December 23, 2003

It's been an extraordinarily bad month for freedom. Under the usual circumstances, the erosion of liberty tends to proceed in fits and starts, sometimes even heading in a backward and pro-freedom direction before beginning its downhill slide again. But several recent developments have proved the exception to the rule, and if there's any kind of a gauge that measures the light of liberty, the needle has swung abruptly and significantly to the left, where "E" doesn't mean "Empty" but rather "Extinguished."

There has continued to trickle in bits and pieces of good news where the USA PATRIOT Act is concerned. Despite protests of the law's value from the Department of Justice, more cities continue to pass resolutions in opposition to the Act, and more citizens are learning about the law and its negative implications where the civil rights are concerned. A group of Congressmen has even written a letter requesting that there be hearings conducted on the PATRIOT Act and its possible abuses. But the bad news has lately been all but overwhelming.

While the DOJ hasn't wavered as to the value of the USA PATRIOT Act in helping to fight terrorism on American soil, the Department of Homeland Security has apparently decided that lax immigration laws and a lack of enforcement of such laws as do exist is not particularly important. During the second week of December, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told a town hall meeting in Miami that he thought illegal aliens should have "some sort" of "legal status." Although he denied that he meant they should receive citizenship (he said that they shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the law), the White House confirmed just two days later that the administration was once again considering a program that could lead to amnesty for illegals.

In other words, the DOJ is perfectly happy to target and investigate American citizens in violation of their Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, but are inclined to forget the law all together for people who have already broken it. And the Department of Homeland Security is pleased to oversee largely ineffective and almost entirely inefficient airport security, but is willing to forget the fact that terrorists on American soil will almost certainly be here illegally, either by virtue of clandestine border crossings or by improper and/or overstayed visas. It sounds to me less like the federal government is interested in real anti-terrorist activity than certain segments of it are interested in accumulating authority.

The idea of MATRIX was bad enough. But the lack of publicity concerning this major invasion of privacy and usurper of civil liberties is astounding. In late November, another state - New York - said that it won't implement the program except under certain circumstances. Those circumstances, however, have nothing to do with the fact that MATRIX is the antithesis of everything for which the Bill of Rights stands. Instead, officials are saying they won't participate if the program isn't funded by the federal government.

Oh, sure, they've made noises that they also want to ensure it meets their "privacy standards." But if they truly had privacy standards, they wouldn't be considering MATRIX at all. More telling is a quote from an official with the company developing MATRIX. He says that fears of Big Brother are misplaced, and that, "It's going to save lives. It's not Big Brother - it's a life-saving investigative tool." Now, you tell me: how many times have the words, "But if it saves just one life..." been used to justify even the most egregious violations of liberty? Meanwhile, even as New York is at least engaging in the appearance of some concern about MATRIX, the other states involved have been entirely silent on the issue, and the MATRIX web site shows eight states remaining on board for testing of the program (although Georgia's presence there may be the result of a failure to update the MATRIX listings).

Just a couple of weeks after New York made its lukewarm concession to those worried about the invasiveness of MATRIX, the US Supreme Court released a 300 page decision on the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform law. With the exception of two relatively minor provisions, the High Court upheld the law, a ruling that shocked many legal experts, and dismayed virtually all First Amendment advocates. The NRA called the decision "a sad day for the Constitution," and a lawyer with the American Center for Law and Justice said that "the free speech rights of other Americans suffered a serious setback with this decision."

Analysts subsequently said that the decision offered "short shrift" for the First Amendment, and the Libertarian Party's press release on the matter called the ruling "an assault on political rights." But whatever advocates call it, or however unhappy activists are about it, the decision has been made. It will doubtless be revisited, but when? Under what circumstances? And what will happen in the meantime as various groups are effectively muzzled in denial of their First Amendment rights?

Meanwhile, in mid-December, it was widely announced in the media that an agreement was in progress that would give Mexican nationals - both legal and illegal - eligibility for US Social Security benefits. We're repeatedly warned by politicians on both sides of the aisle that the Social Security program is in dire financial straits. While Democrats and Republicans usually have different notions of how to fix the problem, both seem to agree that the dollars aren't going to be there for the payout of benefits in the relatively near future. And yet the governments of Mexico and the United States are putting the finishing touches on an agreement that would result in the expenditure of an additional $750 million within five years. Congress will have to approve any such agreement, but would it truly surprise you if it did?

Many of us have been occupied less with what's been happening lately in Washington than in matters overseas, not least of which is the ongoing war in Iraq. The initial battles and everything that has followed has been, we're told, for two reasons: to liberate Iraq, and to prosecute the war on terrorism. On December 14, it was announced that American troops had finally captured former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Iraqi citizens danced in the streets and shot guns into the air in celebration. Other countries, even those against the war efforts in Iraq, made public statements of delight that he had been captured at last. And I myself am truly pleased for the Iraqi people as well as for the soldiers who worked so long and so hard to accomplish their difficult goal.

Americans cannot possibly understand what the Iraqi people went through while Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were in charge. Accusations of genocide are well founded, and we've dealt with no such horror on American soil. But consider other lesser, but still awful comparisons:

With Saddam finally in custody, Iraqis will be able to speak their minds about the government without fear of repercussion. Thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision, we cannot. Without Saddam in power, all of the money Iraqi citizens earn from oil and other efforts will no longer be looted to pay for programs that don't benefit them. If Mexicans are made eligible for US Social Security benefits, we won't be able to say the same. Saddam will be brought to trial for, among other things, "disappearing" people and holding them without charges. Little has been said of our own government doing the same (although I don't suggest for a moment that those in American custody will be routinely tortured and summarily executed as they were in Iraq, I do think an absence of charges alone is still a serious matter).

Perhaps we should be looking to Iraq for an important lesson. As we work with the Iraqi people to rebuild their country and restore freedom, let's hope we spend a little time working in our own country to take back some of our own lost liberties. If we don't, the lesson of Iraq stands even more clearly and in a very harsh light: somewhere, sometime, another Hitler, another Pol Pot, another Saddam Hussein will rise. And who can say that, next time around, he won't have been born an American? Whoever he is, he'll need an amenable political and social climate to rise to power. I humbly submit to you that the ultimate climate control already exists in the form of the Bill of Rights. What do you say we get busy to ensure it's in good working order before it's really needed?

Lady Liberty is a pro-freedom activist currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other political and educational information is available on her web site, Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House. E-mail Lady Liberty at ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com

Archives

We Hardly Knew Ye

Winners and Losers

Springtime in New England

An Interview with Matthew Bracken

The Frontlines of Freedom

Rights and What's Right

East is East..

The Constitution Con

Thanks and Giving

Life, Death, and the Arbitrary Line Between

History Lessons