Democracy is sustained by public skepticism

This wasn't supposed to happen here

[Reprinted from Issues & Views November 26, 2001]

Here in Jefferson's land the worries continue over expanding government powers. Business Week magazine (11/5/01) has this to say:

The post-September 11 privacy-protection coalition has been led by a broad spectrum of interest groups--ranging from Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum and the Free Congress Foundation on the right to the American Civil Liberties Union on the left. . . .

Given the enormous public pressure to act quickly to fight terrorism, it's not surprising that the privacy coalition failed to blunt most of the other expanded police powers in the [Patriot] bill. But civil liberties-minded lawmakers and interest groups aren't giving up the larger fight against overly intrusive government surveillance. They vow to seek curbs on law-enforcement agencies' existing abilities to collect and mine databases, plant cameras in public places, and use facial-recognition and other biometric systems to sniff out terrorists. "We will stay on the job," declares Schlafly. "We are very much against the government monitoring activities of law-abiding Americans, whether it's computers or video cameras or e-mail."

From J. Bradley Jansen of the Free Congress Foundation, we learn about his adventure in publicly shredding mock "Larry" cards. The humorous cards were dubbed with this name in honor of Larry Ellison, president of the Oracle software company, who is the main advocate of national I.D. cards (to be produced by Oracle, of course) for all citizens. Jansen writes:

I am encouraged by the leadership of other defenders of liberty and responsible government such as Reps. Ron Paul and Bob Barr who have prevented an effective national ID taking effect as a result of the immigration reform bill a few years ago. I am also encouraged by the recent comments of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who said that he would probably vote against it if there were a popular vote. . . .

Turning to a national ID runs the risk that it will be used for unacceptable purposes. History is full of such examples such as religious prosecution: not just the Nazis and the Jews, but the military junta in Greece imposed religious identification that was not repealed for many years. Perhaps there are some who want to copy the success of the internal pass cards used under Apartheid. I'm sure others find the example of the Soviet Union a better example to follow.

In a rare nod to states' rights, we learn of the Portland, Oregon, police, whose acting chief, Andrew Kirkland, says he will not cooperate with an FBI request to interview some of the 5,000 Middle Eastern men being held in jails across the country. Fox Butterfield of the New York Times writes that, "several other cities have also said that Mr. Ashcroft's plan raises troubling questions about racial profiling--an issue that has brought endless grief to police departments nationwide--and may violate local and state laws about issues like intelligence gathering for political purposes."

Seattle's police chief Gil Kerlikowske also has reservations about the FBI's request and claims that he could agree to have his officers conduct the interviews, only after he had reviewed "an ordinance prohibiting investigations to determine a person's political or religious thinking."

And in Ann Arbor, Michigan, police chief Daniel Oates declared, "I have questions about the propriety of this. How does someone end up on this list?"

Looking at some other ramifications of the new laws and approaches to law enforcement, in "Immigration Is the Problem, Punishing Americans Is Not the Solution," columnist Paul Craig Roberts writes:

The new terrorism powers have yet to have any impact on terrorists, but they are already taking a heavy toll on high school students and pranksters. Everyone knows that teenagers and even adults handle fear and stress by making jokes. But two Mosley High School students in Panama City, Florida, who put Sweet’N Low in the coin-return of a cafeteria snack machine, face ten years in prison for “creating fear.” Two other students have been arrested for giving classmates envelopes containing baking soda as a Halloween prank.

President Bush has declared pranks by Americans to be “a serious criminal offense,” and Attorney General John Ashcroft has responded by throwing the book at a Maryland man who, as a practical joke, sprinkled white talcum powder on the desk of a co-worker. The U.S. government, unable to tell real enemies from pranksters, is demanding life in prison for the offender--the same punishment given by a race-conscious minority jury to the Muslim terrorists who blew up the two U.S. embassies, murdering 214 people and injuring thousands.

And from across the seas in England, George Monbiot writes in the Guardian (10/16/01):

The charge of "anti-Americanism" is itself profoundly anti-American. If the US does not stand for freedom of thought and speech, for diversity and dissent, then we have been deceived as to the nature of the national project. Were the founding fathers to congregate today to discuss the principles enshrined in their declaration of independence, they would be denounced as "anti-American" and investigated as potential terrorists. Anti-American means today precisely what un-American meant in the 1950s. It is an instrument of dismissal, a means of excluding your critics from rational discourse.

Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism. Unless we are prepared to question, to expose, to challenge and to dissent, we conspire in the demise of the system for which our governments are supposed to be fighting. The true defenders of America are those who are now being told that they are anti-American.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views