|
Posted on 12/14/2003 9:44:36 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
The two top news stories of the last week were the capture of Saddam Hussein in Tikrit, and the Supreme Court decision in D.C. approving the campaign finance “reform” act. The two are related some curious ways, the first being the incompetence of the American press in covering the story.
Let’s begin with the capture of Saddam Hussein, who was pulled out of a “spider hole” on a farm near his home town and taken into custody by some Americans from Texas (how appropriate) without firing a shot. He looked like one of those shopping cart people who are found in all American cities, but more than usual in San Francisco. For the protection of his captors and others, he had to be checked for lice first.
The first important aspect of the Hussein story is that he was captured, and will stand trial before an Iraqi tribunal. The internationalists have already started the whine that he should be tried before the International Tribunal at the Hague. That court, set up under the auspices of the UN (and “our traditional friends like Germany, and our current friends like France,” per Tom Lehrer), does not provide for the death penalty regardless of the crime.
A man with the blood of perhaps a million people on his hands should never be tried before such a wimpy court. Imagine if the War Crimes trials at Nuremberg had been restricted to mere life imprisonment as a sentence. But those trials were not infected with either League of Nations or UN “sensibilities.”
No, Saddam will be tried before an Iraqi court for crimes committed primarily against the Iraqi people. As a John Wayne line says, he will receive “a fair trial, and a proper hanging.”
The second part of the story is the impact of the capture on the progress of the American occupation of Iraq. The press has been rife with speculation, but bereft of factual comparisons. As I wrote in an article almost two months ago, the press’ profound ignorance of history has caused it to miss a major part of the story.
Anyone familiar with the history of WWII and the occupation of Germany knows certain facts that apply directly to the situation in Iraq today, but that the American press is blissfully unaware of: 1. Even though Adolf Hitler shot himself in May, 1945, just before the Russians overran his bunker in Berlin, this could not be confirmed because Hitler’s body was burned, the Russians were uncooperative, and forensics were then an inexact science. 2. Eisenhower remained under standing orders “to capture Hitler alive,” and more than a majority of all Germans believed that Hitler was still alive and leading the guerrilla opposition to the occupation. 3. It was not until December, 1945, that captured documents including the original Wills of Hitler and Eva Braun established to the satisfaction of even the Germans that Hitler was dead.
The conclusion from these facts is that German opposition to occupation continued in the belief (however mistaken) that Hitler was leading it, LONGER than the Iraqi opposition has continued in the belief (whether or not true) that Hussein was leading it. From the German history, another parallel to Iraq is clear. There were a substantial number of attacks, sabotage and assassinations before the death of Hitler was established. Those dropped to an inconsequential level in the year after Hitler’s death was established. A similar result should be expected in Iraq, after the capture of Hussein.
Of course, in the Iraqi situation terrorists from other nations are in the mix, not just Iraqis. There was only a slight parallel in Germany to the presence of Syria and Iran on the borders of Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Yemen, and other sources of terrorists within workable distances. Ways of dealing with this situation are also covered in my article, “General Washington, Major Andre, Der Fuhrer Adolf Hitler: Lessons for Iraq.” Here’s a link for that article on ChronWatch.
The second story concerns the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC, the challenge to the campaign “reform” act. The most reprehensible part of that law was its bans on broadcast advertising by citizens’ groups within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election, if they named any Member of Congress as a target.
I’ll resist the nearly overwhelming urge to rant on the arguments in that case. (I did file one of the briefs, urging the Court to reject that law.) But by a vote of 5-4, over vigorous dissents by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy (each individually, and in agreement), the Court upheld that law, with very minor exceptions. To understand that case, skip all 300 pages of the majority opinion, and read any one of the dissents.
