rawlinson – us

Is Lady Liberty Under Fire?

Introduction

I do not envy President Bush. He has been our leader in one of the most difficult times in US history. We face an enemy that is far harder to identify than in past conflicts. Lincoln had a separatist south, Roosevelt had Hitler, but Bush has loosely assembled cabals of people spread across the globe set upon hurting our country. After September 11, 2001 the President had to figure out how best to respond. We had to be strong and thorough – but we also had to be accurate and honest. Above all else our government needed to protect our great nation while preserving that which makes it great. Our initial strikes on AL Qaeda in Afghanistan seemed to be leading us in the right direction; but activities since then seem to be failing in the second measurement – preserving our liberties.

“But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.” — Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

I’m a Republican. Sort of. I am a registered Republican and I always felt more aligned with the Republican party growing up. Heck, as a young kid I voted for Regan in mock elections (though my stomach still turns at mention of his “I don’t remember” plea during the Iran-Contra affair). However, being a Republican does not mean I am a patsy. I don’t unabashedly support all Republicans simply because of their party alignment. First and foremost I am an American who believes in the liberties our great country was found upon. I am a passionate advocate for the freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the protection against illegal search and seizure, and of course – and perhaps most importantly – the freedom of speech. Particularly the right to complain about my government when I think they are encroaching upon our liberties.

Checks and Balances

The government was made great by the idea of checks and balances. The most obvious of which are the separation of the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches. However, the last check lies in the hands of the American people who hold it as their duty to keep a watchful eye upon our keepers. Sadly, we are failing. Slowly but surely we are sacrificing our liberties in the name of fear.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

A War Begins

The worst day of my life, by far, was Sept 11, 2001. The blatant attack on our nation’s soil shocked me, angered me, and left me feeling helpless. I was in a state of anger for days and found myself wanting to strike out at someone – anyone – to make them answer for the great wrong dealt to our nation. Instead I trusted in the federal government to take care of payback. It is one of the duties of the federal government. Therefore I, like the rest of the nation, waited to hear what our response would be – and who would be receiving the response. At first it was Afghanistan and their ruling Taliban. Then, it was Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Like most of my fellow citizens I was in full support of both invasions at the time they were announced.

When I watched the news and saw the satellite imagery of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan I thought, let’s get ‘em! When we did it; when we took the Taliban out of power and helped to form a Democratic government in Afghanistan I was excited and pleased. In fact, I’m still happy about what we started in Afghanistan (though I’m not sure things are going so well there anymore). I was equally eager for payback upon Iraq when I saw the “mobile weapon laboratory” reports, when Saddam kept defying the UN inspectors, and when the President and Secretary Powell told us about the Weapons of Mass destruction hidden in Iraq. The propaganda machine had won me over. I saw no dissenting reports claiming the information we were getting was false. Instead, other countries kept saying “give Iraq and the UN inspectors more time”. I didn’t believe more time would make a difference because Saddam was showing absolutely no inclination to work with the inspectors. His own behaviour seemed extremely suspicious to me.

My Bias

I will readily admit my bias against Saddam. I was in the Army as an enlisted man in the early 1990′s and spent six months in Saudi Arabia at the end of Desert Storm helping with the maintenance of the peace. My older brother was there for the whole war back in 1990-1991 and our participation (as light as mine was) definitely played a part in my willingness to believe that Saddam was up to no good. He had invaded Bahrain and willingly gone to war with us once before – he was primed for wanting vengeance against us so his involvement in 9/11 seemed obvious. In fact, I’m still happy to know he is out of power in Iraq. However, his removal is the only bright spot I see on our current involvement in Iraq.

The Truth

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” — Thomas Paine

Eventually we learned that we had been lied too. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were no concrete ties between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. Instead, it appears, we just went to war to get rid of Saddam. Like I said, I’m glad Saddam is out of power. However, I’m not happy that friends of mine, my brothers-in-arms, were sent to war with the sanction of the American people based on reasoning built purely from lies. I realize all politicians lie – but few lies end up being as costly, in both terms of money, lives, and liberty, as this one. It seems we are caught in an endless war.

