James Madison once observed that “it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” Fear of foreign perils, Madison realized, can easily persuade a freedom-loving people to voluntarily part with liberties they would otherwise consider indispensable. In Thomas Jefferson’s words, the people are “made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves.”

In making such statements on the forfeiting of precious rights during times of foreign danger, Madison and Jefferson were speaking from experience. In the 1790s, a number of Americans feared that the democratic excesses of the French Revolution would be exported to the U.S.

They believed French agents were plotting to destroy the Constitution and overthrow the federal government. Wild rumors spread that Jefferson, Madison, and other members of their Republican Party planned to offer assistance to a French invasion force supposedly sailing across the Atlantic. To make matters worse, an undeclared naval war soon erupted between the U.S. and France.

This environment of fear and distrust led to the passage of the most illiberal legislation of the early national period: The Alien and Sedition Acts. Enacted by Congress in the summer of 1798, the Acts prohibited criticism of the federal government and gave President John Adams the power to deport any alien he viewed as suspicious. This legislation made a mockery of the First Amendment and deprived aliens of basic due process of law.

To combat the Acts, Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. In these Resolutions, Madison and Jefferson accused Congress of exceeding its powers and declared the Alien and Sedition Acts void. Times were so tense that Madison and Jefferson hid the fact of their authorship because they feared prosecution under the dreaded Sedition Act.

Although the American people originally applauded the Acts, in the elections of 1800 they threw out of office many of the Acts’ supporters. Jefferson was also elected to the presidency and he suspended all prosecutions brought under these shameful measures. This so-called “Revolution of 1800” brought the crisis of the Alien and Sedition Acts to a close.

Today, similar to the 1790s, Americans sense a threat of danger from abroad. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11th attacks, Americans are concerned that terrorism will claim more innocent lives. Consequently, few voices of opposition were heard when Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Under this legislation, government investigators can more easily eavesdrop on Internet activity, FBI agents are charged with gathering domestic intelligence, Treasury Department officials are charged with creating a financial intelligence-gathering system for use by the CIA, and the CIA is permitted use of evidence garnered by federal grand juries and criminal wiretaps.

In addition, George W. Bush signed an Executive Order providing for secret military tribunals to try suspected foreign terrorists. These courts do not apply the principles of law and rules of evidence that are used in the trial of criminal cases in U.S. district courts.

Fortunately, these measures are rather mild when compared to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. For example, nothing in the measures infringes on freedom of speech like the Sedition Act. Americans are free to applaud, criticize, or vilify government officials. Nevertheless, federal authorities have augmented their power to pry into the affairs of innocent Americans. With regard to the Internet, Big Brother monitors our e-mail communications and where we surf on the Web.

Moreover, under Executive Orders, non-citizens suspected of terrorism are denied the safeguards of due process of law—the very principles that form the foundation of the American justice system. Inasmuch as these tribunals are such a departure from the high standards of our system, the procedures employed by these military tribunals should concern citizen and non-citizen alike.

Without a doubt, the Sept. 11th attacks changed the U.S. forever. Terrorists can’t take our freedoms away, but our politicians will continue to make America a more regimented society if we let them. Although action is required to deal with the threat of terrorism, let us not forget the lessons of the Alien and Sedition Acts and Madison’s aphorism about the loss of liberty at home in the face of danger from abroad.

Let us also be mindful of our freedoms, but, at the same time, take the necessary actions to vanquish this new foe. Such a balance is delicate, but also essential.

William J. Watkins, Jr. is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and author of the Independent Institute book, Reclaiming the American Revolution.

Originally published December 6, 2001

Copyright, The Independent Institute. Permission is granted to reprint or broadcast this article if credit is given to the author and to The Independent Institute.

Throughout U.S. history, the American people have balanced liberty and security. Finding the right mix isn’t always easy. But policy-makers must never forget that they are duty-bound to protect a free society.

Government had ample powers before 9/11 to deal with terrorism in a manner consistent with the Bill of Rights. If we needlessly sacrifice the liberties that make America great, we, in the manner of Esau, will have sold our national soul for a mess of pottage.

September 11 wasn’t the first time in U.S. history that the American people sacrificed their freedoms and allowed the government to seize extraordinary powers. Shortly after the American Revolution, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, allowing the federal government to jail its critics.

Habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War, and the federal government prosecuted political opponents. Civil liberties were widely violated during World War I; then came the “Red Scare” and so-called Palmer Raids.

World War II spawned the internment of Japanese-Americans. Surveillance of domestic political opponents occurred during the Cold War.

In all of these cases, Americans eventually realized that they had sacrificed liberty without gaining security in return. Decisions were overturned, powers were rescinded, and accountability was re-established.

As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned in Olmstead vs. United States in 1928, “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Although we usually are vigilant against “evil-minded rulers,” Brandeis added, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

So it was in the aftermath of 9/11. Americans feared another attack and therefore acquiesced to an unprecedented power grab by the federal government. This unprecedented expansion of government authority threatens to allow the false promise of security to permanently trump America’s historic commitment to liberty.

The “War on Terrorism” is the first conflict since the Civil War in which the American homeland is a battleground. Thus, the president claims the right to decide when the rules of war will govern domestic civilian society.

Moreover, for the first time in our history we are fighting a conflict that has no apparent end. We knew when we had defeated Germany and Japan in World War II, but history suggests there will always be terrorists. It is a never-ending war in an undefined and unlimited battlefield.

We cannot allow America’s dearly bought freedoms to be so easily lost.

Liberty is far more than just a bank account, e-mail or Social Security number. Liberty defines a free people. It is our birthright to keep personal affairs private from others, and especially from the government. It is our constitutional right not to have our privacy invaded and evidence gathered against us without the government having a good reason for doing so and securing a warrant. It also is our constitutional birthright not to be arrested except through the due process of law. And it is our duty to hold those who exercise power accountable for their actions.

This is not a liberal issue or a conservative issue. It is an American issue.

After 9/11, Americans heard a familiar refrain: “You must give up a little privacy, a few liberties, in order to have security.” After all, it was said, “if you have nothing to hide, there is no reason to be concerned.”

Anyway, we were told, we faced a new kind of enemy, one never contemplated by America’s Founders. Only with new powers could the government combat these new threats.

But the dichotomy of liberty versus security is false. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 did not succeed because government was too weak. Rather, public officials did not use their existing powers and did not competently perform their duties. Giving these same officials new, unfettered and unreviewable powers has not made America more secure. Indeed, the U.S. has lost moral standing around the globe, making us more vulnerable to foreign threats.

The Founding Fathers well anticipated the world in which we live. They recognized that power corrupts and could spur even the most well-meaning public officials to invade the liberties of the people.

At the same time, those who created the new nation understood the need to preserve liberty in a dangerous world. America was birthed out of revolution against Great Britain, the most powerful empire on earth. In its early years, the United States also was threatened by France and Spain. Despite such clear and present dangers, the Framers deliberately limited the authority of government and ensured the accountability of public officials.

Liberty is not an afterthought, but the very essence of our civilization. The philosopher Ayn Rand spoke of “the process of setting man free from men.” Our Founding Fathers understood that. The Bill of Rights protects it.

But the current administration and many others, including Sen. John McCain, appear to disdain it. Only the American people can truly re-establish our society’s foundation of freedom. That is the American Solution.

Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate for President and a former member of Congress from Georgia.

It has been over 6 years since the atrocities of September 11 were committed and there are still some very basic measures that need to be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and make America  safer.  I have proposed legislation to help with these efforts and will continue to fight in Congress for the safety and security of the American people.

My legislation entitled The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (HR 3216) makes the surgical strike option available to the President in our mission to capture Bin Laden.  Our military has been pursuing him without result for far too long now, and it is high time ALL constitutional tools were utilized in the hunt for this dangerous madman.

As an American it sickens me to know that Bin Laden and top leaders of al Qaeda remain at large and thumbing their noses at us, while we unravel the sacred fabric of our constitution out of fear.  It is Osama Bin Laden and the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that ought to be afraid of us, not the other way around.  The answers are found in the Constitution.  We should boldly root out the perpetrators and not let them get away with their crimes against us.  As the home of the brave we should use Letters of Marque and Reprisal to bring Bin Laden to justice.

Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil.  Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained.  In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas.

Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries.  We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn.

They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department’s list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia .  Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.

A lot has been done to fight the War on Terror and much of it has been misdirected, but there are some tools still needed and more progress to be made.  My bills The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 and The Terror Immigration Elimination Act are logical steps in the right direction.