My colleague Roger Pilon has a fine intellect. But I cannot follow the logic of his recent endorsement of the “Protect America Act.” Like many of my colleagues, I was startled to see the establishment of rules restricting the ability of the administration to collect intelligence on Americans compared to central planning of an economy: “Congress, to say nothing of the courts, can no more manage such affairs than it can the economy.” I see no good grounds to compare the two. The establishment of restrictive rules — side constraints — on spying is quite different from attempting to direct the behavior of countless consumers and producers.
My colleague Timothy Lee has shown, to my satisfaction, that Roger has not properly grasped or dealt with the issues involved in the legislative debate.
The Congress is authorized to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, as Article I, Section 9, which explicitly restricts that power, implicitly assigns the power to Congress: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The lawyers of the Cato Institute took the lead in opposing the attempt of the administration to suspend that writ.
But where is the Congress authorized to suspend the Fourth Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I wholeheartly agree with your criticism. But there is something I don’t quite understand: you can respectfully disagree with a guy who is advocating unrestricted power for the government to spy on people (which is obviously unlibertarian) but it’s not enough for others to respectfully disagree (or plainly disagree) with a guy who advocates border controls, or some other guy who holds anti-gay views but doesn’t actually advocate anti-gay laws, they also have to disassociate from them and break all professional/institutional relationship with them? Why is that you can respectfully disagree with people with despicable views but the rest of us must also disassociate from them? Are you going to dissassociate from Roger Pilon from now on? Why is that diversity of opinion, even if controversial, should be allowed in the Cato Institute but not in the Mises Institute? Why don’t you apply your own (flawed) logic to yourself and your own institute? Sounds like a double standard to me.
I see a BIG difference here. One is a disagreement about the meaning of the Constitution and the powers of the president and the congress and the courts. The other (Gary North of the Mises Institute) wants to stone homosexuals to death because he thinks the Old Testament should be imposed on us. Call me old fashioned, but that seems a big difference to me.
Immigration controls are controversial, but I don’t remember Tom ever attacking as uncivilized people the ones who advocate them. Just the ones who combine it with racism. I’ve talked to him about the issue, and he distinguished between disagreeing strongly on a position, like immigration, and considering some people, like racists, to be uncivilized.
Albert raises some good questions, but some clarifications are in order. First, my strong disagreement with Roger Pilon would not lead me to mischaracterize his position as advocating “unrestricted power for the government to spy on people.” The issue at hand concerns whether a warrant is necessary to intercept the communications of Americans with people abroad, or whether the Fourth Amendment requires the issuance of a warrant on probable cause. So, whatever else he supports, Roger is not saying that there is unlimited power of “the government” to spy on people. (It should be pointed out that “the government” is not one agency, but a number, and that the agents of the executive branch may listen in if they have shown probable cause for the issuance of a warrant and a judge has issued a warrant; that is, the arbitrary say-so of one branch of government is not sufficient to overcome a presumption that one will be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.)
So this concerns an important claim of authority on the part of the executive branch, but one far less reaching than Albert has claimed.
Second, I disagree with Roger’s reading of the Constitution and with his arguments. I even disagree strongly, in the sense that I believe that the stakes involved are enormous. But I would not say, as a consequence, that Roger is not fit for the company of decent people.
In contrast, the person who wrote the obnoxious elements in some newsletters that have been hotly debated recently is not fit for decent company. We know who he is. And we know what kind of a person he is. He thinks that black people and gay people (to take but two examples) are inferior to him, because of something for which he can take no credit, viz. being born. That sort of a person is one with whom I would not associate. I am willing to associate with people with whom I have good faith disagreements, even if those strong disagreements are about matters of great importance. But a person who says “Niggers and queers ain’t welcome here” (or should be “physically separated and expelled from society”) should not be treated the same as one who says “The Constitution authorizes the president, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to gather intelligence involving American citizens and regarding foreign affairs without the warrant of a federal court.” The former is despicable and sickening (as Manuela puts it, “uncivilized”); the latter is very important, has disturbing implications, and is debatable.
I am repulsed by Pilonâ??s article. Describing the â??Protect America Actâ? as â??the president’s statutory power to prevent terrorist attacksâ? is disingenuous. Arguing â??Congress, to say nothing of the courts, can no more manage [foreign] affairs than it can the economy,â? is similarly disingenuous, since this is about trying to restrain an out-of-control executive branch, a proper instance of checks and balances (Pilon also calls it â??micromanaging the president.â?) Itâ??s not foreign affairs. The â??retroactive liability protection for telecom companies that allegedly assisted the governmentâ? isnâ??t an â??improvement,â? but an abrogation of the rule of law and another step towards institutionalizing a police state.
In support of this domestic spying law, Pilon cites Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell: “we’re actually missing a significant portion of [the intelligence] we should be getting.â? And so? Itâ??s hardly a convincing argument that the chief of a spy agency wants to intercept more private communications.
Pilon cites Locke, Madison, et al. on how foreign affairs cannot be managed by statute, but this issue is not by any stretch â??foreign affairs.â? This is the use of police power. Pilon wants to remove it from the rule of law and leave it at the discretion of the president, so far as I can see.
This is a dreadful, pro-police-state editorial. What the hell is Cato doing publishing this?