Dust in the Wind

“Patrick Henry did not say, ‘Give me absolute safety or give me death.’ ” — John Stossel, “20/20″, ABC-TV, Aug. 3, 2001

It is an admitted fact by the President and the Attorney General that the war on terror has no known end point. We don’t have a clear objective we can measure our success against and so we are at war for an indeterminate period against an unknown foe. A President gets more power when we are at war. Typically this power is for a finite period. In WWII it was generally accepted the war would be over once we defeated Imperial Japan and the Fascist German republics. Even in Vietnam we knew the war would be over when we defeated the communist’s in the North. However, in this war we won’t know when (or if) the enemy is defeated because the enemy is a fluid entity that is always changing. Our Congress authorized the President to enter this endless war however, the President, and Congress in general, has used the war on terror as a cover for a second war – the war on our liberties.

The Hidden War

“Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” — Frederick Douglass

I know it sounds dramatic “The War on our Liberties.” But I don’t think it is anything less. During the past six years some things have happened that have seriously eroded our rights as citizens of this great country and it is time for we the people to be heard. In a strike against the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights the PATRIOT Act makes it a federal offense to speak against, or hold a sign in protest to the President when he is at an event (such as his parties national convention).

Section 602 of the Conference Committee’s version of Patriot Act makes holding an un-authorized sign at a Democratic or Republican National Convention, a Presidential or VP appearance, and any other event designated by the Secret Service as a “national special security event” a felony punishable by a year imprisonment.

Section 603 makes a separate offense of entering the Convention with forged credentials, possessing such, or even perhaps the time-honored tradition of sharing one’s entry pass with a friend. Ben Masel Article @ Daily Kos probably a liberal webzine.

Likewise, in a direct assault on the fourth amendment The President has circumvented the need for a warrant for wiretapping (international calls) even though there is a law that directly deals with this (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.) Unsurprisingly, members of Congress are opposed to this reach by the executive branch.

There are other situations which I’m torn on. The fifth amendment takes hits with the detention of prisoners without charges in the event of an emergency (such as at Guantanamo) and the ability to call someone an “Enemy Combatant” and jail them with no formal criminal charges. These “enemy combatants” can be held indefinitely without access to a lawyer (or even an explanation) [see: US citizens Jose Padilla and Yassar Hamdi; Hamdi was eventually released to Saudi as he was a dual-citizen but only after renouncing his US citizenship]. This situation is much more dicey than the others because they are held in legal limbo.

Douglas Cassel, director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University Law School, thinks so. “Charges should be brought, a trial should be scheduled, and he should be allowed to see a lawyer,” Cassel says. “They’re maintaining they can hold him for the duration of the war on terror — which could easily be years, or even decades — without ever charging him with a crime.” — time magazine article

But can we rightfully keep them imprisoned for perpetuity? Especially, when many seem to have no link to any terrorist organization. This is a very gray area but the precedent being set of imprisoning people indefinitely raises a scary spectre – if no charges need be brought against someone and no warrant is needed, what is to stop the government from imprisoning me for speaking against the policy on my blog? Nobody would ever know why I was put in custody.

Conclusion

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” — John Stuart Mill

I am not so naive as to think that the threat from terrorism is gone. Nor do I claim to have all the answers to protecting our citizenry while also protecting our cherished liberties. However, that does not mean it is not a worthwhile cause. Not only is it worthwhile it is our duty as a nation that extols the virtues of Democracy to protect the pillars our country was founded upon.

“Liberty is the right and hope of all humanity” — George W. Bush State of the Union Address, Jan 2006

President Bush is correct. Liberty is the right of all humanity. I just wish he seemed as eager to defend our liberties as he is those of the people of Iraq, China, and Iran (his “axis of evil”). I don’t just blame Bush and the current administration though. I blame the eligible voters of our nation almost exclusively. The Congress and the President both have approval ratings of close to 35% yet we keep reelecting the same people (86.7% reelection rate historically). If we don’t like the job these people are doing, why do we keep reelecting them? This is the only career path I know of where a worker is consistently rewarded when their boss (the voting public) is unhappy with the workers performance.

When all is said and done I don’t think our current law makers are maliciously trying to infringe upon our rights. I think they are just trying to protect our country from an antagonist that can attack from anywhere at anytime. However, that doesn’t change the fact that in their quest to maintain our security they are sacrificing our liberties and we must speak out about it.