Sue Lani Madsen: How much liberty are we willing to give up to secure safety?
His background includes over 20 years in uniform for the Department of Defense, a variety of National Security Agency postings, boots-on-the-ground tours in Afghanistan and a master’s degree in strategic security tudies.
Many speakers start with a joke. As a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, Grable was first required to read a disclaimer emphasizing that his remarks Wednesday were personal opinions based on unclassified information, and not in any way representing an agency position. There was a relieved chuckle out of the lunch group when he said he was forbidden to comment on politics or any political candidate.
Instead of a litany of security threats, Grable focused on exploring our appropriate reaction as a constitutional republic. He started with a familiar and often garbled Benjamin Franklin statement, correctly quoted as, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The context in 1759 was a Pennsylvania debate over the authority of the colonial legislature to levy taxes for local defense. The colony was skirmishing with displaced Indian tribes on its western frontier. Franklin was referring to a literal payoff offered by the absentee Penn family landlords in return for Pennsylvania giving up local tax-and-spend authority. If they took the deal, Pennsylvania would have traded the essential liberty of the community to govern itself in order to pay for a little temporary safety.
Since 9/11 we have debated as if liberty and security are mutually exclusive. Grable posited a different take, that the opposite of liberty is not security, but tyranny.
The U.S. Constitution was written to protect the liberty of individuals from tyrannical acts of government. It is a mistake to speak of tyranny as just another form of government, existing in Third World countries like Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, or back in the USSR under Stalin. Grable pointed to one of the most egregious examples of tyranny in recent U.S. history: the internment of Japanese-American citizens and legal Japanese immigrants during World War II. It’s an event that’s well-known in the Spokane community and a reminder we need to be just as concerned about tyranny at home.
Citizens of other countries swear allegiance to the fatherland, or the party or the “Dear Leader.” Our public servants swear to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It is the Constitution that protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority acting in reaction to existential threats.
The Constitution is clear that “to provide for the common defense” is the only paramount duty of the federal government. Everything else is optional. Before devising a common defense, we have to understand the nature of the threat. Is it an existential threat, one that would threaten the existence of the country as a whole, or a threat to individuals? An existential threat demands a common defense.
ISIS will be the predominant threat cited to justify reauthorizing expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. Grable recommended an article by Graeme Wood published in the Atlantic Monthly in March 2015 titled “What Does ISIS Want?” on the nature of the existential threat posed by radical Islam.
While state-sponsored terrorism represents an existential threat, more frequent “lone wolf” attacks will continue to harm individuals and spread panic without threatening the republic. The greater long-term security danger is losing liberty to government tyranny. In other words, how much liberty are we willing to give up to agencies like TSA in order to secure a little temporary safety?
It doesn’t take ISIS for our individual safety to be threatened. This time last year our region was turned upside down by a windstorm.
Grable’s advice for lone wolf security? Develop a personal mindset to not be a helpless victim. Embrace the responsibility that comes along with your inalienable rights, and prepare for your individual defense from nonexistential threats. Even without ISIS interference you could lose power for two weeks. Exercising your liberty secures your safety.
Columnist Sue Lani Madsen can be reached at rulingpen@gmail.com or on Twitter @SueLaniMadsen.