11/18/01
Today the reports from Afghanistan come, "We're winning the war." The
Taliban are collapsing. This is great news for those who've been subjugated
by that oppressive regime. Defense Rumsfeld is touring Ground Zero to
"remind America why we're fighting in Afghanistan." The relation between
Ground Zero and Afghanistan is quickly leaving the hearts and minds of the
populace.
As the war continues, and now that we seem to be winning, we're regaining a
sense of ease and confidence. We're beginning to resume our former sense of
invincibility. We're beginning to believe our own rhetoric. This could prove
dangerous.
We're fighting guerillas whose method of combat does not resemble our own.
They, who are so willing to die for their beliefs, will even in the death
throes of their movement be willing, and if able, will wreak further havoc
upon our citizenry and our way of life. Their tacticians have no regard for
defeat. As their network moves back into mountain hideouts, and their
satellite cells gear up for their future intentions, we should not resume
our former, "it could never happen here" stance. They're waiting for us to
fall asleep a little. Their incursions will come in the dead of night, so to
speak, when we're inattentive, when we've let down our guard, or when we're
focused in one arena to the exclusion of another.
While we're busy not dropping our guard, we must also not mistake of doing
the terrorists' work for them by curtailing freedom in this country. If our
government becomes more oppressive they have won. The terrorists are not
only about destroying America; they are bent on controlling the world. That
control expresses itself as a kind of totalitarianism that we're fighting to
rid from the earth. On the outside, we are putting a stop to this potential
Hitlerian force. But when our freedoms are being attacked from the inside,
what more satisfying accomplishments could the terrorists have? If we show
that sort of fear, have they not won?
More knee-jerk defensiveness about America's role in the Universe is being
expressed. The need to limit the focus of the public to what the government
and profit-based media wants us to look at, while turning our attention away
from the changes being wrought over the liberties and rights of our country
is becoming more heavy-handed day-by-day.
In a recent fearful and angry email, the old words of ultra-conservative
America were reiterated, "If you don't like what's happening here, why don't
you just leave." Well, when I think of the old saw, "My country right or
wrong," I take it to mean that I am obliged to endeavor to correct what is
wrong because what is right needs the defense. Just because I disagree,
doesn't mean I want or need to leave. This is just the sort of simplistic,
fear-based thinking that can be easily manipulated in the name of
patriotism. Just because wešre the "good guys," doesnšt give our leaders
carte blanche to dismantle the civil liberties and rights that make America
what it is.
One of the reasons that this country was founded was to give voice to the
minority opinion. Part of this nationšs founding was the questioning of
authority. Itšs one thing to question the tactics of a war in progress.
That, it seems to me, is somewhat unsavory. However, questioning the changes
being wrought to the system of laws as a result of an over reactive
leadership seems to me to be a necessary and prudent inquiry.
As we venture down the path to rid the world of terrorism, the government
justifies troubling, repressive constraints as part of its effort to stem
the tide. In some ways it makes perfect sense to try the criminal
masterminds from foreign lands without providing them the same rights that
American citizens possess. On the other hand, it behooves us to make trials
both fair and public in the case of terrorism. To move justice into the
military forum where the prosecution of the war is devised and implemented
does not bode well for the higher cause of protecting freedom and justice.
Plus, those who suffered from the acts of the terrorists have the right to
witness the trial and enforcement of justice to those responsible for the
slaughter. We should not be afraid that justice cannot be done, but rather
confident that the system of jurisprudence, which for so long has been the
backbone of our quest for fairness in justice, will serve us here and now.
The erosion of human rights in America is a woefully frightening thing.
While for many in this country human rights have long been eroded; it is not
generally the written policy of government. (The plight of the African
American male in this country is example enough of the lack of human rights
for all Americans. In the unwritten codes within our legal system, racial profiling
and the disproportionate death rates are evidence of the continuing oppression
within our borders..) In the midst of prosecuting this war in Afghanistan, a war we feel most justified about, there are subtle and not-so-subtle curtailments of the fundamental rights we are and should be fighting to protect. Even as we wage the battle to protect
the world, we must continue to improve our own home. Just because wešre at
war abroad does not mean we can become complacent at home. This war will end
and when it does, woe betide us if wešve desecrated the freedoms for which
we stand.
