An Astounding Remark

Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | Sheldon Richman

[francisandbeans]

When Attorney General John Ashcroft told the nation, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists," he wasn't blazing any new trails. He was merely doing what despots and would-be despots always do: attempting to intimidate into silence those who dare to question him.

Ashcroft's statement is one of the most astounding things to be said by a U.S. official in many years. To read it carefully — letting its full message sink in — is to be overtaken by a sense of horror that is otherwise hard to imagine. Every American should be offended to hear the government's chief law enforcement officer equate public expressions of concern about the threats to liberty from drastic "anti-terrorism" measures with joining al-Qaeda. Does Ashcroft have such a low estimate of the American people's intelligence?

Perhaps he needs to become acquainted with Thomas Jefferson. It was Jefferson who said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." That's true in the best of times. It's doubly true during war — especially an Orwellian undeclared, open-ended crusade against an enemy as nebulous as "international terrorism." Ashcroft is a perfect Orwellian character. In 1984, Big Brother told his people that "freedom is slavery." It follows that slavery is freedom. Ashcroft refuses to concede that the Bush administration is seeking to curtail liberty in the least. Those who see diminished liberty must be hallucinating, seeing "phantoms of lost liberty."

So when the president unilaterally abolishes due process for noncitizens, we are only imaging an erosion of liberty. And when Congress passes, without even reading, the administration's alleged anti-terrorism bill, which expands the government's powers of surveillance, permits secret searches of homes, and weakens judicial oversight of law enforcement, again, we are deluded if we think freedom is evaporating. I write "alleged anti-terrorism bill" because the new law does not restrict the expanded powers to suspected terrorists, but applies them to any criminal activity. This is a classic power grab under the cover of an emergency. September 11 has given policymakers a chance to bring down from the shelf every new police power they have wanted for years. They assume no one will question the need for such broad powers, and if anyone does, they can shut him up by portraying him as an ally of the terrorists. The game is rigged in favor of power.

It is no comfort that the erosion of liberty in the name of fighting terrorism has a bipartisan cast to it. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York has given his blessing to oppressive government with an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "Big Government Looks Better Now." As Schumer puts it, barely concealing his glee, "For the foreseeable future, the federal government will have to grow... The era of a shrinking federal government has come to a close." Of course, the senator was trying to enlarge it long before September 11.

Schumer insists that only the federal government "has the breadth, strength and resources" to keep us secure. Forgive me for asking, but did we not have a federal government on September 11? Was it not in charge of our security on that date? Then what is the senator talking about? And if it isn't impolite to ask, just where does the federal government get all those resources? Last time I checked, it didn't produce anything. It simply took resources from the people who did produce them.

Once we understand that all government possesses is the power of legal plunder our whole perspective changes. Schumer insists that "the notion of letting a thousand different ideas compete and flourish — which works so well to create goods and services — does not work at all in the face of a national security emergency. Unity of action and purpose is required, and only the federal government can provide it." But he’s got it wrong. Security is a service. Competition and innovation are valuable in the effort to keep ourselves safe. The last thing we need is central planning. That’s what we had on September 11.

[Beenliedto]

Which side of WWII were the Danes on?

Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany during WWII...

And the Danes gave the Germans no peace for the entire occupation...

The Danes put up extreme resistance....

Being of Danish extraction, I wish that .... no, I'm not going to say it....

[Hoosier Patriot]

??? Facts, please.

See post 58, and the link contained therein.

[Jefferson Adams]

If one cannot speak one's mind, else they help terrorists, in the eyes of the nation's top law enforcement officer, then you have a classic case of a "chilling effect" on free speech. Look up chilling effect. It's Constitutional Law. The FedGov is not permitted to do things which have a chilling effect on the excercise of people's freedoms. Not that constitutional law has anything to do with the current state of affairs.

My compliments - an excellent summary.

[AUgrad]

Isn't turning over 'moderate' rocks fun? See which way they scurry to find cover. The 'middle of the road' is a dangerous place. Of course, the choices are the 'wrong' side or the 'right' side.

It's like Louis L'Amour said, "A man who rides the fence gets a sore crotch".

[Loopy]

This is a very touchy time. People are scared of many things. We just came through 8 years of Clinton. At the end of that SOB's reign of terror many were unsure if he would actually leave. Mistrust of government ran rampant. Now an attack. Now actions by the federal government that do not, by common sense, seem to fix what one would expect to be done to deal with the threat. Go read that Democratic Forum (just for kicks) sometime. Those people are truly paranoid and make me look like a sheeple. Ashcroft knew that people would take it this way. He could not not know.

I'm not saying that he's out to take away all our freedoms. Could be he is could be he isn't. I'm not privy to what goes on in the White House and in the meetings between our elected officials and their corporate benefactors. What I am saying is that he meant to send a message. He meant to send a message to dissenters. That message was shut up or you're with the terrorists. Look at the response defending him there has been just on this thread. Can there be any doubt that the message got across?

