|
Point of View with Barb
Sumner Burstyn - April 28 2003
Americans have good reason to be afraid
of their leaders
Freed from the oppression of their dictator, Iraqis are now free
to complain. From tens of thousands of marchers chanting "down,
down USA - don't stay, go away" to individuals spitting at soldiers,
Iraqis are flexing a muscle that, paradoxically, had atrophied under
Saddam Hussein.
But now here's an irony that no one expected. Back in America, complaining
about America is the one thing that's pretty much disappeared, lost
under the weight of a collective patriotism and increasing constitutional
limitations.
Voicing any sort of anti-war opinion is just not done any more and
a number of organisations have sprung up with the express purpose
of blacklisting celebrities who speak out.
Susan Sarandon is obviously on the list. She's quoted as saying she
doesn't remember ever being in a climate where people were too afraid
to even have a conversation about an issue, let alone a debate.
But then in America, uttering any threatening remark about the President
is illegal and likely to land you in jail. Writer Jonathan Freedland,
looking at America's history of tolerance and diversity, said in the
Guardian that the country was turning into a very un-American America,
"where the limits of acceptable discussion have narrowed sharply and
anyone commenting negatively on the war or the President is denounced
as unpatriotic".
It shouldn't come as a surprise. A quick reading of the 2001 Patriot
Act, formed in the dark hours after 9/11, clearly shows it's all part
of a bigger plan. Under the guise of security, the act allowed all
kinds of incursions into private life.
Some - like the right to track organisations suspected of funding
terrorists - made sense in light of the attacks. Others - like the
right to seize library lending records or the recruitment of posties,
pizza delivery guys, and local shopkeepers into a national network
of informers - did seem draconian.
But it turns out it was not enough. Sweeping new amendments to the
bill have been drawn up. The Patriot Act II or as the brave would
have it, the Liberty for Security Act, was leaked to the press in
February and in its present form makes for scary reading. It allows
things like random arrests, secret military tribunals for presidentially
designated terrorists, and concealment of presidential records.
It even proposes reversing a federal court decision authorising the
release of the names of the hundreds of people still detained, without
representation, in the dragnet following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Perhaps you believe that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing
to fear? The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, in New York, warns
that for the first time in United States history, the act will explicitly
authorise secret arrests, not to mention sneak-and-peek searches.
That cute term means federal agents can enter your home, download
your computer and internet viewing history, take your private business
records and any other material, including confidential library and
bookstore records - without telling you, without proof of probable
cause, or without getting a court order.
And the best part? The legislation does not restrict searches to people
suspected of being involved in terrorism.
It gets worse. The act not only increases Government power while decreasing
checks on its invasive power. If passed (and that looks likely), the
Government will be able to sample and catalogue genetic information,
without a court order or your consent. The act also broadens the term
"terrorist" to include anyone with views that differ from the Government.
And forget being a whistle-blower. That's set to become illegal, even
if your motive is to protect the public from corporate wrongdoing
or Government neglect.
But then to whistle-blow you need access to information. Under Patriot
Act II information such as the environmental safety of local factories
will be off-limits. And you won't be able to contribute to meaningful
dialogue on the future of such resources as forests (that constitutes
belonging to a "special interest group").
In addition if you don't like a secret decision made by a Government
organisation - say, clear-felling ancient sequoia trees - you'll have
no right to appeal. And even the press will be barred from publishing
contentious information.
Feeling a tingle up your spine yet? Richard Woods, the head of our
own spy service, the SIS, wouldn't comment. Even his receptionist
Mary "I don't give my second name" would not comment on questions
about New Zealand's response to the Patriot Act II.
But in comparison to the US draft, the proposed amendments to our
own 2002 Terrorism Suppression Act are puny procedures - like we require
a court warrant to use electronic tracking devices.
So for now - while Americans are waking up to a world where, if you're
not for your Government, you're a traitor - New Zealanders are safe
from the tyranny of an apparently unfettered Government.
America is changing. And it's changing fast and that raises an apposite
question. Are we, tucked away in our comfortable corner of the world,
up with their play and, if so, how do we intend to respond to it?
© Barbara Sumner Burstyn, 2003
Send your comments to:
Barbara Sumner
Burstyn.
|
