Patriotism, Conflict and 'Inalienable' Rights
Any numbskull can wave a flag, but in America, patriotismwas never about emptyheaded loyalty to authority.
By: The Mystic | 05October2001
What Patriotism Isn't
I don't know how it is around your stomping grounds, but around mine, since the tragic events of 11September, it seems like
every business is trying to outdo the next in finding different ways of expressing pride, unity, and goblessed Americanism.
Every third vehicle is displaying the colors. Many homes, whether mansion or hovel, are flying flags. The stores ran out
of them within a couple of days of September 11th, so the local newsrag dedicated a full page of print in red, white and blue.
Which is all well and good, as far as it goes. I too appreciate the fact that I am an American. That is not to say, however, that I'm unconditionally proud of everything America has done or is doing; I'm too well informed about American history. Historically, it is precisely in times like these -- while Americans feel threatened -- that government itself becomes a greater than usual threat to our civil liberties. It is almost as if, while citizens are waving flags and calling for national unity, that our more dictatorial leaders decide to take advantage of the situation and reduce what all those flags really stand for. With the word 'war' on so many lips (including the President's), and citizens concerned for their own physical security, being a patriotic American should NOT mean unquestioned agreement with whatever our leaders propose to do to win the war and see to our safety.
So why in hell has much of the Press -- publishers of public opinion, thus guardians of liberty -- decided to take the route of unquestioned loyalty? Civil Rights During Conflict, Historically
In the name of securing national unity and the freedom of slaves during the Civil War, in 1861, President Lincoln suspended Constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus "for the public safety". He also jailed critics and closed down newspapers that didn't support the war effort. During the first World War, Americans of German ancestry, socialists, labor leaders and critics of America's involvement in the war were subjected to severe government repression. Publications that criticized the war were banned from the mails. Thousands of 'radicals' were arrested and individuals who expressed antiwar statements were jailed. There are many Americans still with us who remember 1942, when President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, forcing 110,000 innocent American citizens to 'relocate' to guarded camps for the crime of being of Japanese ancestry. America was in a war of Good freedom versus Evil tyranny, however, so the average know-nothing citizen -- greatly pissed about the attack at Pearl Harbor -- supported this violation of several civil liberties spelled out in the Bill of Rights. The FBI harassed individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr. for their dissent of the war and actions in support of civil rights. During the same time and into the present, the CIA has cooperated with some of the world's most agregious human rights violators. Self-Censorship and Uniformity of OpinionIn the current crisis, newspaper editors aren't bothering to worry that government might decide to step in and trample freedom of the Press. The newspapers are doing it to themselves by censoring their own dissenting reporters and writers.When the Texas City Sun's city editor, Tom Gutting, wrote the article, "Bush has failed to lead U.S.", he presumably did so under the belief that America has a working First Amendment. Apparently, the editor and publisher of that rag, Les Daughtry Jr., doesn't believe that such freedoms should actually be exercised. He fired Gutting for his "disruptive piece", and printed two different apologies: first to President George W. Bush; second to readers for his "grave error in judgment" for allowing the article to make it into print. He also informed his readers that Bush has the full support of "virtually every citizen in the United States...except, of course, Tom." Susan Sontag is a writer for the Wall Street Journal. She recently wrote some comments for the magazine, The New Yorker. The following is a small segment of what she wrote: "Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid. Our spirit is unbroken, although this was a day that will live in infamy and America is now at war. But everything is not O.K... We have a robotic President who assures us that America still stands tall. A wide spectrum of public figures, in and out of office, who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad by this Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand united behind President Bush."For her comments that lacked a certain unquestioning support of the President, the Wall Street Journal censured Ms Sontag. For months now, The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and CNN have engaged in a shared project of analysing 200,000 disputed Florida ballots from the latest presidential election fiasco. On 24Sep2001, they were scheduled to release the results of their study. Instead, as the Times quietly informed readers in a Sunday essay, they decided to withhold their results since -- in the words of political reporter Richard Berke -- it "now seems utterly irrelevant." One can guess what their study might have told the world, if it has been deemed by those with "all the news that's fit to print" to be unfitting to seem to not support George Junior 100%. The public's right to know certain things has been severely curtailed, pending the conclusion of a very long "different kind of war".
During a press briefing, Press Secretary Fleischer told reporters that Americans "...need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." The fact that he wasn't immediately force-fed his microphone (along with his words) may by more indicative of the moral cowardice of his audience than the vigilance of the Secret Service. 'Inalienable' Rights?As you have seen, American government has historically acted as though civil liberties -- dissenting expression, equality, restraints on police powers -- were merely on loan to citizens, to be 'temporarily' taken back when government wanted to resolve a crisis with as few complications as possible. Not only is this an impractical view of human rights (government is always in some sort of crisis, and usually at 'war' with something or someone), but it simply isn't the correct view of liberty.
The Declaration of Independence described human rights as unalienable (definition: not to be separated, given away, or taken away) and having been "endowed by their Creator... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". The Bill of Rights spelled out many of these civil liberties. The acts of writing them down and officially adopting them, however, only created a reference point. Many of the civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights haven't actually been experienced by all American citizens during all generations. In spite of Jefferson's "unalienable Rights", civil liberties have been a goal rather than a fact, a journey of acquisition with many setbacks, most of which occurred during national crisis and war.
The Fourth Amendment represents many of the civil liberties under government attack during the current crisis. The onslaught is being led by the head of federal law enforcement, Attorney General John Ashcroft and the weapon is H.R. 2975 -- "Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (PATRIOT)". In the words of an ACLU press release, PATRIOT: "...continues to contain troubling provisions that would minimize judicial supervision of electronic surveillance by law enforcement authorities and allow intelligence agencies to spy on U.S. citizens by providing them enhanced access to sensitive information about them." What Patriotism Is
The self-imposed silence that much of the press has adopted -- in the name of national unity -- is as bad for a democracy as is government-imposed censorship. American citizens who also happen to be Moslems and Sikhs are currently being harrassed by fellow citizens for their beliefs and national origins. It seems that many angry "patriotic" Americans haven't learned the basic principle that Americans should not be stigmatized as disloyal or criminal on the basis of their race or religion. Perhaps in other countries what don't enjoy a democracy, a good patriot is one who mindlessly waves his or her flag and is unquestioning loyal to the powers that be. However, in America, a true patriot is one who -- especially during national crisis -- will not yield an inch in his or her defense of civil liberties, fairness, the right to express dissent, and absolute equality for all Americans. |
| Be informed when new content is added. | Email a Link to this page. | Email the SOB who publishes this. |