[Jefferson Adams]

Security is just an excuse. Power is the reason.

Bingo. What brand of cigar do you prefer?

[poet]

"Remember MM, any power you grant to Republican administrations eventually will end up in Democratic hands."

Do you really believe the repubs are different from the dems? They just do it slower and on a "piece meal" basis.

Pres Bush put 48,000 more employess on the fed payroll to feed from the public trough for life. Isn't that what the dems wanted?

He signed the government "education" bill which contains most of what the dems wanted and he admitted he did not read the bill. He signed the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. law which will come back to bite us vis a vis; section 802 which is not sunsetted. Most astoundingly, not one senator or congress member read the law because it was not even printed at the time of the vote.
Don't be diverted by the "war" and watch what they are doing on the home front. Dictactors are made by people who follow blindly and when the dictator(s) are exposed as dictators, then those who follow blindly make excuses for them.

[d14truth]

A thoughtful, well reasoned, and documented response. Thank you, piasa, for so eloquently presenting that on which 'liberty' depends - TRUTH.

[Bigun]

B R A V O ! ! !

[d14truth]

"My God, people - how can you see these events, in that order, and not be scared to death about what's happening to your country?"

I can, and I am. I also have hope because there are those, like 'piasa', in reply #186, and others who still seek 'the whole truth', upon which 'freedom' rests.

[Howlin]

Well, the "whole truth" isn't much fun for some people and their agendas apparently.

[AzJohn]

...high ranking politicians rarely talk off the cuff and, in my years of political awareness, rarely make statements in front of Congress that have not been thoroughly prepared with each word having been thought through.

The Attorney General's statement was a defense of the actions the Administration had taken thus far. I think the phrase in question should be read in that vein.

If he were really weighing each word with such care, and he really intended to discourage dissent, I think he would tried to approach it in a much more convincing fashion than he did.

I don't believe that every word a politician chooses is necessarily the best word to convey his intent. How often have we seen conservative politicians give speeches, and wished they could have phrased their argument better. I think that's all that happened here. He was trying to defend what they have done. He wanted to make a point and worded it more strongly than was really the intent.

[tacticalogic]

This is a very touchy time. People are scared of many things. We just came through 8 years of Clinton.

One of the most telling indictments of the Clinton administration is looking at what Ashcroft gets a pass on just by virtue of him not being Janet Reno.

[AUgrad]

One of the most telling indictments of the Clinton administration is looking at what Ashcroft gets a pass on just by virtue of him not being Janet Reno.

By the same logic one could defend Clinton and any of his actions(at least he's not Satan).

[Loopy]

This is not as simple as Piasa would have one believe. The sentence quoted was written (as the remarks were delivered to Congress) and spoken in a definite form That form used two subsidiary clauses. Those clauses stand alone in context from each other. Thus, he said "to those who say A I say C" he also said "to those who say B I say C". His conclusion rests equally against either of the two subsidiary clauses. That the earlier statement, which is probably not disagreeable to any, did not provoke debate is hardly surprising. The latter clause though is disagreeable and is not dependent on his earlier statement. As Rush is fond of saying, words mean things.

[d14truth]

"Thank you for posting that. I hadn't seen it in its entirety."

That's OK, the communist/socialist left counts on it to keep the 'moderates' from seeing them as they really are.

It is also why they are pursuing Enron rather than Global Crossing. The 'Global Crossing' bankruptcy(the biggest in California history) involves a 'politically correct' Board of Directors, and the media doesn't defend the poor stockholders of 'Global Crossing' who were 'raped and pillaged' by the 'BIG BAD GLOBAL CROSSING CORPORATION' and Pacific Capital Group.

[Godfollow]

Handwringers all...

[Loopy]

I can accept your point of view. However, for myself, I would rather err on the side of being overly jealous of my freedoms as opposed to giving the benefit of the doubt when such injudicious words are used, especially in the current context and also keeping in mind the inevitability of Democratic rule being re-established.

[tacticalogic]

By the same logic one could defend Clinton and any of his actions(at least he's not Satan).

Well, that's not too far removed from the "It's only about sex." defense.

[MassExodus]

His meaning (read:implication) is entirely clear. When Bush or Rush says that the Democrats are trying to scare old folks that their Social Security is to be taken away (statements, or the equivalents thereof, I recall both making from time to time)we know the implication, do we not? We know that the implication is that the statements being made that Social Security is at risk are baseless and have no merit whatsover, hence the use of the word "Scare" not "baseless". The appeal is to emotion, and is most definitely subject to implication that should be obvious to anyone with a familiarity with vocabulary.

WHOA!

Did they teach you all them there fancy words in AP English at St. Johns? LOL!
BTW, I agree with you and Jefferson Adams throughout this tedious thread.

Who was it that said (paraphrased)
"Those who would give up Liberty for Security will have and deserve neither" ? Franklin ?

Anyone wishing to correct me, would be welcomed to do so.