6 ms·
Hear. Hear. Let's make sure that life in a free society is preserved no matter what threat it is put under. I see that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is calling for individua
by tokenadult 12y ago
Hear. Hear. Let's make sure that life in a free society is preserved no matter what threat it is put under.
I see that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is calling for individuals and news media organizations to respond to the Charlie Hebdo attack too, and I hope they follow her suggestions.[1]
A historical example I turn to about how to respond to grave national danger is that during the United States Civil War, the 1864 election occurred exactly on the expected schedule, and Abraham Lincoln was prepared to be voted out of office during the middle of the war. Of course in parliamentary systems elections do not occur at predictable intervals as they do in the United States constitutional system, but I've always thought that was a good example of how not to cave in to the temptation of self-benefit "for the sake of the country's stability" by delaying the election or something like that. Lincoln did invoke the power (a power granted by the Constitution from the beginning[2]) to suspend the right of habeas corpus during the War of Rebellion (as the Civil War was called by the Union at the time), but habeas corpus was restored as soon as the rebellion ceased.
We should cherish all of our freedoms all of the time and guard them zealously. We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that.
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan-hirsi-ali-our-duty-is-to-keep-charlie-hebdo-alive.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan-hirsi...
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
- nkurz 12y agoWe should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that. I greatly appreciate your comments on this site, and worry I'm being obtuse, but I'm not sure what you feel is the "thinking that leads to attacks like this". I read Hirsi Ali as saying that we must band together and deliberately offend conservative Muslim sensibilities to protect free speech. This seems greatly at odds with many of the tenets of modern multiculturalism. Are you suggesting that we need to move away from the form of multiculturalism that grants power to the violent fundamentalist?
- Crito 12y agoMulticulturalism, modern or otherwise, is impossible if offensive speech from any one group is not tolerated by any other. (They don't have to like it, merely tolerate it. They should be free to speak out against it, but not to respond to mere words with violence.) We can't just resolve to avoid offense. We need to be able to tolerate offense. If any group in a multiculturalist society cannot do this, then we must either built up their tolerance to offense, or look back on our objectives and reevaluate if they are realistic.
- boracay 12y agoI think the idea that we can fight extremism with freedom of speech is wishful thinking. There's very clear indication that pictures as those published not only increase extremism in muslim communities, but also in far-right groups. I also think we are being a bit arrogant if we think that it's a few pictures and not global conflicts that are the main reasons for the existence of these attacks.
- MichaelGG 12y agoSo attackers that explicitly call out "offensive" materials as the reason for their attacks are simply unaware of their own motives? The calls for Rushdie to be killed was due to global conflicts, not his writings?
- deciplex 12y agoThey are aware of their own motives, but they are probably not aware of why they have those motives in the first place. Offensive materials drive a person to violence, but the question you should ask is "what created this type of person, who kills over a cartoon?" Note that this does not excuse the actions of the murderer. They are still responsible and still must be punished. But you can punish murderers for their crimes, and adjust your policy so that you don't create so many murderers. They are not exclusive goals.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
- higherpurpose 12y agoSchneier had an article on this back in 2006, too. Worth a read: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_be_terrori.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...
- infraruby 12y ago> a power granted by the Constitution from the beginning To the congress, not to the president: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman
- dmix 12y agoWhich was reiterated in the courts in 2004 in Hamdi vs Rumsfeld: > Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
- MarkMc 12y agoInteresting - makes me wonder whether the same thing could happen today. That is, are there circumstances where the US military might side with the president over the constitution?
- tokenadult 12y agoIt's interesting that that was a decision by Justice Taney. But, yes, one would expect an Article I power to be a power of Congress.