Fear and Liberty

Abstract

When a nation's security is threatened, are civil liberties at undue risk? If so, why? Consider a plausible account. In the midst of external threats, public overreactions are predictable. Simply because of fear, the public and its leaders will favor measures that do little to protect security but that compromise important forms of freedom.1 The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II is perhaps the most salient example, but there are many more. Consider, for example, the McCarthy period, restrictions on dissident speech during World War I, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, and the imposition of martial law in Hawaii in 1941. Many people believe that some of the actions of the Bush administration, in the aftermath of the September 11 attack, fall in the same basic category. Is it really necessary to hold suspected terrorists in prison in Guantanamo? For how long? For the rest of their lives? In explaining how public fear might produce unjustified intrusions on civil liberties, I emphasize two potential sources of error: the availability heuristic and probability neglect. The availability heuristic, widely used by ordinary people, can lead to a grossly exaggerated sense of risk, as salient incidents make citizens think that a risk is far more serious than it actually is. When probability neglect is at work, people focus on the and disregard the question whether it is likely that the worst case will occur an approach that can also lead to excessive regulation. With an understanding of the availability heuristic and probability neglect, I believe that we are able to have a better appreciation of the sources of unsupportable intrusions on civil