What is the history of the First Amendment? It is clearly and squarely that the Framers who first demanded, then wrote, then ratified that Amendment all realized that the freedom to criticize officials was essential in this new government they were crafting for America. A half-century ago, before the Court started treating the Constitution like silly putty by turning it into whatever five Justices could agree on, the Court itself recognized this central truth about America. It wrote in Sweezy v. New Hampshire that freedom of speech was the most important right because the defense of all other rights depended on that.
There’s a sound reason I used the name of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the title of this column. The other four Justices who formed the majority with her have long since shown their colors. They respect their own “wisdom” and feel they have a right to be America’s “philosopher kings,” deciding for us what our fate should be. I expected nothing different from them in this case. However, Justice O’Connor for most of her (spotty) career on the Court has usually upheld the basics of the Constitution. I expected in this circumstance, with the First Amendment itself on the line, that Justice O’Connor would analyze this critical case exactly that way. I was sadly disappointed.
Members of Congress, in passing this atrocious law, actually said on the floor of the Congress that broadcast ads by independent citizens groups were “harsh.” Thomas Paine wrote about all royalty including King George III, “Of greater worth in the eyes of God is one honest man, than all the crowned ruffians who ever lived.” Would His Royal Majesty George III have found those words to be “harsh”? Actually, he considered them a hanging offense; but America won the Revolution, so George III never got the chance to hang Paine and the others.
Voltaire wrote of legislatures in general, including of course the Congress of the United States, “No man’s life or property are safe so long as the legislature is in session.” Certainly, Their Royal Majesties the Members of Congress would find these words to be “harsh.”
Twain wrote, “America has no native criminal class, except perhaps the Congress.” He also wrote, “Assume that you are a Member of Congress, and assume that you are an idiot. But I repeat myself.” Surely the Members of Congress, who wrote a law to protect themselves from criticism by the people they claim to represent, would find Twain’s words to be “harsh.”
This was not the first time, and definitely will not be the last, that Congress got a burr under its saddle to “do something now” on an issue, and as a result passed a law that offended the Constitution. It will not be the last time that a President, under similar pressure, signs such a law.
Presidents and all Members of Congress make an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. All violate that oath under the exigencies of politics. But the last wall of protection is the Supreme Court. They do not face elections, deliberately so. They also take an oath to defend the Constitution. And they, of all, should have the intellect and the integrity to do exactly that.
In this particular case, five Justices of the Supreme Court chose to wipe their feet on the Constitution, specifically on the First Amendment. But how does that relate to Saddam Hussein?
What are the common characteristics of every brutal dictator who has ever lived from Genghis Khan to Saddam Hussein? There are differences of culture, knowledge, tactics and weaponry. But all demonstrated two bedrock “principles,” if that word may be used in this context. First, all were mass murderers. Second, all dealt immediately and harshly with any criticism, by killing (or at least jailing) anyone who dared to criticize them even in a casual, non-public statement.
I am not suggesting that America has become a dictatorship of any type, as a result of this bad decision by Congress, the President, and finally the Supreme Court on the First Amendment. But we’ve taken a giant step down that path. The Framers gave us that Amendment in no uncertain terms, “Congress shall make no law ... respecting freedom of speech.” They intended to give Congress no leeway in preventing criticism of itself.
That barrier has now been breached. What will Congress seek to silence next, now that the Court has opened the door?
You want to see “harsh” criticism of incumbent politicians? Ladies and gentlemen I invite you to the intellectual equivalent of the Wild West, the place where verbal gunfights occur every night of the week, not just on Saturday nights: the Internet. I guaran-damn-tee that shutting down criticism of the (More er Less) Honorable Members of Congress on the Net will be the next target of campaign finance “reform.”
Were I a Member of Congress, and had I no respect for the Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular, that would certainly be my chosen target. As a private citizen, I’ve been attacked on the Net more than once, in ways more vicious than I’ve ever seen in print. I’ve read thousands of attacks on incumbent politicians that are likewise vicious, dishonest, and examples of depraved minds talking to other depraved minds.