Manuela: “One is a disagreement about the meaning of the Constitution and the powers of the president and the congress and the courts.”
You have rephrased the issue very nicely, but the fact is that Pilon is advocating an unlibertarian position (no constraints on the government when it turns to spying on people), or if you prefer, he is defending an unlibertarian interpretation of the Constitution. Now let me ask you Which is more “uncivilized”, racism (a repugnant moral stance that not necessarily translates into statist policies), or statism/socialism? You assume it’s only the first one, but I’m not quite sure. I would say both are arguably uncivilized, and Pilon is guilty of the second one (at least in this particular case).
As for North, even if it’s true that he still holds such abhorrent views, which I don’t know and I hope not, he has never advocated them in the Mises Institute (or in LRC for that matter). Pilon, on the contrary, has defended his unlibertarian position as a Cato member in the very same pages of the Wall Street Journal, and his article is right now posted in the main page of the Cato website.
But your comment brings to my mind another double standard I haven’t mentioned yet: according to Palmer and others, the whole Mises INstitute is to blame because the particular views of some of his members (or not even this! sometimes is to blame for the views of some people who is related to some of his members). Is it the whole Cato Institute also to blame for the views of Pilon? Is it fair to depict Cato as a monolithic institution in favor of unrestricted government powers, the war in Iraq or the continuation of the occupation etc. just because some of its members have defended those positions? Is it not more sensible to say that in several issues there is disagreement within the institute? or that, even if a handful of people hold unlibertarian positions, most Cato members don’t but still value the views of those people on other issues or simply consider that disagreement is inescapable and rational discussion and truth benefits from it? I think the same can be said about the Mises Institute, but you wouldn’t notice it by Dr. Palmer’s comments. The Mises Institue and LRC have been repeatedly labelled racist, neo-confederate, anti-immigration etc. for the (alleged and often mischaracterized) views of some of its members or people associated to some of its members. Again, this sounds like a double standard to me.
Let me illustrate the double standard about dubious associations with a real example involving Dr. Palmer. I attended the Umbrella Awards dinner celebrated in London last year and organised by the Stockholm Network, a think thank that coordinates dozens of market-oriented think tanks around Europe. THe dinner was full of classical liberal-minded people, mostly from Europe, though there were also a bunch of Americans, Dr. Palmer among them (Cato, I think, was one of the sponsors of the awards, and Dr. Palmer was one of the speakers). Some of the guests were politicians from the british Conservative Party, which advocates (and contributes to implement) pretty much everything libertarians usually criticize, from the war on drugs to public education. Ian Duncan Smith, former tory leader, was one of the speakers and he is a proud supporter of the above policies. The main guest was the US ambassador to the EU, he had pro-market sympathies but didn’t seem much bothered by the interventionist status quo. His aide was sat at my table and was hardly a libertarian, which implies that he surely advocates many statist (uncivilized?) policies. There were also people from the Wall Street Journal, which has been one of the loudest cheerleaders in favour of the Iraq war (I can’t say for sure but I think Dr. Palmer was sat at their table), as well as members of think tanks that have been very close to pro-war politicians in different European countries. Many of the attendees were culturally conservative and I’m sure there were many people against free immigration, gay marriage/adoption, and in favour of the war. Finally, there were also people related to the Mises Institute (people who have studied there, or have received help and inspiration from the Institute to create their own think tanks etc), and some of them are actually great fans of Hoppe.
So, if the Mises Institute and his members are to blame because of some of their associations (or the associations of their associations, or the associations of the associations of their associations and so on), are Dr. Palmer and the Cato Institute to blame for some of their (pro-war in Iraq, pro-war on drugs) associations? But again, I guess you could reply that while being racist is “uncivilized”, being pro-war in Iraq, pro-war on drugs etc. is not, so you must dinstance yourself from the former but you can respectfully disagree with the latter.
Dr. Palmer: “I am willing to associate with people with whom I have good faith disagreements, even if those strong disagreements are about matters of great importance.”
I could agree with that, but you are not explaining why to have good faith but strong disagreements (e.g. in favor/against the war) is better than to have bad faith but minor disagreements (e.g. pro-gay views or anti-gay views -like despising their lifestyle- but without advocating any statist restriction upon gays). Why is it more relevant to share good faith than to be in agreement when it turns to associate with someone? (e.g. is it OK to associate with a communist because he has good faith/good intentions (there are plenty of them)? why cannot a racist/homophobe have good faith/good intentions much in the same way a communist can have, or a pro-war person? Many Christians are homophobes but they don’t mean any harm to gay people. Many pro-war people sincerely think they can liberate and bring democracy and prosperity to other people but they are fine with collateral damage.
About Lew, frankly, I don’t know if he is responsible for those newsletter, so I will suspend my judgement until I know for sure what happened (I see you don’t feel the need to suspend any judgement though). But pretty much everything I’m saying here still stands even if he did. So far I haven’t seen any substantive proof of his responsability, except for unnamed sources and vague insidery information, and he has briefly denied he wrote the newsletters. I’ve never read anything racist/homophobe in his writtings, and I’ve never seen racist/homophobe material in LRC/Mises Institute.
