Fear and loathing in the new millenium

There is a quote that is often attributed to the French philosopher Voltaire, that he was said to have directed at a writer with whom he disagreed: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.” If it is not, this should be the way we regard all rights guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. The right to freedom of expression alluded to by the coiner of this phrase is only one of many contained in the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, and these were added expressly by the founding fathers so that no lawmaker could ever deny them to any of our citizens.

Of course lawmakers or law-making bodies are not the only threats to these liberties that have been safeguarded by the blood of our soldiers time and again. An obvious threat to the right to free expression comes not from Congress, but from the very citizens to whom these freedoms were granted. For instance, once the Bush administration decided to take the nation to its uncalled-for war in Iraq, anyone (as was the case with the Dixie Chicks and the fans disillusioned by them) who spoke out against the war became the target of those whose viewpoints fell more in line with the chicken hawks who were pushing this spurious venture.

A brief note of explanation: A chicken hawk is someone who is in favor of war, but only if someone else has to fight it. This is descriptive of the most of the neo-cons whose idea this war was. These stalwart individuals, when given a chance to fight in an actual war, i.e., Vietnam, as was the case with the President, the Vice President, and so on, declined the honor, in the case of the Vice President, many times. Thus his shocked reaction when he accidentally shot his hunting partner, a minor thing really compared to the mutilations that can occur to those who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in a war zone.

Following the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor, an attack that brought the United States fully into the Second World War, President Franklin Roosevelt knew that our nation would be challenged as it had never been. To bolster the spirit of the nation, and to calm its fears, he delivered a speech in which he declared, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” As we all know our nation was again attacked on 9/11, 2001, not by a nation this time, but by a group of rogue fundamentalist Muslims, led by a madman whose aim, apparently, was to destroy anything that smacked of the Western, and presumably, democratically ruled world. And since that time, we again find ourselves living in fear. And once again, we look to our leaders to calm these fears. Only this time, we may be looking to our leaders in vain.

In the hearings being held by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to consider the nomination of Air Force General Michael Hayden to be the new director of the CIA, Chairman Pat Roberts, R. Kan., had a new take on the Roosevelt “fear” speech. Before any questions were directed to the potential head spook, Sen. Roberts attempted to set the tone of the hearings by making a declaration of his own. He said “I am a strong supporter of the rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, but you have no rights when you are dead.” This is in rather stark contrast to the statement made by Roosevelt. No “stick it out, we’ll get through it” statement here, just, “Let us have our way, or big bad Osama will get you!”

We know that the Fourth Amendment has been under fire by the actions of the President and the CIA director-nominee, but with the reference to the First Amendment, the Chairman may be signaling that our right to free speech may be next. Well, it isn’t as though the President ever emulated Voltaire and stood up and reminded any of his supporters, as critics of his war were being thoroughly roasted by them during its incipient phase, that everyone in our country enjoys the right to free speech. Rather he shrugged and suggested that his critics brought all their misery on themselves.

Of course, that reference may have been to the right to a free press as well. It is pretty obvious that this President is no fan of anyone who dares question him, and the press is no exception. Fortunately there is always the Fox News Service, a favorite of righteous conservatives everywhere who seek refuge in Rupert Murdoch’s brand of “fair and balanced” reporting.

But the questions that someone needs to ask now that our liberties are being threatened thusly are these: What is our country if we are stripped of any of the protections provided by the constitution? In fact, what is anything once it is stripped of its essence? And if our liberties aren’t the essence of our country, then what is?

President Bush has said on many occasions that this new enemy, the terrorists who seek to strike us whenever and where ever they can, do so because they hate us, and our freedoms. If the President really means what he says, surely he sees that any curtailment of these freedoms, for whatever noble purpose, does nothing to win the war on terrorism, and only accomplishes what he himself has declared was the goal of the terrorists to begin with.