Phil C Melin's blog

Left right or other, please consider sending something like this letter to your state affiliate ACLU chapter.    (http://www.aclu.org/affiliates/)

August 9, 2009

Colleen Connell, Executive Director

American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

180 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 2300

Chicago, IL 60601

acluofillinois@aclu-il.org

Sent Via Email

Dear Ms. Connell:

On August 4, 2009, the Obama Administration recently asked Americans to report to the federal government the contents of private “conversations” and “emails.”

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.  (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/)"

It is unclear to me how the federal government will use the information it receives.  If I post a message on Facebook critical of Obama’s Healthcare plan, could I end up on a White House watch list? Must I agree with the Administration’s version of the facts or remain silent to avoid being identified by the government based on the content of my policy viewpoints? 

The answers to the questions are vague and therefore create a chilling effect on my speech. 

Civil liberty groups, such as the ACLU, have a long history of protecting speech against government abuse.  For example, on Sunday, November 23, 2003, the NY Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/national/23FBI.html):

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum…F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and ‘extremist elements’ plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters."

In response, civil liberty advocates at the ACLU and American University responded as follows:

"The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. ‘The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we're going back to the days of Hoover.’"

And scholar Herman Schwartz said:

"As a matter of principle, it has a very serious chilling effect on peaceful demonstration. If you go around telling people, `We're going to ferret out information on demonstrations,' that deters people. People don't want their names and pictures in F.B.I. files."

The current Administration policy is “monitoring the speech of law-abiding protestors.”  I am sure that the ACLU agrees that what was not ok in 2003 is not ok today.  I request the ACLU’s assistance to protect the speech of Americans against the Administration’s chilling program.

Respectfully,

Philippe Melin

Chicago, IL 

 America is abuzz on the issue of torture, and everyone is talking past one another.  The left blanketedly admonishes that torture is never appropriate and always ineffective. The right is reactionary, arguing that torture may have prevented mass American deaths and that the left is therefore wrong when it claims torture is never justified. 

These arguments miss the appropriate issue, which is whether it is appropriate for the American government to sanction torture.  The answer is no.  But it is dishonest to claim that under no circumstance could torture be justified. Certainly, torture is justified if one has in possession someone who knows the whereabouts of a villain with the capability of destroying all of mankind, would one not? Torture is justified under less dire circumstances too, and it is dishonest to argue that such circumstances can happen only on television.

So, under some circumstances torture is justified.  But, that does not mean that the American government should ever sanction it.  When the government sanctions torture, as it seems to have done under the Bush Administration, it absolves the individual torturer from responsibility for his or her actions.  The responsibility is spread out amongst the many layers of bureaucracy, executive opinions, legal memos, etc.   Everyone can point a finger at someone else and nobody is to blame. Stated eloquently by the protagonist in Ayn Rand’s The Foutainhead: “Who permitted them to do it?  No particular man among the dozens in authority.  No one cared to permit it or stop it.  No one was responsible.  No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.”  If nobody is to blame for torture, then you will generate instances of torture that are unnecessary--under the cover of your American flag.

So, how do we reconcile the suggestion that America should not sanction torture and the truism that torture may be justified sometimes? I believe that we must criminalize torture and prosecute anyone who engages in it.  If the circumstances are so dire that the government agent honestly believes that breaking the spirit of another human being through physical force (i.e. torture) is the only mans to prevent the doomsday event, then that agent should be willing to sacrifice his or her own liberty to prevent the doomsday event.  It is much greater sacrifice to put one’s own liberty at risk to save other human lives, than it is to trample another person’s human rights. This higher threshold will reduce instances of torture and better ensure that it will be used only when absolutely necessary. As a safety valve, the President has the power of pardon if the criminality is unjust under the totality of the circumstances. 

               Eleanor Roosevelt was correct when she stated that with freedom comes responsibility.  The inverse is also true—with responsibility comes freedom.  As the individuals of a population become more responsible for themselves and their society, there is less need for government intervention.  In the extreme, a government becomes almost superfluous in an ideal society because the individuals comprising the ideal society would equitably satisfy societal needs without a government.  We do not live in an ideal world, yet, we must strive towards the ideal if we are to progress.

Striving to this ideal requires promotion of personal responsibility, which will justify our calls for increased liberty.  Too often, the Republican Party has focused myopically on personal economic liberty without promoting the notion of responsibility, responsibility for self and responsibility for others.  Calls for lower taxes and less government made without calls for voluntary individual sacrifice to help others ring shallow, and the government may be right to intervene if the talented or wealthy do not meet the needs of, and provide opportunity to, the untalented or poor.

The Republican Party can regain the faith of the American population if it becomes the voice of personal responsibility.  Government leaders can promote responsibility by passing good laws, balancing budgets and exhibiting strong leadership. 

The most obvious, although not always the most effective, means for elected leaders to promote personal responsibility is to pass laws that do so.  An example of a law that promotes responsibility is the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.  This Act requires insolvent but high-income earning debtors to repay their debts in a structured reorganized plan rather than simply permitting them to eliminate their debts, and it requires all debtors to attend financial education classes.  This Act promotes responsibility because it imposes discipline and education on high-income earners who seek to benefit from government modification of the debtor/creditor relationship.  I have not seen empirical data, but I suspect that the discipline and education gleaned by debtors as a result of the Act produces debtors who are less likely than pre-Act debtors to irresponsibly incur debt after completing the bankruptcy.  This is a step towards realizing personal financial responsibility in our society, and a society closer to personal financial responsibility is a society less in need of government intervention.  The path to liberty is paved with personal responsibility. 

The most significant failure of the Republican Party at the federal level in the last decade is the running up of record budget deficits.  The GOP was unable to credibly preach personal responsibility and liberty as we exhibited fiscal irresponsibility and threatened our national freedom to creditors (e.g. our Nation’s need to borrow several hundred billions this year probably impairs our ability to freely criticize China’s poor record on human rights).  Furthermore, it is no coincidence that a government unable to exhibit financial responsibly produced the populace that was unable to demonstrate financial responsibility, leading us to the current financial crisis.  As America now lurches towards collectivism, it is apparent the path to servitude is paved with irresponsibility.

            Passing laws and balancing budgets are not the only means by which Republican Party leaders must promote responsibility.  Too often, elected officials focus exclusively on their affairs in Washington D.C., and forget that they are also societal leaders.  A leader in a free society should encourage his or her constituents, without compulsion of the law, to take personal responsibility for themselves and for their society, so that government need not.  For example, I envision GOP leaders using their power and prestige to recruit volunteers and donors to charity and education programs.  Further, I think the politics of liberty require Republican Party leaders to recruit volunteers to enter and assist those sub-communities that languish in the erroneous belief that submission to government is the path to freedom and prosperity.  Republicans will be the “Party of Yes” when we enter these communities and invite and guide our brethren into the broader society and comfort of personal responsibility.  Republicans will benefit politically when we articulate and demonstrate that individuals are more capable than government of equitably meeting the needs of our society.  The Republican Party will languish, however, if we simply preach liberty and less government without exhibiting leadership on the issue of personal responsibility.