In our haste to make safe an unsafe world, the voices are ringing out that
sacrifices to our essential freedoms must be made. We have to get used to
it, they say. In time, we will adjust. But this is not the America I wish to
defend. Every time I think about what it means to be an American, I am
twisted by two disparate sensations. At the core, in the documents upon
which the country is founded, I am profoundly awed by the genius and wisdom
of the founding fathers. At the surface, I am often disturbed by the
swelling power of the few who would chip away at the rights of the public to
be informed of the truth.
Early this month, President Bush altered the Presidential Records Act of
1978, which makes presidential papers public information 12 years after the
president has left office. This means that much information about the
policies, conduct and actions of our former administrations can be kept
secret from us long after the national security issues have passed. Sure
this may protect our former presidents from the prurient interests of
tabloid journalism, but more importantly it keeps from the public the deeper
truths of their policy making. Such secrecy would enable history to be
miswritten. It would allow the machinations of politics control over the
information. It would keep the public's knowledge in the hands of
spin-doctors and sympathetic spokespeople, while the objective historians
would be hog-tied in their efforts to interpret events. No longer would the
information get out. We would be forever kept in the dark about what our
leaders have done.
More and more the government works like a corporation where secrecy is a
prime objective. The plots and intrigues of the business world are part and
parcel of what constitutes the economic system. Most of what goes on in the
world of business is not known to the public. In fact, the public does not
know most of the players involved at the high level of business. The privacy
of the stockholders is one of the many rights to which they cling. We don't
want people in our business. But we also don't want our government to be
operating in secrecy. That's diametrically opposed to the democratic way. We
are a representative government. That means, I need to know what I can about
those who represent me, so that I can vote for the politician who most
accurately reflects the views I want represented.
Further, the fact that the President would move to restrict access to
presidential papers shifts more of the power into the executive branch of
government. The notion of this democracy is that the three branches of
government create a series of checks and balances to provide a safety net
preventing any one branch from exercising too much power. It was the lack of
representation and fairness that led to the Revolution of 1776. Our country
was established by dissident voices that objected to the rule of their
current government. We should not forget, as the founding fathers did not
forget, the inalienable rights of the PEOPLE.
Our very own Kenneth Starr has proposed the potential use of torture.
TORTURE! This from the scandal-driven prosecutor of sexual dalliances.
People at the highest level are not boldly, verbally, publicly calling for
the use of such physical, psychological tactics as were outlawed as inhumane
and unconstitutional in the very governments they are sworn to protect. This
outrage has passed by with little recognition in the mainstream press. It
may come about as Karen Snell commented, "torture by proxy," in other words,
we send the suspect to regions where torture is not outlawed, allow them the
thrill of torturing our suspects and reporting their findings back to us.
This despicable abuse of force would so undermine the fragile workings of
our justice system as to incinerate the very foundation upon which we stand.
If Starr seems far enough removed from the heads of state, Snell points out
"Attorney General John Ashcroft echoed these sentiments on ABC's Nightline."
The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been altered so that
people suspected of working with or aiding terrorists can have their phones
tapped. While in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy this may seem sensible; in
times of war, we may have to provide special measures to protect the nation,
but these changes to the law are not temporary measures. Who defines what a
terrorist is? Depending on the needs of those in power, we've already
witnessed the detainment of a Green Party activist in Maine. What she had to
do with September 11 is quite unknown. But she was on the list and hence was
detained and prohibited from traveling. Serious damage can be done to
America while our hearts and minds are focused on getting the bad guys.
We're a country that thrives on debate. We're a country that prides itself
on protecting the divergent views. We're a country that provides a home to
all ways of thought. Aren't we?
The thing with all this flag waving is that it's waving right in front of
the truth, obscuring from our view, the object of greatest concern: freedom.
In the effort to root out the evildoers, much else is being done in the name
of national security that infringes upon the essential freedoms we enjoy as
American citizens. Remember, hypocrisy has never wandered far from politics.
Marc