Terrorism, Torture, and Individual Rights

[Mike Renzulli]

With Congress having approved key elements of the USA PATRIOT Act, not surprisingly, the security/liberty debate has been somewhat re-ignited.

I think, overall, Americans have become too complacent or lackadaisical in the years since September 11, 2001 and the horror of the terrorist attacks that occurred that day has lapsed in many American’s minds. Despite what Rep. Ron Paul says, the reality is that Americans are safer thanks, in large part, to the new powers federal agents have at their disposal. With the new tools given to them by the USA PATRIOT Act, it is easier for law enforcement to profile, track, and intercept terrorists before they conduct acts of violence and destruction.

The powers granted to federal agencies (like the F.B.I.) will not only be used to prevent Islamic terrorism, but can also be used to halt activities on the part of other radical groups too. Extremist groups such as Earth First!, the Animal Liberation Front, Army of God and The Lambs of Christ could be subjected to monitoring as well. Doing so can force anti-abortion and eco-terrorists to think twice about bombing or committing acts of vandalism or violence on medical facilities used for surgeries or research and the people who work for them.

There are still numerous legal safeguards in place as well as internal departmental checks on the part of federal law enforcement agencies to ensure they have the right information on a suspect before agents take action. F.B.I. agents can objectively tell the difference between someone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights and a person that knowingly supports Islamic terrorists in their cause.

Such was the case when the F.B.I. raided the homes of antiwar activists in Minnesota and Chicago back in September. The individuals subjected to the raids were the subject of investigations in which there was evidence of potential material support of terrorist groups involved on the part of specific antiwar group members resulting from travel on their part to Columbia, Lebanon, and then the Gaza Strip.

Prominent libertarians (like former Judge Andrew Napolitano and Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger) and groups (like the ACLU) criticize the usage of military tribunals to prosecute terrorists, enhanced surveillance powers and torture too, respectfully. They essentially state that not only is the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional but that one of the best ways to fight terrorism is to not lower our legal and ethical standards. A civilized country, they argue, that casts off acting civilized in times of conflict becomes no better than the enemy.

Being originally from Long Island, New York I distinctly remember while learning about World War II in high school that an unincorporated hamlet named Amagansett was one of two landing areas for a group of Nazi German spies. They had false documents, lots of money and were placed in the United States to conduct acts of sabotage (i.e. terrorism).

Not only did a quick-thinking member of the U.S. Coast Guard report their presence but, fortunately, one of the spies ended up getting cold feet down the line and turned himself and his companions in. Members of both spy cells were quickly arrested, tried in military courts and most were executed soon after being found guilty. Unfortunately, the warnings passed on to the Bush administration prior to the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings were not heeded and the result was death and destruction on a massive scale.

The U.S.’s last experience with trying terrorists in civilian courts was in 1993 after the first World Trade Center bombing. In addition to needlessly tying up our legal system, if civilian courts are used much of the activities used to monitor and halt terrorists would be public record. This, in turn, would give other wrong-doers the ability to learn from their predecessor's mistakes and information could be available if criminals wanted to retaliate against witnesses or people who testified for the prosecution. Military tribunals are not subject to public scrutiny, involve less legal procedure, permit more inclusive rules of evidence and, hence, make prosecutions easier.

International standards of warfare (like the ones outlined by the Geneva Convention) apply to combatants who play by the rules of war. The U.S. government is in a precarious situation where it is faced with an enemy that has no regard for human life and does not accept the international rules of battlefield conduct. Terrorists will use any means necessary to conduct acts of violence and destruction up to and including sacrificing their own lives in order to accomplish their aims.

This being the case, not only is the USA PATRIOT Act an appropriate means to prevent terror, but torture is also a legitimate means of extracting information. While the methods used on enemy combatants may seem heinous, I do not know of anyone who would not resort to some kind of torture on someone who had knowledge of a major terrorist attack and refused to voluntarily disclose when and where it would occur. Especially if it meant the usage of a nuclear device and the lives of family members or friends were at stake.

Don’t get me wrong, individual rights are inalienable and they may not be given or taken away. However, it is a mistake to treat rights as intrinsic. The choice to torture or resort to making it easier for police to do their jobs in order to stop terrorists is not utilitarian. A terrorist has voluntarily chosen to put themselves in a state of war upon countries (like the U.S.) and peaceful citizens. As a result government agents who conduct acts of torture or scrutinize terrorists via warrant-less wiretaps, monitoring bank records or other means of surveillance are doing their job of keeping the peace since terrorists pose a threat to the rights of the innocent.

