Patriots and Terrorist
Cowboys and Indians has long been a popular child's game where children reenact the exploits of an expanding, morally superior group. Enlightened individuals journeyed across the Atlantic Ocean to escape oppression from kings and others only to encounter savages that stood against their ideals. The Cowboys chased the Indians, wrangled, and expelled them. There was no place in American culture for savages. Either Us or Them. Every great society needs a Them. How else are we supposed to channel our energy? Focus on the internal afflictions?
Savages weren't the only threat to the settlers of the New World. Witches were abound, destroying societies and had to be purged. In 1692 the Salem Witch Trials took place and saved the colonies from crumbling. Young girls were being possessed by practitioners of the dark spirits and shook the foundations of the village. The courts were struggling with proof of sorcery and relied on spectral evidence. Witches aren't your everyday perpetrators and often operate outside the realm of reality so spectral evidence was needed for a conviction and the town demanded convictions.
A hundred years later in France, French society was threatened by all that stood against the republic. The Jacobins, patriots of the revolution, became vanguards against the evil. Despite the Girondins helping in dissolving the monarchy they did not agree with the radical actions of the Jacobins including the execution of King Louis XVI and began the Reign of Terror. The "National Razor", or lifeless, the guillotine, awaited all that opposed or represented threat to the patriotic movement. Thomas Paine was one of the protestors against the King's execution and nearly lost his head for sticking out his neck.
Sixty years ago in America, McCarthyism captured the fear of the times. Lodging unfounded allegations against people suspected of Communism, Senator McCarthy once again displayed the danger of fear mongering, witch hunts, and mass hysteria. Christopher Hitchens said, "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Unfortunately his sentiment does not hold true when faced by mob mentality. Tenuous evidence can often lead to condemnation of the accused by the emotions of the congregation. These instances are why the drafters of the constitution and our laws instituted phrases such as: unreasonable search and seizure, innocent until proven guilty, reasonable suspicion, insufficient evidence, probable cause.
In order to facilitate the burden of proof, due process was granted in the fifth amendment of the constitution yet the fear of terrorism has fostered attempts to circumvent due process. Recent National Defense Authorization Acts(NDAA) have included clauses that supersede citizens rights to due process. Chris Hedges among others filed a suit challenging this clause that uses vague language to define a 'terrorist'. The part in question states, "a part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."(and subjects U.S. citizens) After an unconstitutional ruling and injunction by federal Judge Griffin, the Administration pressed to reinstate the power provided by the portion of text. Since another judge has reversed Judge Griffin's assessment and the case is waiting for a reply if the supreme court will hear the case. First amendment cases aside, this cause is as worthy of a supreme ruling as any. If such a clause granted the ability to "seize or confiscate all arms during instances of imminent or perceived threat or impending danger by possible enemies or combatants against institutions or capabilities of the state," would have support aplenty to be revoked.
Leaving who coalition partners are alone for the time, what constitutes hostilities? Chelsea Manning was provoked to action by the dismissal of justified dissent against the Maliki regime. Is fair criticism against a dirty sock supported by our not so invisible hand a 'hostility' by 'associated forces' against the U.S. or its 'coalition partners?' Free speech is not a right afforded many in the Middle East and if the U.S. military is helping enforce 'hostilities' against deemed partners like the Iraqi regime then surely democracy is not the goal. Free speech is the quintessential agent in a democracy. Every voice has the right to be heard in a free republic whether right or wrong, innocent or guilty.
At one time I believed(naively, as history is declassifying) that America exported its ideals to the world. In the temporal it appears those once timeless ideas are being deported. The business of trade-offs seem out of place when discussing inalienable rights but it seems new values are being imported as well as exported. Those oft referred fore fathers espoused evidence. The integral part of the free press. These are not the values being promoted domestically or globally. The dichotomy is devolving into a bifurcation of those with us(read: U.S. or whatever that currently means/entails) and those that occupy any adversarial position.
Journalist and the journalism of George Orwell, that which serves truth and embodies the checks and balances the drafters of the constitution envisioned, is increasingly treated as 'hostile' to the agenda of the entity formerly known as the U.S. Laura Poitras has experienced power's attempt to control information. In Yemen, where back alley activity is the game, journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye has been persecuted and silenced for exposing truth. Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and now Edward Snowden are vilified and attacked with the familiar veracity of Daniel Ellsberg and other whistleblowers (getting tired of this label, how about truth-exposers or courageous-enlighteners). One constant is the tireless charge of threatening national security as with Henry Kissenger's claim of Ellsberg as the "most dangerous man in America." The same rhetoric has been invoked on behalf Manning and Snowden while Assange has been cast as a rapist. Haider Shaye is imprisoned and Poitras now inhabits Germany and Greenwald has sought refuge in Rio de Janeiro.
The fear caused by the attacks on the Twin Towers is no longer for the protection of citizens but as an exacerbated emotive that fosters subservience to power. Writers fear broaching certain topics and a one sided paradigm of information is being created. The atmosphere is no longer respect but fear of authority. Journalism is supposed to be the balancer of information. The world wide web is offsetting and combating the control for information but is under attack as well. Knowledge leads to understanding and advancement. Without knowledge of the happenings of our world, an inevitable descent into tyranny awaits. A polarization of the haves and have-nots is ongoing. Monetary has been secured by the haves and now 'war' has turned to information. If the proverb, knowledge is power, is reverse engineered: withholding of knowledge renders powerless. There is no such thing as a meaningful debate with only half the argument.
This twisted, skewed conception of what makes a patriot is deranged, diluting the discourse, and dividing the nation against itself. Orwell elucidates between Nationalism and Patriotism:
By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'. But secondly--and this is much more important--I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
In Federalist Paper no. 41 James Madison writes,"It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions." The popular quote by Benjamin Franklin, "They who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", written thirty years prior to Madison, echoes the danger in subverting the constitution and the liberties granted. These values are the 'particular way of life' that American Patriots were borne out of, not blithely, obediently following the powers that may be.
The 'war on terrorism' is not about freedom and it is not being orchestrated by patriots. As Orwell said patriots have no desire in forcing their way of life on others. At home corruption and injustice is rampant and all patriots are required. Diverting attention and resources abroad only further inhibits the focus needed to rectify our own wayward nation. A house divided can not stand and the more divides the easier the conquer.
