Rights Watch

Walking through New York's Penn Station the other day, I looked at the young men in military fatigues wielding machine guns and was struck by the thought that this was something I never thought I'd see in America. In Russia, where I lived until the age of 16, military men in city streets were a common sight. Later on, as an American vacationing in Europe several times in the 1980s and 1990s, I noticed the everyday precautions against terrorism—the military patrols, the warnings that any package or bag left unattended in a public place would be destroyed, the metal lids screwed on trash cans—and reflected on how different life was in the United States. That's one reflection we no longer have the luxury to make. Have we changed so much that we have lost ourselves?

A recent article in Salon by San Francisco-based writer Gregory Dicum is titled, "This is not America." Dicum, a descendant of immigrants (mostly from the former Soviet Union), worries that this country is headed toward the same kind of oppression his ancestors once fled. Under Soviet rule, the secret police kept files on everyone, and there were "secret denouncements, property seizures, and disappearances." In the United States today, writes Dicum, "under the Patriot Act and sundry new regulations, secret military incarcerations . . . and whispers of torture have become daily news," and the Office of Information Awareness plans to keep information on all Americans in a huge centralized database.

Should we be on guard against sacrificing civil liberties to national security? Yes. But despite the panic-mongering, this is still America, and we still have checks and balances. Journalist Steven Brill, whose book After examines post-Sept. 11 America, notes in a Salon interview that judges and legislators, including Republicans, have curbed some of the excesses of John Ashcroft's Justice Department. Brill believes that the government was guilty of civil rights violations in the case of ''American Taliban'' John Walker Lindh; but he also points out the legal system ultimately worked and Lindh was not convicted on the charges of which Ashcroft publicly proclaimed him guilty (such as conspiring to kill Americans).

Measures such as limiting terror suspects' communications with their lawyers in order to prevent potential terrorist acts are controversial, and rightly so. But they are a far cry from Stalinism.

Some worry that the war on terror, and now the war in Iraq, have made America an inhospitable place for freedom of speech. Again, the concern is not unfounded. Some on the right have come uncomfortably close to equating dissent with treason, suggesting that to criticize the war once the shooting has started is unpatriotic. In one troubling incident, 61-year-old Stephen Downs, who committed the crime of wearing a "Give Peace a Chance" T-shirt in a shopping mall in Albany, N.Y., was arrested for trespassing after he refused a security guard's demand to take off the shirt or leave.

Yet the arrest sparked widespread outrage. Downs had his 15 minutes of fame on talk shows as a free-speech hero—even Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, far from sympathetic to antiwar protests, took his side—and the mall's owners, clearly embarrassed by the publicity, dropped the trespassing charge.

It is also worth noting that antiwar demonstrations have proceeded freely in cities across America, even if some have questioned the protesters' patriotism. While opponents of the war have the right to protest, others have the right to criticize them. The angry fans who trashed the Dixie Chicks' CDs because lead singer Natalie Maines declared that she was "ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas" are not Nazi book-burners. The Chicks' albums, by the way, are still selling quite well.

If tolerance in time of crisis is a measure of America, we are probably more American than ever. The Civil War led to the suspension of basic civil liberties. During World War I—when we had not been attacked on our soil—Congress passed repressive laws under which thousands of war critics were jailed or deported. World War II brought about the internment of Japanese-Americans; the Cold War, the abuses of McCarthyism.

Yes, this is a different America than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. But it wasn't Ashcroft, President Bush, or the Republican Congress who conspired to rob us of our freedom; it was the terrorists. And while we feel less safe and less free than we did before, the terrorists haven't won.

"In one troubling incident, 61-year-old Stephen Downs, who committed the crime of wearing a "Give Peace a Chance" T-shirt in a shopping mall in Albany, N.Y., was arrested for trespassing after he refused a security guard's demand to take off the shirt or leave."

He may indeed been arrested "after" this event (and after attending church, after drinking orange juice, etc.) but he was ejected.arrested because he was verbally accosting other patron of the mall.

That said, I'd rather see citizens with guns in the streets than government employees.

God Bless America!
God Bless This Man!
Some of us VRWC volunteers think freedom is worth fighting for.

Please join us.

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

Another writer who knows precisely d--k about the military. No soldier, on patrol in Penn station or any other such place, walks around with a machine gun.