Albert says, “I could agree with that, but you are not explaining why to have good faith but strong disagreements (e.g. in favor/against the war) is better than to have bad faith but minor disagreements (e.g. pro-gay views or anti-gay views -like despising their lifestyle- but without advocating any statist restriction upon gays).”
———
What you regard as a “minor disagreement”, I (and maybe Tom) regard as actually quite a deep and important disagreement about how individuals ought to be regarded. I think certain values – whether one regards people as members of groups whose status depends on things like race and sexual orientation – are more important than the views one holds about whether the Constitution authorizes certain executive powers.
And I don’t go for this “statist/socialist” line of attack. Everyone who is not an anarchist believes that the the state has some legitimate functions. So the disagreement is about what the state should do. I’m not about to write off someone simply because he believes that something is authorized by the constitution and I do not.
Now, Pilon is wrong and the position isn’t consistent with libertarian principles, nor, I think, his narrow reading of the commerce clause. I’m not sure why he continues to make these arguments. It’s really quite obnoxious, especially coming from a VP of a libertarian think tank.
But that doesn’t put Pilon outside of respectable company, or beyond engaging in vigorous debate.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124485.html
“Last week, a statement was prepared by Ron Paul’s press secretary Jesse Benton, and approved by Ron Paul, acknowledging Lew Rockwell as having a role in the newsletters. The statement was squashed by campaign chairman Kent Snyder.”
Is Ron Paul’s word good enough that Lew Rockwell was responsible for the newsletters? What would it take? A moving finger in the heavens writing “LEW ROCKWELL WROTE THE RACIST REMARKS”? Might that provide sufficient proof? Or would you respond that your epistemic standards would require that it be signed “God”? And that God appear before you? What would it take?
Maybe you never heard Rockwell say it because he suspected you weren’t part of the “inner circle.” If you were, you would have been allowed to hear about Martin Luther King being a pedophile, blacks being zoo animals, about how it was better for blacks to be beaten up by the police without a trial, and all the other crap. I’ll bet you’ve never seen racist material at Mises.org, because Tucker is too smart to post it. But you’ve really never seen racist material at lewrockwell.com? Come on. Was it just a little harmless fun for the “South Will Rise Again” group to trash and slander Rosa Parks? What was that about? An uppity Negress thinking she could sit with white people!!! Why, let’s take her down a peg! Or perhaps you think that Bob Wallace, a prominent Lew Rockwell columnist, was just being a little un-PC when he proudly displayed swastikas on lewrockwell.com. Hey, they’re just pictures! He didn’t actually hurt anyone by posting them. It was just some fun.
You should switch to good Spanish wine to replace the KoolAid from Auburn.
“But a person who says “Niggers and queers ain’t welcome here” (or should be “physically separated and expelled from society”). . . .”
This gives the impression that Rockwell refuses to associate with blacks and homosexuals, that he treats them in an undignified manner. This is very far from the truth. The Mises Institute has plenty of major associates who are homosexuals, for example, and black people are perfectly welcome there as well.
Did you read Lew’s contributions to Ron Paul’s newsletters? How’s that for hospitality?
Tom:
The important point I would stress (and that you never acknowledge) is that Rockwell has changed since the bad old days of the early 1990s. For quite some time, the overwhelming emphasis of LRC has been to praise King, Parks, as well as to criticize police brutality. If anything it is now one of the most anti-racist sites around.
I run into many young people who can’t understand the criticisms of Rockwell for the quite understandable reason that were attracked to LRC/Mises after the racist/homophoic stuff had long disappeared from the site. Now…..does Rockwell remain too close to some of the neo-confederates? I think he does…..but overall his site is like night and day compared to the 1990s.
Maybe if both you and Lew would recognize these changes, openly acknowledge, them some progress could be made in finding common ground. If you are expecting Lew to humbly apologize for his past, you are expecting perhaps too much. Both you and he, after all, both shae strong egoes.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the whole tone at LRC is different now. You forgave Bill Evers. Why can’t you at least grant that Rockwell is no longer the man he was in the bad old days? Quit hoping for perfection. People are complicated and messy and sometimes you have to bend….especially since Lew has shown a willingness to bend in his approach.
Typos corrected:
Tom:
The important point I would stress (and that you never acknowledge) is that Rockwell has changed since the bad old days of the early 1990s. For quite some time, the overwhelming emphasis of LRC has been to praise King, Parks, as well as to criticize police brutality. If anything it is now one of the most anti-racist sites around.
I run into many young people who can’t understand the criticisms of Rockwell for the quite understandable reason that were attracked to LRC/Mises after the racist/homophobic stuff had long disappeared from the site. Now…..does Rockwell remain too close to some of the neo-confederates? I think he does…..but overall his site is like night and day compared to the 1990s.
Maybe if both you and Lew would recognize these changes, openly acknowledge, then some progress could be made in finding common ground. If you are expecting Lew to humbly apologize for his past, you are expecting perhaps too much. Both you and he, after all, both share strong egos.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the whole tone at LRC is different now. You forgave Bill Evers. Why can’t you at least grant that Rockwell is no longer the man he was in the bad old days? Quit hoping for perfection. People are complicated and messy and sometimes you have to bend….especially since Lew has shown a willingness to bend in his approach.
