Saddam Captured; O’Connor Still on the Loose

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.

About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.

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.

No problem, Mason will do it for you:

James Madison, His Legacy: Virginia Declaration of Rights

Virginia's Declaration of Rights, adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776, was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was copied by other colonies and provided much of the inspiration for the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Rights was drafted by George Mason with a small but significant modification by the young James Madison.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

Dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:

"The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the `close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties' makes all donations to the national parties `suspect.' But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech, is not a surrogate for corruption; it is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands Congress' ability to regulate political speech..."

"No doubt Congress was convinced by the many abuses of the current system that something in this area must be done. Its response, however, was too blunt."

Dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia

"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restriction upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government..."

"The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy."

Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas

"The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press... Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections. Nor is there any doubt that media companies often wish to influence elections. One would think that the New York Times fervently hopes that its endorsement of presidential candidates will actually influence people. What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is `too influential,' and that the `appearance of corruption' is significant when the media organizations endorse candidates or run `slanted' or `biased' news stories in favor of candidates or parties?"

Dissent by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

"The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people and Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it. The First Amendment commands that Congress `shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.' The command cannot be read to allow Congress to provide for the imprisonment of those who attempt to establish new political parties and alter the civic discourse. ... The Court, upholding multiple laws that suppress both spontaneous and concerted speech, leaves us less free than before. Today's decision breaks faith with our tradition of robust and unfettered debate."

Congress, Amendments to the Constitution, June--Sept. 1789

[House Debate, 15 Aug.; Annals 1:731, 738]

[Mr. Madison] The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government; the people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may privately advise them, or declare their sentiment by petition to the whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will. If gentlemen mean to go further, and to say that the people have a right to instruct their representatives in such a sense as that the delegates are obliged to conform to those instructions, the declaration is not true.

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.