But if I DO become a Member of Congress, I will fight with every skill and all knowledge I possess to restore the First Amendment to what it was before this terrible decision of the Supreme Court. That isn’t just for my benefit, nor even for this generation. It is for all generations to come, who will need the protection of that Amendment, when the government does things that citizens do not approve.
We have a long way to descend before there could be a dictatorship in the United States. But we have started down that path. And that is the connection between the two major stories in the American press, last week.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.
- 30 -
©) 2003, Congressman Billybob & John Armor. All rights reserved.
Excellent piece Congressman, I wish you well in your efforts. And expect the Internet to become VERY wild this election season. I think the American people will give the bigots on the court/congress an upbraiding they richly deserve.
There are still a few of us left on FR who remain focused on more important things than the capture of a petty dictator hiding in a hole.
It really bothers me that Bush has assumed god-like status around here lately, his trampling of the Constitution notwithstanding.
|
I think the congressman is a man of his word.
|
|
Neither would I to be honest. I don't wish him to resign from the bar - who would have thunk it?
But it's a normal thing in life. Remember the Tom Hanks line in "You've Got Mail," that "The Godfather is the I Ching. The Godfather provides the answer to any question." We all have something for which we will go to the mattresses.
This was mine. But don't make a bigger deal of it than I do, my friends.
John / Billybob
|
|
I once upon a time had some confidence in this Court, at least for a 6-3 or 5-4 on Constitutional principles when the chips were down. No more. They have completely gone off their reservation and are wandering around in the wilderness, carelessly flinging burning brands.
One can only hope the Court takes it easy the coming year with a light caseload. We can also hope George Bush comes up with a way to get Justices approved - past the succcessful, wretched antics of the Schumers, Leahys and clintons of our Most Dishonorable Senate. So far, signing budget-busting Education Bills and naming buildings for Bobby Kennedy hasn't done the trick.
A pox on all their miserable, elitist heads!
Which is why I have even more respect for you sir.
I echo those sentiments. The glass is half full part of me thinks that Scalia wouldn't recuse himself from the Pledge of Allegiance case unless he knew a reversal was in store, but the wiser part tells me he did it because of his integrity, and that too may contribute to the next big disappointment from what can fairly be considered the biggest Kangaroo court north of Tallahassee.
But there are precipices on that path that can make the descent that is long in distance, very short in time. Very short indeed.
The first and second are mutually reinforcing. They support each other. The fourth amendment has a role to play in the protection of the others as well.
Or a fair and proper beheading, whichever is the practice in Iraq. If it's beheading, put the resultant on pike outside 4ID HQ in Tikrit, with a sign, that reads "Sic Sempre Tyrannis", just to remind any wanna be little Saddamites what would lie in store for them should they transition from "wanna be".
This part was especially illustrative... That barrier has now been breached. What will Congress seek to silence next, now that the Court has opened the door? ... in that I was suddenly envisioned with the scene from Starship Troopers where the bugs began swarming over the walls of the firebase atop their dead and poared across the breach. Now that it has started, what will stop it? Even the proponents of CFR here on the right, must acknowledge that this breach is both septic and lethal.
The thing we must remember in all our discussions and especially our defense of Constitutional freedom, is the requisite of Capitalism. It is clear that the ability of O'Connor and her four compatriates to render such a flawed conclusion against the First Amendment is born of a lack of understanding of money and in fact, an absolute distrust of same. The phrase, 'Money is the root of evil' rings throughout this decision and its advocacy. This begs a response from American literature that can never be stated enough (IMHO)...
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?... Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
To fear money is, in fact, to fear freedom. Even before we as a people get to the establishment of rights as a principle, we must consider the interactions of individuals in their daily quest for sustenance and existance. The Delaration of Independence established the moral foundations of human existance prior to the Constitution. We own ourselves, therefore we own the product of our effort.
We exist, therefore we trade. "To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil? "...Mrs. O'Connor?
(quote reference, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, 1954)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.