More importantly, her connections between Soviet-era secret police and anything the US is considering for domestic security is not only specious, but asinine. The idea is not to perpetuate a secretive totalitarian ruler-for-life, but to keep terrorists from blowing me up.

Idiot.

The Civil War led to the suspension of basic civil liberties. During World War I, when we had not been attacked on our soil, Congress passed repressive laws under which thousands of war critics were jailed or deported. World War II brought about the internment of Japanese-Americans; the Cold War, the abuses of McCarthyism.

The big difference is those wars had an ending.

The War On Terror will never, ever end. One cannot kill a method. Like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, this war is unwinnable and permanent.

Think not? Ask yourself, are there any even theoretical conditions for a declared victory in the War on Terror? Saddam gone? Osama gone? Al-Queda crushed? Would we then see the "PATRIOT" ACT repealed? No.

Even if no further terrorist attacks occur for years, it will be claimed as proof that intrusive laws are working are are still needed. And if there are more attacks, it will be claimed as proof that even more are needed.

What politician will revoke these measures, then risk suffering the blame if something happens?

Freedom as we knew it is gone forever. The Great Experiment has failed. The Republic is dead, and today we're just like many other countries we once sneered at.

This joker either doesn't get out much or has a horrible memory.

When I was a boy in Chicago in the 1960s, I remember the National Guard being on streetcorners with machine guns. This was during the time of the trial of the Chicago Eight (which later became the Chicago Seven). So this guy needs to get over his feigned shock. America's been there and done that and we are no worse the wear for it.

...unlike our Second Amendment rights. (Funny how the Leftists think only they should be the Supreme Authority on which of our RIGHTS are disposable in the name of "security", no?)

-Jay

The War On Terror will never, ever end. One cannot kill a method. Like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, this war is unwinnable and permanent.

That sort of mentality is nonsensically defeatist: it views all wars as a losing proposition. I could not disagree more.

To illustrate, consider World War II. We (the U.S. and our allies) went after Fascism and Nazism. We defeated the nations that exported those abominations. But did that mean that Fascism and Nazism vanished from the face of the Earth? No...not by a long shot. But we nonetheless annihilated the regimes that sought to foist those monstrosities on other nations.

People who subscribe to the notion that this war on terror is "unwinnable" because we'll always have terrorists are misguided. OF COURSE we'll always have terrorists...just like we'll always have skinheads and other malcontents and misfits. The bottom line is that we are annihilating the terrorists' infrastructure to the point that they will never again be able to threaten the world in the way that they do now.

One may think that this war is unwinnable...and that is certainly their perogative. ...but they should remember there there were once just as many people who were certain that the Sun revolved around the Earth. And no amount of arguing could convince them otherwise.

-Jay

The soldiers are carrying semi-auto rifles. They do have magazines in them, but I'm not at all sure they have bullets in the magazines (I'm trying to get up the nerve to ask one of them)
I was curious about that as well, so the last time I was in JFK (NYC)I decided to ask. The soldiers were patrolling in pairs. I was standing outside waiting for a cab as two soldiers started to enter the building. I approached the second one and, very politely, asked him if I could ask him a question. He said, "yes". I said, "Someone told me that you don't have ammunition in the guns, is that right?" He stiffened, and I very quickly said, "Don't answer." The first soldier, who had been somewhat ahead of the other, very quickly returned to where we were standing and rather briskly asked me what I wanted. I repeated what I had asked the second soldier and quickly said, "You don't need to answer either." I don't think they appreciated my question.

I think the soldiers at JFK are more likely to have their guns loaded than the ones in the subways and train stations. But I wouldn't really be surprised if even the JFK guys just posing with unloaded guns. You probably recall that shortly after 9/11, there were photos in the media of soldiers at LAX whose rifles obviously lacked magazines.

Of course, I expect that plenty of these soldiers are clueless young kids who never touched a gun before they enlisted, and got only a very little training and experience with guns before being sent out to their present positions. Maybe it's for the best if they don't have ammo, or at least if they're required to keep the magazine in a pocket until and unless it's definitely needed. Scary state of affairs, but given the lack of terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11, I dare say the body count would have been higher if all these kids had been running around with a bullet in the chamber.

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.