John Whitehead's Commentary
Attorney General Ashcroft and the New McCarthyism
American hysteria over the dangers of Communism was at a pinnacle in the years following World War II. Joseph R. McCarthy, an opportunistic junior senator from Wisconsin, capitalized on the fears of the populace and began denouncing a variety of individuals as Communists. Before the feeding frenzy was over, the broad brush of McCarthyism had been applied to anyone and everyone who raised their voices in opposition to his ideas. Labeled as "unpatriotic" and "un-American," those targeted ranged from government leaders to Hollywood actors and directors, lawyers, trade unionists, scientists, scholars, teachers, and artists. In the end, hundreds of careers and lives lay in ruin.
Attorney General John Ashcroft--in an eerie parallel to the 1950s political leader whose tactics to quiet his opposition swept America into a paroxysm of paranoia, fear and restrictions on civil liberties--has now accused those who oppose his anti-terrorism actions of being "unpatriotic" and "un-American."
Appearing before Congress last week to defend the Justice Department's responses to terrorism, Ashcroft issued a none-too-subtle message to the civil libertarians who have opposed his actions thus far:
"We need honest, reasoned debate, not fear-mongering. To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil."
But the logic that "if you are not with me, you are against me" simply does not--or rather, should not--hold water in a nation that claims to value democracy and safeguard the constitutional rights of its citizens, especially the right to speak freely, whether that speech is popular or not.
Some of the actions taken by Ashcroft, working in tandem with the Bush Administration, to prevent further terrorist attacks have rightfully raised cries of outrage and concern from individuals on both sides of the political spectrum.
For example, in complete defiance of constitutional provisions for privacy, habeas corpus, due process, etc., Ashcroft's anti-terrorism measures call for secret military tribunals, law enforcement authority to monitor attorney-client conversations, detainment of immigrants, secret searches, wiretaps, sharing of surveillance reports, and a loosening of restrictions on the FBI's ability to monitor churches and political organizations, among other tactics.
Perhaps our government leaders, such as Ashcroft, need to be reminded that they took oaths upon entering public office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Sadly, the American people--caught up in the wartime hype--seem to be lending their support to such anti-libertarian efforts. According to a recent Newsweek poll, 86 percent of Americans surveyed are of the opinion that the Bush Administration has NOT gone too far in restricting civil liberties in response to terrorism. Several polls conducted by other news agencies support the finding that a majority of the American people are willing to allow the Bush Administration to trample on their freedoms for the sake of combating terrorism.
It seems that after repeated entreaties by the Bush Administration to "trust us" in knowing where to draw the line between security and liberty, the American people have naively decided to do so, with no questions asked. Yet I must agree with Stuart Taylor's pronouncement in National Review, that "trusting law enforcement to exercise coercive power without meaningful judicial oversight or public disclosure is not the American way."
As a lawyer, a civil libertarian and a student of human nature, I would prefer to know that my rights as a citizen are guaranteed and protected by a contract between myself and the government of the United States of America, rather than by the word of a politician. This contract is our U.S. Constitution, and it protects us from the capricious whims of our all-too-fallible leaders. As John Adams once remarked, the best system of government is a "government of laws, and not of men."
In recent comments to Newsweek, Ashcroft stated, "People have to make a choice, whether they're going to help us prevent additional terrorist acts or remain silent in the face of evil." But I would suggest that there is a graver--and greater--choice facing Americans today. That is, we must decide whether we will remain silent while our government leaders bypass our Congress and Constitution in accumulating unprecedented power. What's at stake are not only the freedoms we presently enjoy but also the rights and freedoms of future generations.
In considering the state of American affairs and the duty of every American to speak out against tyranny, consider the words of Edward R. Murrow, one of the most respected television newsmen of his time. His coverage of the McCarthy hearings and his public indictment of McCarthy's actions were instrumental in bringing the hysteria of the Red Scare to a close.
"[W]e cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay among our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"
Indeed, if we allow our leaders to continue to ignore the Constitution they swore to uphold, then we will have only ourselves to blame for what may follow.
Attorney General John Ashcroft--in an eerie parallel to the 1950s political leader whose tactics to quiet his opposition swept America into a paroxysm of paranoia, fear and restrictions on civil liberties--has now accused those who oppose his anti-terrorism actions of being "unpatriotic" and "un-American."
Appearing before Congress last week to defend the Justice Department's responses to terrorism, Ashcroft issued a none-too-subtle message to the civil libertarians who have opposed his actions thus far:
"We need honest, reasoned debate, not fear-mongering. To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil."
But the logic that "if you are not with me, you are against me" simply does not--or rather, should not--hold water in a nation that claims to value democracy and safeguard the constitutional rights of its citizens, especially the right to speak freely, whether that speech is popular or not.
Some of the actions taken by Ashcroft, working in tandem with the Bush Administration, to prevent further terrorist attacks have rightfully raised cries of outrage and concern from individuals on both sides of the political spectrum.
For example, in complete defiance of constitutional provisions for privacy, habeas corpus, due process, etc., Ashcroft's anti-terrorism measures call for secret military tribunals, law enforcement authority to monitor attorney-client conversations, detainment of immigrants, secret searches, wiretaps, sharing of surveillance reports, and a loosening of restrictions on the FBI's ability to monitor churches and political organizations, among other tactics.
Perhaps our government leaders, such as Ashcroft, need to be reminded that they took oaths upon entering public office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Sadly, the American people--caught up in the wartime hype--seem to be lending their support to such anti-libertarian efforts. According to a recent Newsweek poll, 86 percent of Americans surveyed are of the opinion that the Bush Administration has NOT gone too far in restricting civil liberties in response to terrorism. Several polls conducted by other news agencies support the finding that a majority of the American people are willing to allow the Bush Administration to trample on their freedoms for the sake of combating terrorism.
It seems that after repeated entreaties by the Bush Administration to "trust us" in knowing where to draw the line between security and liberty, the American people have naively decided to do so, with no questions asked. Yet I must agree with Stuart Taylor's pronouncement in National Review, that "trusting law enforcement to exercise coercive power without meaningful judicial oversight or public disclosure is not the American way."
As a lawyer, a civil libertarian and a student of human nature, I would prefer to know that my rights as a citizen are guaranteed and protected by a contract between myself and the government of the United States of America, rather than by the word of a politician. This contract is our U.S. Constitution, and it protects us from the capricious whims of our all-too-fallible leaders. As John Adams once remarked, the best system of government is a "government of laws, and not of men."
In recent comments to Newsweek, Ashcroft stated, "People have to make a choice, whether they're going to help us prevent additional terrorist acts or remain silent in the face of evil." But I would suggest that there is a graver--and greater--choice facing Americans today. That is, we must decide whether we will remain silent while our government leaders bypass our Congress and Constitution in accumulating unprecedented power. What's at stake are not only the freedoms we presently enjoy but also the rights and freedoms of future generations.
In considering the state of American affairs and the duty of every American to speak out against tyranny, consider the words of Edward R. Murrow, one of the most respected television newsmen of his time. His coverage of the McCarthy hearings and his public indictment of McCarthy's actions were instrumental in bringing the hysteria of the Red Scare to a close.
"[W]e cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay among our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"
Indeed, if we allow our leaders to continue to ignore the Constitution they swore to uphold, then we will have only ourselves to blame for what may follow.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
