The limits of power: The limits of liberty

Consider a dilemma of living in the 21st century United States of America. What is the right and proper application of our military power? How far can the application of this power take us in the world before we lose our defining characteristics of reverence for liberty? The exigencies of the "War on Terror" have stretched our power, and strained our concept of liberty, both in the world and at home.

Since September 11, 2001 we have invaded two sovereign countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. We justified the first as pursuit of the specific terrorists of September 11th. The justification of the Iraq invasion keeps being re-defined as the evidence for the stated reasons evaporates. At least with Afghanistan we had not only definite knowledge of the location of al Queda, and the complicity with them of the Taliban, but the support of much of the international community. Our belated efforts to seek intenational assistance in Iraq find very little traction, which should surprise no one.

Now, our reach exceeds our grasp in military terms. We need more manpower for occupying and policing not only the two most recent war zones, but Bosnia, Kosovo and other commitments around the world. Other monstrous evils pop up like running sores around the world, notably in the Sudan. How should we proceed? "Going it alone" is hardly the answer, considering how we have bumped up against the limits of our power already.

The second concern in the ongoing changes of post-9/11 life is preserving the core liberties that define what is best in this country. Any war brings curtailment of some liberty in the name of security. The Patriot Acts I and II are very broad in application, and have resulted in some questionable and disturbing instances of suspensions in the right of habeas corpus. There are already laws to define when and how this right may be suspended.

The Supreme Court has partially restrained this practice, basically by citing the constitutional provisions already governing such suspensions. The SCOTUS moves slowly, however, and the forces charged with enforcement can be far ahead of future rulings.

Ironically, many who are quick to criticize "intrusive" government are quite ready to support suspension of rights for those not of their national origin, faith or political ideology. They may want to "get government off the backs of the people," but much depends on the definition of "people." Law depends on precedent and eveness of application for the support of those who are governed by it. The quibbling legal evasion of "combatant" status has potential for abuse, as well, on our own soil or abroad. Wrong is wrong, if our belief in the universality of the rights in the Bill of Rights has any validity.

During the Nazi dismantling of free government in Germany after 1933, a few voices were raised in opposition by Germans not of Jewish or other proscribed beliefs. Martin Niemoller was one of these, a Christian theologian. He composed the following:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

We face thorny decisions and shifting challenges in the new world disorder. I hope we can keep our national identity and standards while charting new courses for new times.