Terrorists are not combatants in the sense of battlefield conflict and to treat them the same as American citizens not only will make their job easier but is also a perversion of what individual rights are all about. Rights apply only to citizens in terms of trade and peaceful conduct among each other in a social context. Those who do not respect the individual rights of others (such as terrorists) do not deserve to have theirs respected by anyone.

It is unrealistic if not outright madness for the United States government to be bound by rules of warfare or sets of laws that hinder law enforcement from protecting our individual rights while, simultaneously, being expected to combat an enemy that clearly has no regard for human life.

This is the blunt reality Americans (especially libertarians) must face up to, Israel has had to deal with almost since its creation, Barack Obama had to learn upon occupying the Oval Office and that President George W. Bush and members of Congress learned in the shadow of the World Trade Center and Pentagon Bombings on September 11th, 2001.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Greybird]

[...] not only is the USA PATRIOT Act an appropriate means to prevent terror, but torture is also a legitimate means of extracting information.

As it would be with a John Galt, right? Yeah, right.

* plonk *

[Brant Gaede]

This is why "terrorists" are transmogrified into de facto freedom fighters.

--Brant

1984 here we come!

[Mike Renzulli]

With responses like this, I am increasingly getting the impression that libertarians are more about not liking to be told what to do than they are about supporting individual rights.

Instead of subjecting me to your killfile, Greybird, why not try to take me to task or point out the flaws in my argument? The context of comparing John Galt to fighting terrorists is deeply flawed since (aside from the fact you are comparing a fictional story to what is in reality) John Galt was about producing and creating in defiance of the collective will. Terrorists are about death and destruction and (if the Islamists or Weathermen are any indication) are usually motivated by anti-life philosophies.

This is what I meant in my article about treating individual rights as intrinsic since it blurrs the lines between what is an obvious abridgement of a person's rights and what is not.

[...] not only is the USA PATRIOT Act an appropriate means to prevent terror, but torture is also a legitimate means of extracting information.

As it would be with a John Galt, right? Yeah, right.

* plonk *

Edited March 23, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Peter]

Greybird wrote:

As it would be with a John Galt, right? Yeah, right.

* plonk *

end quote

I would not plonk Mike (disregard all that he may ever say in the future) just yet.

Every Objectivist is leery of putting any form of torture into the hands of the government. At the same time, all of us recognize that as individuals we have a right to defend our own lives and the lives of our loved ones. I once read a good scenario, situated on a desert island, where someone's child is kidnapped.

When appearing to pick up the ransom, the perpetrator is caught by the father. The kidnapper will not divulge where the child is being held, but says the child will die soon if he is not released. The perpetrator's guilt is 100 percent sure. What would you do to save your child? (It may have been Phil Coates who came up with this!)

I would do whatever was necessary to save my child. Period.

Moral complexity enters the scenario when the retaliatory use of force is put into the hands of government.

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

With responses like this, I am increasingly getting the impression that libertarians are more about not liking to be told what to do than they are about supporting individual rights.

It's a relief to know you don't think you are a libertarian.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Greybird wrote:

As it would be with a John Galt, right? Yeah, right.

* plonk *

end quote

I would not plonk Mike (disregard all that he may ever say in the future) just yet.

Every Objectivist is leery of putting any form of torture into the hands of the government. At the same time, all of us recognize that as individuals we have a right to defend our own lives and the lives of our loved ones. I once read a good scenario, situated on a desert island, where someone's child is kidnapped.

When appearing to pick up the ransom, the perpetrator is caught by the father. The kidnapper will not divulge where the child is being held, but says the child will die soon if he is not released. The perpetrator's guilt is 100 percent sure. What would you do to save your child? (It may have been Phil Coates who came up with this!)

I would do whatever was necessary to save my child. Period.

Moral complexity enters the scenario when the retaliatory use of force is put into the hands of government.

Peter Taylor

It's not torture as such--start a torture thread if you like--it's the whole statist ball of wax in which Mike embedded it just like Galt's torture was embedded in the statist matrix he was temporarily trapped in. No wonder Steve choked on it. I'm still coughing myself.

--Brant

Edited March 23, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Mike Renzulli]

I still am in terms of believing that, ultimately, people should be left to govern themselves. That much is certain. Yet when it comes to the war on terrorism, here we have an obvious scenario of government actually doing it's job of protecting our rights.

This isn't to say government won't make mistakes since government is made up of humans and people make mistakes all the time. If government agents do there are institutions in place for redress.

However, the fact remains we are at war and when it comes to terrorists hell-bent on killing, maiming or destroying, the gloves need to be kept off until the threat is eliminated.

With responses like this, I am increasingly getting the impression that libertarians are more about not liking to be told what to do than they are about supporting individual rights.

It's a relief to know you don't think you are a libertarian.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I still am in terms of believing that, ultimately, people should be left to govern themselves. That much is certain. Yet when it comes to the war on terrorism, here we have an obvious scenario of government actually doing it's job of protecting our rights.

This isn't to say government won't make mistakes since government is made up of humans and people make mistakes all the time. If government agents do there are institutions in place for redress.

However, the fact remains we are at war and when it comes to terrorists hell-bent on killing, maiming or destroying, the gloves need to be kept off until the threat is eliminated.

With responses like this, I am increasingly getting the impression that libertarians are more about not liking to be told what to do than they are about supporting individual rights.

It's a relief to know you don't think you are a libertarian.

--Brant

The threat will never be eliminated. It's mostly inexpensive bear-baiting. It has worked, in spades.

--Brant

[Richard Wiig]

Yep, it's always much better to let innocent people die than torture a terrorist scumbag.

[kiaer.ts]

Don't be surprised, Mike, at the response from the usual anarchist pacifist suspects. They are not Objectivists who see the purpose of government as the actual protection of our rights in the real world, but Objectionists, who adhere to an intrinsicist view of rights because, like Lutherans who believe in Justification by Faith Alone, it makes them feel morally superior. (Bob Bidinotto wrote a great essay on moral intrinsicism among libertarians, but I don't know that it is still available since his blog came down.) This is an ancient fallacy, the idea that what you "believe in" and not success in the real world is the essence of the good. Nietzsche explained the motivation for this by what he called Ressentiment.

[Brant Gaede]

Yep, it's always much better to let innocent people die than torture a terrorist scumbag.

Tell us about torture. I assume you know what you are talking about, so tell us about it. I'm no expert, but I know something, so I'll know right away if you're full of it or not. No one has yet to say anything about it beyond there it is, use it. Let's save the little girl!

--Brant

[Mike Renzulli]

I will let this part of my article speak for itself:

Don’t get me wrong, individual rights are inalienable and they may not be given or taken away. However, it is a mistake to treat rights as intrinsic. The choice to torture or resort to making it easier for police to do their jobs in order to stop terrorists is not utilitarian. A terrorist has voluntarily chosen to put themselves in a state of war upon countries (like the U.S.) and peaceful citizens. As a result government agents who conduct acts of torture or scrutinize terrorists via warrant-less wiretaps, monitoring bank records or other means of surveillance are doing their job of keeping the peace since terrorists pose a threat to the rights of the innocent.

Terrorists are not combatants in the sense of battlefield conflict and to treat them the same as American citizens not only will make their job easier but is also a perversion of what individual rights are all about. Rights apply only to citizens in terms of trade and peaceful conduct among each other in a social context. Those who do not respect the individual rights of others (such as terrorists) do not deserve to have theirs respected by anyone.

Greybird wrote:

As it would be with a John Galt, right? Yeah, right.

* plonk *

end quote

I would not plonk Mike (disregard all that he may ever say in the future) just yet.

Every Objectivist is leery of putting any form of torture into the hands of the government. At the same time, all of us recognize that as individuals we have a right to defend our own lives and the lives of our loved ones. I once read a good scenario, situated on a desert island, where someone's child is kidnapped.

When appearing to pick up the ransom, the perpetrator is caught by the father. The kidnapper will not divulge where the child is being held, but says the child will die soon if he is not released. The perpetrator's guilt is 100 percent sure. What would you do to save your child? (It may have been Phil Coates who came up with this!)

I would do whatever was necessary to save my child. Period.

Moral complexity enters the scenario when the retaliatory use of force is put into the hands of government.

Peter Taylor

It's not torture as such--start a torture thread if you like--it's the whole statist ball of wax in which Mike embedded it just like Galt's torture was embedded in the statist matrix he was temporarily trapped in. No wonder Steve choked on it. I'm still coughing myself.

--Brant

Edited March 23, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

Thanks, Ted. I won't and I tend to agree.

It seems that the anarcho-capitalists poo-poohing my article have their arguments grounded in Kantian skepticism (i.e. no one can know anything about anything) and not Objectivist or even libertarian philosophy. Let alone reality itself.

Don't be surprised, Mike, at the response from the usual anarchist pacifist suspects. They are not Objectivists who see the purpose of government as the actual protection of our rights in the real world, but Objectionists, who adhere to an intrinsicist view of rights because, like Lutherans who believe in Justification by Faith Alone, it makes them feel morally superior. (Bob Bidinotto wrote a great essay on moral intrinsicism among libertarians, but I don't know that it is still available since his blog came down.) This is an ancient fallacy, the idea that what you "believe in" and not success in the real world is the essence of the good. Nietzsche explained the motivation for this by what he called Ressentiment.

[Brant Gaede]

I will let this part of my article speak for itself:

Don’t get me wrong, individual rights are inalienable and they may not be given or taken away. However, it is a mistake to treat rights as intrinsic. The choice to torture or resort to making it easier for police to do their jobs in order to stop terrorists is not utilitarian. A terrorist has voluntarily chosen to put themselves in a state of war upon countries (like the U.S.) and peaceful citizens. As a result government agents who conduct acts of torture or scrutinize terrorists via warrant-less wiretaps, monitoring bank records or other means of surveillance are doing their job of keeping the peace since terrorists pose a threat to the rights of the innocent.

Terrorists are not combatants in the sense of battlefield conflict and to treat them the same as American citizens not only will make their job easier but is also a perversion of what individual rights are all about. Rights apply only to citizens in terms of trade and peaceful conduct among each other in a social context. Those who do not respect the individual rights of others (such as terrorists) do not deserve to have theirs respected by anyone.

Greybird wrote:

As it would be with a John Galt, right? Yeah, right.

* plonk *

end quote

I would not plonk Mike (disregard all that he may ever say in the future) just yet.

Every Objectivist is leery of putting any form of torture into the hands of the government. At the same time, all of us recognize that as individuals we have a right to defend our own lives and the lives of our loved ones. I once read a good scenario, situated on a desert island, where someone's child is kidnapped.

When appearing to pick up the ransom, the perpetrator is caught by the father. The kidnapper will not divulge where the child is being held, but says the child will die soon if he is not released. The perpetrator's guilt is 100 percent sure. What would you do to save your child? (It may have been Phil Coates who came up with this!)

I would do whatever was necessary to save my child. Period.

Moral complexity enters the scenario when the retaliatory use of force is put into the hands of government.

Peter Taylor

It's not torture as such--start a torture thread if you like--it's the whole statist ball of wax in which Mike embedded it just like Galt's torture was embedded in the statist matrix he was temporarily trapped in. No wonder Steve choked on it. I'm still coughing myself.

--Brant

Speak for itself? Then why quote us?

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

With responses like this, I am increasingly getting the impression that libertarians are more about not liking to be told what to do than they are about supporting individual rights.

Instead of subjecting me to your killfile, Greybird, why not try to take me to task or point out the flaws in my argument?

“…[Nearly] all Democratic and leftist reactions to conservatives and Republicans are to avoid argument (remember, on the issues the left has few supporters) and smear them as SIXHIRB (my acronym for "Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, and/or Bigoted.)"

Dennis Prager

In other words, says Prager, the noble leftists don’t have to offer arguments. They need only point out that their opponent is evil.

The same is true for the “libertarian” opponents of torture and current government activities to stop terrorism. Anyone who sanctions torture and (contextually necessary) “statist” institutions is evil. End of argument.

The truth is, Mike makes some excellent arguments. And no one on the other side has even begun to answer them.

Stay tuned, folks. More “clever” bromides coming your way.

[kiaer.ts]

Thanks, Ted. I won't and I tend to agree.

It seems that the anarcho-capitalists poo-poohing my article have their arguments grounded in Kantian skepticism (i.e. no one can know anything about anything) and not Objectivist or even libertarian philosophy. Let alone reality itself.

Don't be surprised, Mike, at the response from the usual anarchist pacifist suspects. They are not Objectivists who see the purpose of government as the actual protection of our rights in the real world, but Objectionists, who adhere to an intrinsicist view of rights because, like Lutherans who believe in Justification by Faith Alone, it makes them feel morally superior. (Bob Bidinotto wrote a great essay on moral intrinsicism among libertarians, but I don't know that it is still available since his blog came down.) This is an ancient fallacy, the idea that what you "believe in" and not success in the real world is the essence of the good. Nietzsche explained the motivation for this by what he called Ressentiment.

Yes, that reminds me of hearing Ron Paul on the radio (Smerconish) the other day. He went on for some minutes about the evil motives of "America" in its need to gin up hate towards our enemies, and then segued smoothly into a complaint about how we don't take Qaddafi at his word. Paul referred to Qaddafi's claim that he was opening up the Libyan armories to provide a gun to all comers who want to defend Libya from the foreign invaders. Paul said, "That doesn't sound like the actions of a dictator to me."

Can you believe such crap? Anyone can see the propaganda value of his statement for his supporters and the western press, but who really believes Qaddafi is handing out guns to all comers? But according to Paul we can know with certainty the evil motives of Americans, but a terrorist and certified lunatic is to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Paul then complained that Obama hadn't sought congressional approval for the use of force, a criticism with which I agree even more strongly than Paul, perhaps. But when asked what Obama should do to rectify the situation, perhaps seek belated congressional approval, he said Obama should apologize for making a mistake (in invading, not for failing to seek authorization) and withdraw immediately. Our reputation is bad enough without such nonsense.

The Kantian skepticism charge is a good call, and I will add it to my list of standard criticisms of the pacifist-anarchists.

[Mike Renzulli]

Agreed. After having switched on the issues of foreign policy and terrorism, everytime I read about Paul or see his videos on the PATRIOT Act or the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. he comes across as the pandering politician he claims to be against.

Paul is just like any politician. The only thing that makes him dangerous is that he and the Rockwellians backing him have the platform to pitch Paul as a representative of libertarians and the movement. His articulation of Austrian economics is good but as far as his stances on foreign policy, abortion and immigration he is awful.

The last thing libertarians need to be associated with is the paleo-conservatism of Paul. Unfortunately, many in the movement have latched on to him and their credibility will go down with him when his awful and slanderous statements (like the ones you point out) are made public.

Yes, that reminds me of hearing Ron Paul on the radio (Smerconish) the other day. He went on for some minutes about the evil motives of "America" in its need to gin up hate towards our enemies, and then segued smoothly into a complaint about how we don't take Qaddafi at his word. Paul referred to Qaddafi's claim that he was opening up the Libyan armories to provide a gun to all comers who want to defend Libya from the foreign invaders. Paul said, "That doesn't sound like the actions of a dictator to me."

Can you believe such crap? Anyone can see the propaganda value of his statement for his supporters and the western press, but who really believes Qaddafi is handing out guns to all comers? But according to Paul we can know with certainty the evil motives of Americans, but a terrorist and certified lunatic is to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Paul then complained that Obama hadn't sought congressional approval for the use of force, a criticism with which I agree even more strongly than Paul, perhaps. But when asked what Obama should do to rectify the situation, perhaps seek belated congressional approval, he said Obama should apologize for making a mistake (in invading, not for failing to seek authorization) and withdraw immediately. Our reputation is bad enough without such nonsense.

The Kantian skepticism charge is a good call, and I will add it to my list of standard criticisms of the pacifist-anarchists.

[Brant Gaede]

With responses like this, I am increasingly getting the impression that libertarians are more about not liking to be told what to do than they are about supporting individual rights.

Instead of subjecting me to your killfile, Greybird, why not try to take me to task or point out the flaws in my argument?

"…[Nearly] all Democratic and leftist reactions to conservatives and Republicans are to avoid argument (remember, on the issues the left has few supporters) and smear them as SIXHIRB (my acronym for "Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, and/or Bigoted.)"

Dennis Prager

In other words, says Prager, the noble leftists don't have to offer arguments. They need only point out that their opponent is evil.

The same is true for the "libertarian" opponents of torture and current government activities to stop terrorism. Anyone who sanctions torture and (contextually necessary) "statist" institutions is evil. End of argument.

The truth is, Mike makes some excellent arguments. And no one on the other side has even begun to answer them.

Stay tuned, folks. More "clever" bromides coming your way.

His "excellent arguments" are for a police state implicitly endorsed by good Americans. What is not being dealt with are the questions of how this world got to where the cops get to take it over and torture people and morally and financially governments are stumbing all over the place and wars go on and on? This country is not being destroyed by terrorists, not unless our rulers are terrorists. Sic the FBI on them too.

--Brant

[sjw]

Don’t get me wrong, individual rights are inalienable and they may not be given or taken away. However, it is a mistake to treat rights as intrinsic. The choice to torture or resort to making it easier for police to do their jobs in order to stop terrorists is not utilitarian.

Rights are inalienable but not intrinsic? What does that mean? Does that mean that if a cop thinks there are drugs at your house but has the wrong address, that it's OK for him to bust down your door in the middle of the night for the "utilitarian purpose" of making sure you don't flush something down the toilet? And then to shoot you if you mistake him for a criminal? There's a reason the wise founders created the Bill of Rights, and Objectivists who throw them into the trash can are not true Americans, they should hide their heads in shame and move back to England.

Leaving aside the issue of cruel and unusual punishments (in a system that routinely convicts innocents and puts them on death row), the question here is whether it is appropriate to apply any sort of punishment to a person who has not been found guilty through due and public process. You say "terrorist" when you see a mere human that the government pointed their finger at. This is a very gullible and dangerous attitude.

Shayne

[sjw]

Hey Mike, why don't you study this thoroughly and then get back to us about who the real terrorists are:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Then we can talk about whether or not you are supporting terrorism with these posts of yours and what's to be done about it.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Does that mean that if a cop thinks there are drugs at your house but has the wrong address, that it's OK for him to bust down your door in the middle of the night for the "utilitarian purpose" of making sure you don't flush something down the toilet? And then to shoot you if you mistake him for a criminal?

Don't be silly. Who here is advocating drug laws? Try something more reasonable like the hot pursuit of a criminal who hides in your back yard. You don't have the absolute right to stop the cop based on your property rights. Politics and ethics are separate sciences. Rights, while derived from moral principals, are a political concept. They exist within the context of a polity. It is not immoral for a policeman to tread on your lawn in the valid pursuit of his duties.

[sjw]

Does that mean that if a cop thinks there are drugs at your house but has the wrong address, that it's OK for him to bust down your door in the middle of the night for the "utilitarian purpose" of making sure you don't flush something down the toilet? And then to shoot you if you mistake him for a criminal?

Don't be silly. Who here is advocating drug laws? Try something more reasonable like the hot pursuit of a criminal who hides in your back yard. You don't have the absolute right to stop the cop based on your property rights. Politics and ethics are separate sciences. Rights, while derived from moral principals, are a political concept. They exist within the context of a polity. It is not immoral for a policeman to tread on your lawn in the valid pursuit of his duties.

I certainly agree that if a cop is chasing someone, then he has a right to reasonable pursuit across your property. That has nothing to do with what Mike is trying to justify here. We are talking talking about imminent threats here, we're talking about this sort of thing:

http://www.suntimes.com/4436773-417/e-mail-on-interfaith-marriage-gets-st.-charles-man-on-no-fly-list

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Does that mean that if a cop thinks there are drugs at your house but has the wrong address, that it's OK for him to bust down your door in the middle of the night for the "utilitarian purpose" of making sure you don't flush something down the toilet? And then to shoot you if you mistake him for a criminal?

Don't be silly. Who here is advocating drug laws? Try something more reasonable like the hot pursuit of a criminal who hides in your back yard. You don't have the absolute right to stop the cop based on your property rights. Politics and ethics are separate sciences. Rights, while derived from moral principals, are a political concept. They exist within the context of a polity. It is not immoral for a policeman to tread on your lawn in the valid pursuit of his duties.

I certainly agree that if a cop is chasing someone, then he has a right to reasonable pursuit across your property. That has nothing to do with what Mike is trying to justify here. We are talking talking about imminent threats here, we're talking about this sort of thing:

Not right, but authority. I'll let Mike speak for himself if he wants to give an example. The point to me is that government officials should have the authority to interrogate (not 'torture') unlawful enemy combatants with rather wide leeway. How we treat them is a matter of our needs and standards. You'd be surprised how little concern I have for the 'rights' of war criminals subject to summary execution on the battlefield according to the laws of war.

[sjw]

Not right, but authority.

Note to all readers: If this doesn't give you the creepy-crawlies then something's definitely wrong with you.

You'd be surprised how little concern I have for the 'rights' of war criminals subject to summary execution on the battlefield according to the laws of war.

I'm primarily concerned about innocents here who get caught up in the machine, not actual war criminals. Evidently you have no comprehension of the reason for due process.

Shayne