Hi, Sinclair,
When did October of 2005 become such a long time ago? Tom blasted them for their malicious attacks on Rosa Parks that they posted on her death! http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/026647.php
Did 2005 become “the bad old days of the early 1990s”? Maybe since 2005 they’ve toned down because Tom exposed them for what they are.
The balance of the LRC posts recently has been pro-Parks. In any case, the comments on Parks’ in 2005 (and the positive review of Barbershop) do not strike me as “racist” or on the level of the 1990s stuff, They doesn’t even come close. The 2005 posts though they criticize Parks, also condemn segregation. I don’t agree with the criticism of Parks in 2005 but it hardly seems out of line or racist. Do you think it is?
Here is what Rockwell said in the link you provided: “None of this means Mrs. Parks wasnâ??t brave to refuse to be humiliated by the government, and to face jail instead. But it does show us, once again, how little we can trust what weâ??re told.”
Again…..if you want to make Rockwell beyond the pale for his current (or 2005) comments you have to do better than this.
I have never claimed LRC/Mises are now perfect. My only claim is that it is vastly improved from the truly vile writings it featured in the early 1990s. If you want to demand perfection, however, you will be a very lonely person.
You can’t legislate against people who use loopholes as the roadmap to terror, yet state spying power should not be officially broad. The answer quite simply is that good people without explicit state authority must do what is necessary, and if they get ensnared in controversy, must take the fall and hope others will help them deal with the situation. That way, the potential for state abuse is avoided while the threats are handled efficiently and without remorse. Of course, it would help if the government had a reasonable foreign policy that didn’t look to foment conflict. Potential invaders need to know that they cannot find sanctuary in our goodwill and adherence to limited government.
You can’t legislate against people who use loopholes as the roadmap to terror, yet state spying power should not be officially broad. The answer quite simply is that good people without explicit state authority must do what is necessary, and if they get ensnared in controversy, must take the fall and hope others will help them deal with the situation. That way, the potential for state abuse is avoided while the threats are handled efficiently and without remorse. Of course, it would help if the government had a reasonable foreign policy that didn’t look to foment conflict. Potential invaders need to know that they cannot find sanctuary in our goodwill and adherence to limited government.
Is this not a case of interpretation of the Constitution? Pilon may be right or he may be wrong, but the question is whether the president has the constitutional authority, not whether the exercise of such authority is wise or not. I lean strongly against Pilon’s interpretation, on the basis of my reading the text of the constitution, but I cannot say that I am absolutely certain that my view is correct.
This is all very interesting, but it’s amazing that Sinclair has jumped to the defense of Lew Rockwell by saying that what he publishes “is vastly improved from the truly vile writings it featured in the early 1990s.” For what it’s worth, the attacks on Rosa Parks were “truly vile,” so the other stuff must have been even worse. Wow.
So, according to Roger Pilon, the Executive Branch has a right to eavesdrop on my phone calls to friends and colleagues in Canada, Britain or India without even having to demonstrate probable cause in a secret court that grants warrants in 99%+ of all cases brought to it.
Contrary to Pilon’s argument, Congress was doing one of its rare good deeds back in 1978 when it exercised its authority under our Constitutional system of checks and balances to limit – albeit slightly – the power of the Executive. And, apparently, the sitting Executive must have agreed, since he signed the bill into law.
As a long time Cato sponsor, I’m disappointed to see my money being used to support the expression of views that are totally inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.
The so-called war on terror represents the biggest advance of State power in my lifetime. Cato scholars should be doing everything they can to expose this phony war and to resist all of its many impositions on the American public.
I agree, Marc. We had an internal debate on the issue with Bob Levy and Roger Pilon. The consensus was that Levy had the better case. Every other Cato scholar has written on the other side of this issue. The Cato Institute does not take positions, as each author speaks in his or her own name. That said, we do publish things and staff and scholars do generally attach the institute’s name to their writings. There is room for disagreement, but this one seems quite far outside the normal range.
I agree with you on the “war on terror.” (The fact that we have a “war” on a tactic is a clue that this is an opportunity for a never ending assault on our liberties.) And you will not find any organization that has done more than the Cato Institute to add depth and evidence to the case against the Iraq war and the case against foolish foreign adventurism and hysterical assaults on liberty.
Here are a few examples:
Doublespeak and the War on Terror, by Tim Lynch
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6654
Deployed in the U.S.A.: The Creeping Militarization of the Home Front, by Gene Healy
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1361
Another Demand for ID Poses Danger to Free Society, by Jim Harper
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8918
Bruce Fein on civil liberties in war
http://www.cato.org/weekly/index.php?vid_id=10
Gene Healy on presidential power since 911
http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/genehealy_presidentialpowersince911_20070911.mp3
Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush, by Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330
Supreme Court legal brief in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, January 6, 2006
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/salim_ahmed_handan-v-donald_rumsfeld.pdf
(More available on civil liberties and war here: http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=55&ra_id=13)
(More available on Iraq here: http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=43&ra_id=13)
(More available on making the case against war with Iran here: http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=42&ra_id=13 — I should add that Cato scholars have crisscrossed the country making the case against war with Iran to business groups, public forums, universities, and so on)
The above does not count the many media appearances, meetings with political leaders, Pentagon officials, State Department officials, and Ambassadors, background briefings, editorial board meetings, public speeches, and the like on these issues that are also an important part of the struggle for peace and liberty.
