The issue is troublesome because we are forced to balance a desire to avoid terrible and personal harm against abstract and nebulous concepts. This is never an easy task and certainly not made easier by arising in the immediate wake of the worst domestic terrorism incident in the history of the United States. I believe, however, that our obligation to remain true to the basic values that characterize our system of government and make it unique among the world's democracies should not be weakened by the horrors of the moment. Any effort now undertaken to deal with domestic terrorism, whether directed at the means by which information useful to terrorists is spread or expanded wiretap authority when there is no showing that existing procedures have been found inadequate, is no doubt well-intentioned. Laudatory intentions, however, are not enough to justify restrictive legislation.
Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.
The members of the committee have no doubt given much thought to these questions. I am not sure I can add much to their own deliberative processes. What I bring to the Committee is over 30 years as a lawyer, over 20 as an academic, over 10 years as a federal prosecutor, and the commitment of a professional lifetime to the values and strengths of our form of government. It is perhaps for that reason, that even while working on The Progressive Case as United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, I was probably the least enthusiastic about the case among the team of federal attorneys working on it. As you know, the Progressive case was the effort by the government to enjoin publication of a magazine article describing how an H-bomb was constructed.