Drawing the line

Reason’s Matt Welch has a thoughtful piece in which he asks ten questions of what he referrs to as the “pro-war libertarians.”  He identifies a pattern of power grab and liberty lost then asks:

I bring this up not necessarily to criticize supporters of George Bush’s Executive-Power grabs, nor to play quien es mas libertarian (a game I generally lose), nor to belittle the real contributions to the debate they may have made during the previous go-rounds.

But rather, I’m interested in breaking the cycle for a moment, stepping back, and asking … one question: How far is too far in the War on Terror? I figure since their approach certainly has more resonance within the White House than mine, the answers would provide a more accurate weathervane than my feverish imagination. And given the eternal foreign policy divides within the libertarian big tent, it may help clarify the differences between camps.

They’re good questions.  He would answer no to all the above.  I’ll give my own answers. 

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

“Domestic” is a slipperty term.  As a general answer I would say no as pertains to communications between American citizens.  In emergency situations it would be appropriate to get a warrant after the fact.

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell? 

No.

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

Hell no.

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

Nobody comes to mind and no.

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

Yes.  This one is nonintuitive, but consider the extralegal nature of the war formerly known as on terror.  If, for example, they got a shot at bin Laden, I think most people would want them to take it.  He might be found in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but we’re not at war with those nations.

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

I’m inclined to say no here, but it’s hard to know exactly what they mean.  Comparing abuse of police powers in terrorism cases to abuse of police powers in, for example, drug cases, makes one think there’s reason to clip some people’s wings in general.

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

No. Indeed, law enforcement should be able to sieze NOBODY’s property unless convicted. 

Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

Not on a regular basis – calling on troops during disasters is, of course, a different story.

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

No and N/A. It’s unclear what this buys us beyond what’s already readily possible with Social Security Cards, Drivers’ Licenses, etc. 

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?

Probably not.  Are there new “types” of information that didn’t exist before the current guidelines were adopted and to which the old rules can’t sensibly be applied?  I doubt it.

Timothy Sandefur answers, but also cautions:

He seems to really be interested in conversation, so I thought I’d offer some answers. But I’ll begin by noting that it is absolutely unwarranted to refer to us as “pro-war.� If it’s wrong to call you guys cowards and traitors, then it’s wrong to call us “pro-war.� We believe in victory, not in war, and if victory could be accomplished without war, we would be in favor of that. If Mr. Welch really is interested in understanding the other side, calling them names is not a wise course of action.

He makes a valid point.  I am not pro war.  However, I’m not sufficiently naive as to believe the opposite of far is necessarily peace. 

Sandefur asks his own questions.

1) When, if ever, is preemptive war is justified?

Never.

2) When, if ever, is the United States justified in removing a foreign dictator from power?

Undetermined. 

3) Do you agree with the position—recently quoted approvingly on this blog by Dr. Kuznicki—that Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat, but a hobgoblin used by the Bush Administration to increase its authority?

I think he’s reading more into that than Jason suggested.  It’s not that Islamicism isn’t a problem, but that it’s being used to justify a carte blanche expansion of executive authority, and as a fall back defense on any policy no matter how harebrained or costly.  That it’s a real threat doesn’t mean that the Bush administration isn’t manipulating it for its own ends.

4) Precisely what (if anything) do you propose the United States do about the Iranian nuclear weapons program?

Hire the Israelis to take it out.

5) Do you believe that the United States should defend Israel, either militarily, by the sale of arms, or in other ways (please specify)?

Yes.

6) Can you name a specific case in which an American dissenter, not actually affiliated with a terrorist organization, has been jailed or otherwise deprived of civil rights under the PATRIOT Act?

No, nor have I suggest there have been such.

7) Do you believe that we ought to remove American troops from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences to Iraqis?

No.

With regard to interrogation or incarceration: do you believe that infringements of religious sensitivities (e.g., mistreating the Koran) or personal sensibilities (e.g., making men wear women’s underwear on their heads) ought to be regarded as comparable with physical torture?

No.

9) What, if any, legal consequences do you believe flow from a declaration of war?

Unclear what he means by “legal consequences.”

10) Do you believe that the Bush Administration purposely manipulated intelligence information in order to persuade the Congress to authorize military intervention in Iraq?

Yes. 

One set of answers to Sandefur’s questions can be found HERE.  He’s apparently keeping a list HERE. 

Some of the respondants to the original list can be found:

John Tabin

Eugene Plawiuk

The Kupfers

Virtue Team

Centerist Coalition

Hold the Mayo