In addition, I should add that Gene Healy has a new book (not an op-ed) coming out very soon that takes a completely different view of the issue from Roger’s; it’s in galley stage and is going to be excellent.
Pilon’s position isn’t just “far outside the normal range” of libertarian thought; this debate is about blocking the power of the executive branch to monitor all electronic communications, w/o warrants or oversight.
The proposal to cut short the lawsuits against the telecoms would strip the rights of us citizens to take legal action to protect our rights, and powers of the courts to evaluate what the executive is up to. This is totalitarian, not libertarian.
P.S. Why “totalitarian?”
At least one of the court cases to be shut down alleges the NSA intercepted and monitored the *content* of millions of communications of Americans, without warrants, without showing probable cause or suspicion of any wrongdoing, without selectivity, and without any oversight.
See Mark Klein’s testimony in Hepting vs. ATT Klein is one of the whistleblowers who oberserved the spying):
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/Mark%20Klein%20Unredacted%20Decl-Including%20Exhibits.PDF
The “semantic traffic analyzer” mentioned is used for monitoring the content of communications.
General info and links, inclduing to the Hepting case:
http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
A good editorial on what’s at stake:
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/column/0,294698,sid14_gci1296907,00.html?track=sy160&asrc=RSS_RSS-10_160
It’s not as though this is a difficult issue with good arguments on both sides. What next, a Cato defense of Hillary-care? (Frankly, this is more dangerous than Hillary-care.)
Charles,
I agree to a point and I share your horror. I do not share or endorse Roger’s perspective. But to be accurate is a virtue. It’s not about monitoring “all electronic communications, without warrants or oversight.” It’s about monitoring those with people overseas. That horrifies me, too. But he is not saying that a conversation between you and a person in Texas should be subject to such monitoring. It’s whether a conversation between you and a person in another country should be subject to the same rules as govern interception of conversations between two people who are both abroad. The latter form of foreign intelligence does not require court supervision and I have never heard anyone say that it should. (One could make the case, but it would be a complete innovation and thus far unheard.) So, as much as I dissent from Roger’s position, it’s not what you’ve just stated.
You might want to look at Julian Sanchez’s take on the issue here:
http://juliansanchez.com/notes/archives/2008/01/rogering_the_constitution.php
“And you will not find any organization that has done more than the Cato Institute to add depth and evidence to the case against the Iraq war and the case against foolish foreign adventurism and hysterical assaults on liberty. . . .”
What about Antiwar.com? They have had literally thousands of articles on the Iraq war alone. You criticize Justin Raimondo’s columns, but even if one third of them were wrong, the site itself would still be, far and away, the best antiwar resource on the internet. The news value alone is unmatched. Every day, they have the most important stories from around the world â?? hundreds of them. Every day! And they feature former Cato writers Ivan Eland, Chuck Pena, Doug Bandow, along with plenty of other respected authorities, former CIA experts like Michael Scheuer, etc.
I also think there’s been plenty of great stuff at LRC on the Iraq war and war on terror, even if you don’t like other stuff on that site.
Antiwar.com also was critical of the Afhganistan war. Even if you thought that was a necessary evil, it was important to see lots of details on the actual human costs of that adventure. And it’s still a mess over there, and Cato hardly mentions it.
Cato hasn’t been overall bad on the war, but they have clearly not been the strongest antiwar force in the libertarian movement.
Is shouting your opposition, usually accompanied by insults to those who disagree and very disturbing and damaging endorsements of “the other side,” the same as showing why those who disagree are wrong? In promoting non-interventionism, Cato has employed reason consistently and in many different forums, from television and radio to testimony to public debates to books to studies to op-eds in newspapers to articles in scholarly journals. Others have employed insults and shallow claims regularly, and almost exclusivley on the internet. Which approach is likely to be more effective? If one’s goal is to beat one’s chest and show how “radical” one is, one will answer one way. If one’s goal is to change the world and make it more peaceful and free, one will answer the other way. It all depends on what one’s real agenda is.
(If you want a news aggregator, there are other ways to get that, too. It’s a service, but not one exclusively available through any one source. You can start here: http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn)
Just to clarify, my negative comments are primarily about the lead writer and the webmaster and various items on their blogs, which do not, I believe, advance the cause of peace. Shrill rhetoric, insults, mocking of the suffering of others (e.g, Victor Yushchenko), glorification of killings of US and allied troops and police, and claims about conspiracies do not advance the cause of non-intervention and peace. In many cases, they actively harm it.
I return to the issue at hand. I do not share the views of my colleague, even when accurately characterized. They are quite out of step with those of my other colleagues, as well. I repeat my claim that “you will not find any organization that has done more than the Cato Institute to add depth and evidence to the case against the Iraq war and the case against foolish foreign adventurism and hysterical assaults on liberty.”
Tom
Thanks for taking the time to offer such a detailed and encouraging response. It’s great to see that the preponderance of relevant Cato output is on the right side of this issue.
That said, the fact that Roger’s piece appeared in the widely read Wall Street Journal linked to the Cato moniker is a source of discomfort. I’m not looking forward to the next dinner with my “hard core” libertarian friends who will once again be demanding to know why I remain a sponsor in the face of this sort of thing.
