| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2004 09:38:55 PM |
| Object: |
Losing Liberty |
http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0311/16/a17-325957.htm
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Bill Blank of Detroit, wearing a George W. Bush mask, pretends to
drink oil during an April 5 anti-Iraq war rally in downtown Detroit.
Losing Liberty: First Amendment, An Editorial Page series
Free speech strengthens democracy
Dissent remains the highest form of patriotism, especially during
wars; the First Amendment allows peaceful revolution if the people
want it
By Robert A. Sedler / Special to The Detroit News
Free speech is as important today as when the Founding Fathers created
this right in the First Amendment. But unless Americans understand how
the dissent and social change that free speech sometimes brings
advances our democracy, the vibrancy of free speech may slowly be
choked.
The First Amendment allows individuals and groups, using the
guarantees of speech, assembly and petition in their fullest sense, to
try to change government policies through the democratic process and
even change the government itself.
In short, the First Amendment guarantees the right of peaceful
revolution. When the government tries to repress these rights, it
hurts America's fundamental values.
The government most often tries to restrict free speech rights during
times of war or national emergency. The government then tries to
sustain support for its policies in the name of patriotism. People who
choose to dissent end up being labeled "disloyal and unpatriotic."
Shortly after the tragic events of September 11, Attorney General John
Ashcroft accused critics of the government's actions in detaining
hundreds of foreign nationals and threatening to try alleged
"terrorists" before military tribunals of engaging in
"fear-mongering."
He stated: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of
lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists,
for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give
ammunition to enemies and pause to friends."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, echoed Ashcroft and decried the "hysterical
concerns" of the critics. According to Hatch: "Certainly the American
people are not watching us quibble about whether we should provide
more rights than the Constitution requires to the criminals and
terrorists who are devoted to killing our people. They are interested
in making sure that we protect our country against terrorist attacks."
These statements echo the attacks that Richard Nixon's vice president,
Spiro Agnew, leveled against critics of the Vietnam War, calling them
"effete impudent snobs" who were "aiding our enemies."
In a democratic society, however, it is the right and duty of citizens
to criticize the policies of the government with which they disagree.
This criticism follows the best traditions of the First Amendment.
They have the right to try to change these policies.
This is what happened during Vietnam. A small number of citizens began
to protest in the early 1960s, when American troops were supposedly
sent to Vietnam as "advisers." The criticism increased in the mid-'60s
when American troops were engaged in major combat in Vietnam, and it
grew and grew as more and more American soldiers were killed.
The government tried hard to repress the criticism, such as by its
unsuccessful and unconstitutional prosecution of baby doctor Benjamin
Spock for signing a statement urging young men to resist the military
draft. But it failed. In the end, the government pulled out of Vietnam
and Congress repealed the draft.
Today, American military intervention is limited by the "Vietnam
syndrome," which requires that the government have clear military
objectives and an end game strategy. And instead of a military made up
of unwilling conscripts, America has a professional military that
proved its worth in the lightning victory in Iraq.
Today, an increasing number of Americans assert the need to protect
civil liberties during the "war on terrorism." They are challenging
some of the worst features of the USA Patriot Act, and Ashcroft has
been forced to go on the defensive about the act before carefully
selected audiences.
Our constitutional system of checks and balances makes Congress a
check on the president. Only Congress can enact the laws to fight
terrorism, and with many Americans standing up for civil liberties
despite the fears about terrorism, Congress is starting to respond.
Proposals for a second and even more restrictive USA Patriot Act
appear to have been withdrawn in the face of strong public opposition,
and some members of Congress have introduced bills to repeal portions
of the act.
Criticism of the government's postwar occupation policies in Iraq has
surfaced, and there is a serious question about whether President
George W. Bush misled Congress and the American people with his claims
that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction and was
going to turn them over to al-Qaida. The president and other
administration officials are being forced to justify these policies.
When Americans dissent from their government during a war or national
emergency, they are doing exactly what the First Amendment wants them
to do.
As Supreme Court Justice John Harlan said during the height of the
Vietnam War: "The constitutional right of free expression is powerful
medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed
and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of
public discussion, putting the decision as to what views will be
voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that the use
of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and
more perfect polity."
When government officials try to label those who dissent from its
policies as being "unpatriotic" and "aiding the enemy," they should
recall the words of President Theodore Roosevelt almost a century ago:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American
public."
In these difficult times, we should remember that dissent is the
highest form of patriotism.
Robert A. Sedler is distinguished professor of law and Gibbs chair in
civil rights and civil liberties at Wayne State University in Detroit.
Send letters to letters@detnews.com.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
