funds and tools they might possibly need to do their jobs as effectively as possible; a period of crisis is an ideal time for them to get the rights to seize records, require secure identification, criminalize juvenile delinquents playing with computer technology, demand that the government hold the keys to our encrypted communications, both personal and commercial, and limit the rights of citizens to arm themselves. But we should wait for safer and cooler times before making decisions on how final and permanent we want such changes to be. A state of war should not become a way of life.
Ronald Reagan addressed terrorism in an August 18, 1980 campaign speech in Chicago to the Veterans of Foreign Wars:
“We must take a stand against terrorism in the world and combat it with firmness, for it is a most cowardly and savage violation of peace. We must retain that margin of safety I spoke of both in conventional arms and the deployment of troops. And we must allow no weakness in our nuclear deterrent.
“There is something else. We must remember our heritage, who we are and what we are, and how this nation, this island of freedom, came into being. And we must make it unmistakably plain to all the world that we have no intention of compromising our principles, our beliefs or our freedom. That we have the will and the determination to do as a young president said in his inaugural address 20 years ago, ‘bear any burden, pay any price.’ Our reward will be world peace; there is no other way to have it.” (Quoted from Reagan, In His Own Hand, ed. Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise Anderson, and Martin Anderson (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 283-84.)
How we go about combating terrorism in such a way that we do not compromise our principles, our beliefs, or our freedoms is, I believe, the main challenge of our times.
Annelise Anderson was Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan Administration.
We have called terrorism an act of war, and it is a war I believe we have the will and the means to win. What we do in this time of war should be exceptional and temporary, even if “temporary” means a few years.
We need, no doubt, far more stringent security at airports, greater powers to detain those who violate our immigration statutes, perhaps more severe penalties for crimes we define as terrorist acts of war. During World War II all incoming and outgoing foreign mail was censored on the grounds that it could contain communications to and from our enemies. We enlisted the help of the Mafia in protecting New York’s harbors from sabotage. And we interned citizens of Japanese descent. But not forever.
One way to avoid a permanent loss of liberty--of freedom to travel, freedom to communicate in privacy, freedom to be anonymous when we choose to be--is to do everything we need to do, under this state of duress in which we find ourselves, in a way that is as temporary as possible and as easy to reverse as possible.
It is easier to reverse an executive order--or to let it expire--than it is to repeal legislation. An Anti-Terrorist Act passed in the heat of patriotism and fear is far less desirable than a temporary grant to the President of executive power to take such actions as may be necessary under conditions of war. Law enforcement agencies and investigative agencies are always eager to have all the funds and tools they might possibly need to do their jobs as effectively as possible; a period of crisis is an ideal time for them to get the rights to seize records, require secure identification, criminalize juvenile delinquents playing with computer technology, demand that the government hold the keys to our encrypted communications, both personal and commercial, and limit the rights of citizens to arm themselves. But we should wait for safer and cooler times before making decisions on how final and permanent we want such changes to be. A state of war should not become a way of life.
Ronald Reagan addressed terrorism in an August 18, 1980 campaign speech in Chicago to the Veterans of Foreign Wars:
“We must take a stand against terrorism in the world and combat it with firmness, for it is a most cowardly and savage violation of peace. We must retain that margin of safety I spoke of both in conventional arms and the deployment of troops. And we must allow no weakness in our nuclear deterrent.
“There is something else. We must remember our heritage, who we are and what we are, and how this nation, this island of freedom, came into being. And we must make it unmistakably plain to all the world that we have no intention of compromising our principles, our beliefs or our freedom. That we have the will and the determination to do as a young president said in his inaugural address 20 years ago, ‘bear any burden, pay any price.’ Our reward will be world peace; there is no other way to have it.” (Quoted from Reagan, In His Own Hand, ed. Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise Anderson, and Martin Anderson (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 283-84.)
How we go about combating terrorism in such a way that we do not compromise our principles, our beliefs, or our freedoms is, I believe, the main challenge of our times.
Annelise Anderson was Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan Administration.