I realize that there is a difficult balance that has to be achieved when you’re trying to run a policy institute that hopes to adhere to an ideology while also being taken seriously within the wider community. To achieve intellectual depth in any area, you’re likely to have to employ scholars that won’t pass an ideological litmus test. I also realize that you have to provide scholars academic freedom. It’s not appropriate for an ideological censor to review everyone’s output.
That said, doesn’t there become a point where enough is enough? If you had a scholar on staff who denied the Holocaust or called for concentration camps in the US, I’m sure the Institute would fire him. While nothing in Roger Pilon’s piece approaches that level, I do wonder when he’ll say something that convinces Cato leadership that he isn’t on our side.
I literally spit my drink out when I read this quote: “And you will not find any organization that has done more than the Cato Institute to add depth and evidence to the case against the Iraq war and the case against foolish foreign adventurism and hysterical assaults on liberty.”
Here is Brink talking about how he supported the war.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/07/25/confessions-of-a-former-and-maybe-future-hawk/
You won’t find anyone over at LRC or Anti-war who supported the war. Not to mention the fact that 2 member of Cato were ga-ga over Fred Thompson running for President (Chris Edwards and Michael Tanner). Does Fred support the war?
Give me a break and get off the high horse already.
Tom, you are mistaken that this is just about foreign communications. There’s reason to believe that a substantial share of the communications intercepted in the Hepting vs. AT&T case were entirely domestic. Pilon wants to shut down these lawsuits, so we’ll never be able to know for sure.
Things like the LRC smears on a heroine like Rosa Parks are disgusting. But in the end, the only real harm done is to Lew Rockwell’s reputation. On the other hand, Pilon’s editorial, published in a very influential outlet on the day of a crucial vote, is destructive of liberty. A reader of the WSJ editorial would think “PAA must be reasonable, after all, even the libertarians support it.”
Cato needs to fix this mess, and should do so quickly. How about a public and official denunciation by Cato of this terrible legislation, including the amnesty for telecoms?
On why it’s likely doemstic communications were intercepted, see http://www.eff.org/files/nsa/att.pdf
On the amnesty proposal, see http://www.eff.org/files/nsa/heroes.pdf
And of course, I’ve now blogged on this myself: http://unforeseencontingencies.blogspot.com/
Charles, If I have understood the issue, the issue of warrants is about foreign communications. The issue of immunity from lawsuit may cover broader issues, but it is objectionable on its own grounds. I don’t see how there can be immunity ex post facto for things that were illegal or a violation of rights (contractual or otherwise) when done.
Regarding Brink Lindsey’s apology, I don’t think that this counts as a ringing endorsement of war:
“First, on Iraq, my support for the invasion was based on the assumption of active biological and nuclear weapons programs. That assumption, of course, proved incorrect. I also failed to anticipate the Sunni insurgency that has been at the root of Iraqâ??s post-Saddam problems. And, perhaps most egregiously, I placed my trust in the Bush administration to assess the Iraqi threat accurately and do all within its power to make the occupation of Iraq a success. That trust, however foolishly offered, was badly betrayed.”
Brink was one scholar who wrote one essay in one debate — with another Cato scholar, in Reason magazine. He regrets that position, as the factual foundations for it were false, as were the presumptions about the likely consequences. Both facts and outcomes matter, and on both he was wrong and he says so. I and my the other colleagues at Cato opposed the administration’s reckless decision to wage war (and the Congress’s approval). I was not persuaded of the factual basis (the aerial photos of trucks shown to the Security Council were hardly convincing), nor was I persuaded that the arguments assembled by the advocates of war overcame the robust presumption against going to war. Brink saw it differently and wrote one article in one magazine, in opposition to another Cato scholar.
Cherry picking is an easy occupation to take up. Neither of the two commentators were “ga-ga” over Fred Thompson. Offering praise of a candidate’s stand on federalism, combined with criticisms of his other positions, is not “ga-ga,” nor is it an endorsement. To state otherwise is absurd and maliciously dishonest.
The appropriate stance cannot be that one can only say bad things about all candidates but one, and only good things about that one. That’s not our approach and never will be. It’s hackery, pure and simple. McCain, for example, merits praise for his relatively good (i.e., relative to others, including Ron Paul) stances on free trade and for his opposition to legally sanctioned torture, but censure for his foreign policy (100 years in Iraq, etc., etc.) and for his assaults on the First Amendment. Similar things could be said of others. Extreme partisans of one candidate insist that all remarks about the policies of others be negative and all remarks about his be positive. That’s partisan politics, not analysis. It’s not surprising that in an election year many take that route, but that’s not my job, nor is it my approach. I leave that to the politicians and party activists.
Other Cato colleagues are expressing themselves and more will be forthcoming on the proper attitude toward the so-called “Protect America” act.
Let me make one correction. You will find people at Antiwar.com who favor truly shocking foreign policy positions. Michael Scheuer, for example, favors virtually indiscriminate killing of civilians if it were necessary to get at Osama bin Laden. I had a conversation with him at a speech and his positions were shocking. He opposes the Iraq war because it is a distraction from getting bin Laden. That may be one good reason to oppose it, but he favors all sorts of truly despicable policies to kill bin Laden and scoffed at the idea that war could ever be governed by limits on destructive behavior, by law, or by justice. Some who say that then oppose all wars; they are pacifists. Scheuer is not among them. He has interesting things to say, but he is one writer featured at Antiwar.com whose support for unlimited war is incompatible with the image painted by Keith.
