FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Ashcroft’s Jihad

by Laura W. Murphy

In a blatant attempt to stifle growing criticism of recent government policy, Attorney General Ashcroft delivered testimony last week equating legitimate political dissent with something unpatriotic and un-American. We urge the Attorney General to learn from the history of American dissent — from the Civil War to the civil rights struggle — that free and robust debate is one of the main engines of social and political justice. While we feel as strongly as the rest of America that those who perpetrated the monstrous acts of September 11 must be brought to justice and our future safety ensured, we forcefully disagree with the Attorney General that domestic debate about the government response in any way harms the investigation. In fact, we believe debate only strengthens our government in this time of national crisis.

The Attorney General swore an oath to guard the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, including the First Amendment. For him to openly attack as “aiding the enemy” those who question government policy is all the more frightening in light of his constitutional duty to protect each and every American’s right to speak and think their mind. Even worse is the tone of derision used by the Attorney General to mock his detractors, declaring their concerns “phantoms” and charging that their criticism brings “comfort to the enemy.”

There is evidence that the recent steps by the Administration to hold secretive military tribunals, to allow the government to eavesdrop on confidential attorney-client conversations and to blanket interrogate and detain Arab-Americans and Muslims are problematic for liberty in America. Ashcroft should welcome a free and robust debate about the appropriateness and legality of his positions as a means of legitimizing his authority, not weakening it.

American history demonstrates clearly that the search for truth tends to become muddied in times of crisis. Since the turn of the last century, America has seen each of its military conflicts prod the government into taking steps to stifle domestic dissent. Ashcroft’s statement suggests that, if we are not careful, the tragedy of September 11 might be compounded by a repeat of this history.

While we firmly support the Administration in its efforts to prevent another September 11, we cannot abide – nor can the American commitment to liberty and democracy support – any attempt by the Administration to dictate or coerce the thoughts we think or the opinions we hold. Thinking critically about government policy is the strongest shield against government excess.

We will continue to voice our disagreement when we feel the government has stepped out of bounds and will do so with the conviction that one of the highest forms of patriotism is devotion to the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed within, including the right to speak out in disagreement with the powers that be.

Laura Murphy is director of the ACLU’s National Office in Washington, DC.

More articles by:
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail