In the face of tragedy, Americans are all too willing to sacrifice the values of the West for a phantom security.
Politicians of all stripes, unfortunately, have been all too willing to oblige them.
Since it was revealed that the Orlando shooter had been on a terrorist watch list, though he was no longer on it when he purchased guns, Hillary Clinton has argued that those on watch lists should be legally barred from purchasing firearms. Whether that ban should be temporary or permanent, Clinton has not clarified.
“If the FBI is watching you for a suspected terrorist link, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked,” Clinton said.
Not to be outdone, Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he’s meeting with the NRA to craft a similar policy that bans anyone on a terrorist watch list or the no-fly list from purchasing firearms.
“If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely,” Trump said in November.
The government, however, does not “know” someone is an “enemy of state” when they place someone under watch.
Trump’s opinion highlights the danger of both candidates’ agendas in response to Orlando. Both presume that the watch lists are Constitutionally sound, accurate in monitoring terrorists, and a policy that makes Americans safer. None of those are true.
Adding restrictions will not make Americans safer — it will only make them less free. Politicians invoke a tradeoff between liberty and security, but in this instance, restricting liberty carries no benefits to security.
“Limiting any right, no matter how specious, based on undisclosed, mistake-ridden lists is even more unsound. The Constitution is anchored by the promise of due process; so long as gun ownership is considered an aspect of liberty, the government must not revoke it unilaterally, with no opportunity for appeal. Civil libertarians should push to abolish the terror watch lists, not expand their reach,” Mark Joseph Stern wrote in December.
Embracing the Clinton or Trump policy undermines foundational rights of the American political system. Liberals, who at least pay lip service to civil liberties when Republicans hold the White House, have lusted after state power when it pushes firearm restrictions.
David Harsanyi paraphrased Clinton’s attitude without the political rhetoric: “People under FBI investigation should lose Constitutional rights.”
The no-fly list, like the terrorist watch list, is offensive because it’s the government telling the American people “trust us” without providing a reason. Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic calls it “an opaque abomination.”
“The government does not have proof that these people have committed crimes nor, since it can’t see into the future, that they will commit crimes. Thus, the no-fly list seems to violate the presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty,” Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, wrote.
In times of fear and anxiety, Americans demand pragmatism and action. They want to protect their country. Unfortunately, that leads to support for policies that undermine the freedom their government is supposed to protect without offering any improvement to national security.
If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump get their way, they will give the government the authority to place an American on a watch list, without any evidence that they pose a threat to fellow citizens, and subject them to an array of restrictions, be it for privacy, travel, or gun ownership.
That isn’t reminiscent of American values that attract worldwide admiration. It’s a throwback to the brutality of the Soviet system. Americans might embrace the watch list for “terrorists,” but their disregard for civil liberty protections threaten every American guilty of nothing more than leading a peaceful existence.
