HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Apr 21, 2004 Now it is fully understandable that the people of the United States, in this time of war and terror, would seek some sort of grip onto the reality that seems to have left us during the night of September 10th, 2001. Amid the seas of American flags, banners praising the freedoms of our nation, and a bubbling new nationalism, one almost feels as if the tide of patriotism brought to the forefront of our nation after the immense tragedies on September 11th, 2001, is an endless positive front against those shady specters of terror that lurk just beyond the line of sight of the castle cannons. However, there are scattered groups out there that feel as if this rush of patriotism is breeding something far darker than outside terrorism, if indeed that is a possibility. Those scattered groups feel that the rush to support President George W. Bush in his march to war in Afghanistan and then Iraq signals a shift in the policy of America’s citizenry – the will to question the motives and agendas of those who lead us. To believe that the government of these United States of America has not used the uneasy acquiescence of the people to its will for personal gain shows both a foolish naïveté and an ignorance of history. It has become un-American to speak out against those leaders for which some have an unaffected scorn. Showing anything but full support for our president on any issue relating to the security of this country is met with cat-calls of “terrorist,” and “treason.” Online stores now stock bumper stickers that read “Does My Flag Offend You? Get Out!” while Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, among the top brash leaders of a movement determined to stomp out dissent speech, rail on those Americans who do not believe that President Bush is always correct in his motives. Free speech, indeed, free dissent, is being stepped on by the most conservative and secretive administration since Richard Nixon took office. Protesters, a common sight – or maybe not – at Bush Administration speaking venues, are herded into “Free Speech Zones,” often enclosed areas up to a mile away from where the official they are protesting is speaking. Protesters who carry signs often have them confiscated as “The stick with which the sign is attached could be used as a projectile weapon,” as one Miami riot officer said upon dispersing a crowd of protesters outside a building where Florida Governor Jeb Bush, President Bush’s brother, was speaking. This debacle has come to the point where ex-Bush Administration officials, including ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and Counterterrorism Advisor Richard Clarke, are being viciously attacked by the machinery of the White House to discredit their first-hand accounts of what occurred behind closed doors. The White House even went so far as to threaten a lawsuit against O’Neill, claming the documents they gave him weren’t supposed to be published. We saw no such debacle with Bob Woodward’s first Bush biography, Bush at War, as it painted a flattering portrait of the President of the United States as the bold leader after the September 11th tragedies. However, when Woodward published his second book, a critical attack on the White House for its near-obsession with Iraq, Plan of Attack, nearly every power player in the Administration was mobilized to neutralize the threat. The danger here comes not only from the fact that free speech is being drastically curtailed, but from the fact that few Americans are doing anything to stop it. They have grown accustomed to hearing the words “National Security” used as a blanket censor to keep unpopular government information from going public. They have heard and believed that answering questions before the Congressional 9-11 Commission about the atrocities of that day would somehow jeopardize the current quagmire in Iraq. These events have reached a dangerous precipice. If we become used to not fully having our freedom to speak and print unpopular opinions, so will our children, and theirs, and future generations thereafter. No man, not even the President of the United States during time of war, has the right to remove our most basic of freedoms. Abraham Lincoln tried during the Civil War, as did Woodrow Wilson in World War I. An able public expecting of their rights prevented these two leaders from removing our basic freedom of speech and press. In a nation such as this, where so many have paid for our freedoms with life and limb, we cannot commit the ultimate treason of letting our rights atrophy and die. That is un-American. ------------ About the author: Max Burns lives in Indianapolis and interns with the Indiana Democratic Party. He is the webmaster of The Foaming Liberal and author of the fantasy-fiction novel Alcardia. He is currently a junior at Lawrence North High School and is active in political clubs and associations. Email: MBurns_NS@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
