Showing our weaknesses

The so-called "War on Terror" has shown the world both the strengths and the weaknesses of the U.S. Government and of the American people.

The strengths are easy to see. We have unmatched military might and the will to use it. We have the strength of will to fight for freedom, not just our own, but also the freedom of Afgan and Iraqi citizens, and, presumably, citizens of any other country who are not free. And we will apparently borrow any amount of money needed to complete the task.

The weaknesses are less obvious but just as important.

We don't have is the strength of will to embrace the ambiguities and pitfalls of freedom, or to support the principles of freedom whatever the result. Americans want the Iraqi people to have freedom, as long as they make the "right" choices. American-style democracy may not be the Iraqi choice, and we won't stand for it.

But if the Iraqis don't have the freedom to make what we might consider bad decisions, or actual bad decisions, they don't really have freedom at all. Freedom must include the independence to make poor choices.

Americans have had the freedom to make poor choices. Basing our government on the Articles of Confederation, precursor to the Constitution, was arguably a poor choice.

We've also made some poor choices in electing presidents. Not everyone agrees which presidents were the poor choices and which were the good ones, but we have used our freedom to choose. Or not. We also have the freedom to opt out of the process by not voting.

Another sign of our weakness as a nation is that not many of us have shown the strength to stand up for the individual rights we claim to believe in. In the name of fighting terrorism, we have created a new class of non-people known as "enemy combatants."

We claim that our rights don't come from the government or the Constitution which merely enumerates them, but that each human being is "endowed by their creator" with certain rights. Most Americans believe in God, or so surveys show, but not, apparently, in rights for everyone.

The enemy combatants have few, if any, of the rights each American expects and even demands that the government respect. If we feel our rights have been violated, we sue. The enemy combatants don't have access to the courts. They depend on receiving their God-given rights from the American people through the government.

We've said no. They have no right to appeal their incarceration, no right to due process, no rights of any kind apparently, including the human right not to be tortured.

Granted, prisoners of war are generally not returned to their country of origin while battles continue, and the enemy combatants are probably more easily defined as criminals than soldiers, but they aren't even accorded the rights guaranteed to criminals in America.

To our credit, we are equal opportunity hypocrites. Congress passed the Patriot Act to limit the rights of American citizens and aid in the fight against terrorism. We even give up our own rights in the name of freedom.

Giving up rights and freedoms, or taking them from others, is a sign that we don't believe in
the very principles we are fighting for.

President Bush recently said that questioning the original reasons why the United States went to war in Iraq hurts our troops and helps our enemies, and many Americans agreed.

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rich, poor, black, white, and every other category of American includes citizens, possibly a majority, who support the actions the United States has taken in the war on terrorism. We as a people are supporting the suppression of freedom both directly and through our silence.

Freedom to dissent and question the actions of government were principles of freedom our founding fathers embraced as reasons for starting a revolution.

If we don't have enough confidence in the strength of freedom and its principles, the rest of the world, friends and enemies alike, will believe that we are weak, and they will be right.

Threats on the judiciary aren't surprising

The New York Times* today has an article on threats to the judiciary. No kidding. And why shouldn't criminals threaten court officials? It's the same behavior we see today in U.S. foreign policy.

The criminals are saying "I'm right and you're wrong. Do what I say or someone will kill you." How is that different from "You're either with us or against us" as President Bush put U.S. policy on terrorism? If it's good enough for the country, why isn't it good enough for everyone else?

I'm sure Mr. Bush would say it's because he's the elected leader of the most powerful country in the world, but that does not excuse uncivilized behavior. We are heading toward -- if we haven't already arrived at -- a might makes right, your wrong because I'm right, society. Tolerance and working together are hanging by a thread, because we and our leaders are embracing an ethic of no compromise and no retreat.

If this continues, we will all either be belligerent bullies imposing our will on others, or spineless slaves doing the bullys' will.

Compromise is an American value I'd like to see more of inside and outside of government.

*I do read papers other than the Times.

Freedom? Sure, as long as I agree with your choices.

Congress has decided to invite (read: subpoena) a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Why? If I'm being charitable, I might say it's because our Senators and Representatives are concerned with Terri Schiavo's rights.

In my less charitable moments, which when it comes to Congress is most of the time, I say these political opportunists are taking advantage of a family's tragedy and making it worse. Bad enough that this poor woman is a vegetable, and her parents and husband are at odds over whether to let her die (I can certainly see both sides in this argument), but to have politicians using her as a cause is despicable. Particularly when these upstanding public servants are arguing against some of the basic principles they choose to tout when it serves their purpose.

The federal government should not interfere in decisions that belong to the states, many conservatives say. Unless, of course, the states aren't making the "right" decisions. And, individuals should be able to make their own decisions about their health care, unless they don't make the "right" choices.

Who's leading the fight? According to the New York Times: "For Republicans, it was a chance to try to carve out new territory in the "culture of life" issues so paramount to passionate religious conservatives, who have flooded Congressional offices with messages beseeching help in keeping Ms. Schiavo alive."

You can read "religious conservatives" as Christian conservatives. You can have freedom of religion as long as you make decisions that are acceptable to the Christian right.

And the Democrats are doing it, too. They want to show that they have moved to the center and are good people that should be re-elected.

I guess freedom isn't an American value after all.

Isn't this UNethical?

I don't know if House Republicans are being genuinely or deliberately obtuse, but today's piece in the New York Times on House Ethics Committee changes tells me that they are either a little thick... or pretending to be.

According to the Times, "The House, on a vote of 220 to 195, enacted a change that would effectively dismiss a complaint in the event of a deadlock in the ethics committee, which is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans."

Apparently, votes in the Ethics Committee have deadlocked along party lines fairly frequently. The senior Democrat on the rules committee said in the article that no ethics complaints would have "seen the light of day" if this rule had been in place during the last session of Congress. Everyone voted along party lines which leads to the assumption of partisanship on both sides and obtuse statements like this one:

"I think it takes the politics off the table," said Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York.

The problem with that kind of thinking, is that it assumes that the only reason for a vote is partisanship. Democrats always and only vote with Democrats, and Republicans always and only vote with Republicans. Seems like a safe assumption. After all, don't all Republicans hold the same values? And all Democrats hold the same values, although different from Republicans. Right?

This assumption about partisanship is demeaning to the members of Congress. I can't believe that no one in Congress ever votes against their party because it's the right thing to do, and voting evidence shows that not all votes are divided strictly along party lines. Voting conscience rather than party is a reality, if not a common one.

Republicans are using the partisanship that they say is so problematic to their own advantage. In fact, they pretty much admit that they are changing the Ethics Committee rules to protect majority leader Tom DeLay from penalties for his alleged ethical infractions. Whether real or pretend, that's obtuse.

For another opinion, check out this Washington Post editorial.