I find too many threads in this discussion to follow and comment on all of them. I do think that the issue of foreign intelligence is important. I hope that the discussion will be intelligent. One question is if the power is authorized or at least not illegal. Another is whether it is a good idea to use it. And another is, if it is not now illegal, should it be made illegal, by a law or by a constitutional amendment, and if illegal, should it be made legal. If disucssion is to be intelligent, it should keep those issues separate.
I would start from the assumption that it is wiretapping citizens is not allowed and it is up to those who favor it to show that it is allowed. Tom’s quotation of the fourth amendment makes a strong case that it is not allowed without a court order. At least, I read “the people” to mean “American citizens,” so that wiretapping them requires a court order, with all that that entails.
Sorry: for ” that it is wiretapping citizens is not allowed” substitute “wiretapping of citizens is not allowed”.
It’s pretty clear that people are angry, including Dr. Palmer. But should a writer in a thinktank be fired for writing something all of his coworkers disagree with? Then where’s the thinking?
I’ve tried to follow these threads and it seems that one issue is whether there is a pattern of anti-libertarian or un-libertarian or maybe probably-not-libertarian activities at the Cato Institute. So far, I see one article on one issue, with all of the other Cato thinkers on the other side, and one article on another issue, with (so far) all the Cato thinkers on the other side. Maybe I’m missing something, but that doesn’t make a pattern, or, actually, it does, but it’s a pattern of opposing restrictions on liberty.
That’s how I see it, anyway. And that’s why I’m really grateful that the Cato Institute exists. (Oh, yeah, I did get a scholarship as an undergrad to attend Cato University. I learned more there about political philosophy than in four years of college.)
From Roger’s WSJ article: “As our principal agent in foreign affairs, the president is constitutionally bound to protect the nation. For that, intelligence is essential.”
If intelligence is essential, matters must be put on hold at least until January 20th of next year…
I don’t understand why you libertarians are so obsessed with purity If you are going to have any influence, you have to “tolerate” (your favorite word) at least a little disagreement. I see you as usually a force for the good and the true (not always), so I am dismayed to see you tear yourselves apart. If I always knew what the truth is, I would not be a conservative. That’s an intrinsic part of the conservatism of Edmund Burke.
To Interloper Ed: I share your frustration with libertarian purity arguments. But this is quite different.
The Bush administration has tried to establish the institutions needed for a full-blown police state; and the PAA is an example. Even worse is the proposed retroactive amnesty for telecoms who willingly helped NSA intercept and search billions of private communications. There’s reason to think that a substantial share were entirely domestic, but the amnesty would strip American citizens of their rights to go to court, where some light might be shed on this.
There’s no gray area, and it’s no small matter; if PAA and the like are permitted to become the law of the land, this will cease to be a free country, even relatively speaking. When government gets a new tool, it is always used to its fullest extent, and not just for the limited purpose originally proposed. Everyone — libertarians, conservatives, left-liberals, etc. — ought to be united opposing this terrible legislation.
I’d like to add the perspective of a libertarian hawk who _still_ supports the Iraq War:
1) There is a qualitative difference between think-tanks like Cato, which permit a fairly broad range of disagreement (with some limits, of course) amongst their writers, and those like SpewRantwell.com or AntiAmerica.com, which suppress _all_ expression of heterodox views. Thus, employment by Cato or writing for Cato doesn’t necessarily imply agreement with all of Cato’s positions/writers. Writing for the other sites mentioned either does imply such agreement, or, if those known to disgree with the orthodoxy are published by them, they are only published when their views are orthodox. Permitting a range of agreement is a good thing, because it allows for the growth of both knowledge and movements.
2) Not all associations entail agreement. What’s so wrong with the Rockwellians is that they go out of their way agree with the unlibertarian views of their chosen allies, even going so far as to try to revise libertarianism to bring it into agreement with the views of their chosen allies. This is most obvious with immigration.
3) As far as I can tell, Pilon is right in this instance, and his critics are wrong. Amendment IV doesn’t say “no warrantless searches,” it says “no unreasonable searches.” It protects “persons, papers, and effects,” not international communications outside an individual’s possession. As for the immunity for telcos for co-operating w/ the NSA, so what? What quantifiable harm is done to someone who makes an international phone call because their call is scanned by the NSA to see if they were conspiring to commit any acts of terrorism? What harm was done to MLK, Jr., for that matter, by the FBI’s surveillance of him?
If FISA had been on the books and interpreted as strictly as Pilon’s critics advocate back in the 1940s, then we wouldn’t have been able to break up the various Soviet spy-rings that had penetrated the Manhattan Project as well as the State and Treasury Departments. Would we really have been better off it Alger Hiss had been the first UN Secretary-General?
How would Pilon’s critics go about _detecting_ those engaged in international communications in furtherance of terrorist conspiracies against American targets, without violating your version of the Constitution?
Tim:
1) That’s a strange reading of Amendment 4. Your reading implies no warrants would would ever be needed at all, so why are they mentioned?
2) Again, the seizure of communications was done en masse and probably included entirely domestic communications. This is unconstitutional.
3) Demonstrable harm: being spied upon is itself a harm. Having one’s private communications intercepted and read by others is itself a harm. And there are many negative consequences secondary consequences possible as well. Amnesty would prevent anyone from having her his day in court.
You’d happily have the government know everything that everyone is up to, I gather, since “after all, if you’re behaving yourself, what do you have to fear?” Big brother is watching, and you can’t figure out why this reduces freedom. That’s bizarre.
Charles:
1) My reading of Amendment IV’s warrants provision is that warrants are required for searching the private property of an individual, such as their house. Phone records have long been considered exempt from this category in US case law.
2) I don’t see how having a search done on a large scale makes for unconstitutionality here.
3) I said “quantifiable” harm, not “demonstrable.” If compensatory damages were to be awarded for the harm inflicted, how would those damages be calculated?
4) Actually, I can think of a lot of harm that could come up universal government surveillance; tax avoidance/evasion would become far more difficult, for instance. However, that’s not what’s at issue here. The question is whether automated searches may be done on a large scale to try to detect terrorist conspiracies in the communications of those within the USA with those outside the USA. You say no, and plead FISA and Amendment XIV in support of your position. I find that unconvincing.
5) Another point I can make here is that rules of evidence in criminal procedure are for the primary procedure of restricting what evidence can be used to try to get convictions in criminal court, and then to punish convicts for their crimes. However, the primary purpose of terrorist-detection programs is the prevention of terrorist attacks, not the conviction of terrorists for their crimes. That is a secondary purpose. US case law is considerably less restrictive about how evidence can be acquired when it comes to thwarting immediate threats to human life than it is about evidence-acquisition for criminal prosecutions.
Tim, I appreciate your response, but I think you’re missing my point.
Your point 1 refers to what has been held in case law. I am much more interested in the Constitution. The Constitution is quite clear in this matter, I think. The fact that the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee phone technology doesn’t somehow give the government leave to listen in. Phone conversations ought to be considered personal “effects,” and protected. Nor does the Constitution explicitly give the Feds the right to intercept our phone conversations (again, part of our effects) w/o warrant, and the 10th Amendment explicitly forbids them from doing so.
Also, case law re phone records seems irrelevant. What was being intercepted was the calls themsleves, not records of the calls.
On point 2, suppose Mr. X has given the police reason to think he’s working with al Qaeda. They don’t have sufficient eveidence to arrest him, but do have probable cause. They should show this, get a warrant, and surveille. No time? OK, surveille, now, and get a FISA retroactive warrant.
The surveillance in question was nothing of the sort; it was “let’s intercept everybody’s phone calls, sort through them, and see if we can find anything we might construe as damning.” (Given ebough ingenuity on the part of the observer, anything one says is damning.)
Re your point 3, quantifiability is no problem, if damage is demonstrable. The problem of quantifying in this case is less difficult than quantifying the value of a human life. It can be done — not with exactness, but within reason.
Re your point 4, perfectly legitimate political opposition to those in power will become more difficult. If a power is given to the government, whether explicitly or implicitly, it will be exercised to its fullest. If PAA and amnesty pass, there’s no institutional barrier to preventing this sort of NSA search from being conducted against, say, President Hillary’s political opponents. Disagree? Then tell me what the barrier is.
Point 5. You’ve suggest that “the primary purpose of terrorist-detection programs is the prevention of terrorist attacks, not the conviction of terrorists for their crimes.” If we could really limit the government’s actions to such, I’d breathe slightly easier on this. But there’s no such limit: even if that is the original purpose, once such surveillance powers are granted, they’ll be used for other purposes. And if PAA and Amnesty pass, there’ll be no oversight at all to prevent abuse.
In sum, I think you understand that if used in an ideal fashion, this blanket surveillance might do some good and won’t do much harm. I’m arguing there’s nothing to restrict them to this ideal use, and plenty of reason to think they’d be abused. And abuse of such powers destroys liberty.
Charles: I agree that we seem to be talking past each other, but I will attempt to clarify:
1) The Constitution doesn’t include definitions for each of the terms and phrases that appear therein, such as “unreasonable” or “effects.” Thus, to determine the actual meaning of such terms in law, one look elsewhere. You seem to be arguing that the Constitution forbids all warrantless searches, but it has never been construed that way in US case law. As for your claim that phone calls ought to be considered personal effects, I’ve yet to see an argument for that, and historically intelligence agencies have been given wide leeway to surveil communications (as through the mail, telegraph, radio, etc.) in for enemy activity.
2) Your scenario misses my point. I’m not talking about a scenario in which there’s probable cause, I’m expressly talking about one in which there is no probable cause. My question is: What may the government do to get probable cause?
3) My question about how to quantify the harm is intended as a challenge to your claim that the harm is demonstrable. IOW, I’ve seen no such demonstration. Please provide one.
4) Since classified intelligence can’t be used for criminal prosecutions, I fail to see how it can be easily abused by selective use against one’s political opponents. How, exactly, will it be used against them? Blackmail? That would compromise the sources and methods by which the intelligence was acquired, which is why it’s classified in the first place. The FBI’s surveillance of MLK, Jr., doesn’t seem to have impeded his success.
5) I’m unaware of any examples of classified US intelligence being abused to the detriment of innocents. Please provide one.