September 11th, 2001 presented us with a peculiar challenge: how to prevent future attacks against innocent lives without infringing on political freedoms and civil liberties. Following the September 11th attacks, the Bush administration along with the mainstream media were responsible for maintaining a high level of fear amongst Americans. This fear was maintained, for example, with the implementation of the terrorist threat color coding system. The news reported a code yellow, and the entire country prepared as if a major natural disaster was expected to ravage their individual home towns. Terms such as terrorism or the free world were no longer simply descriptive but came with attached connotations of race, evil, and fear. September 11th proved that fear could be ignited and used to create public support in order to pass legislation, that otherwise would never pass, in order to combat the perceived threat.
The USA Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act are not here to protect us but rather to maintain systems of world domination that have been around for a long time. We need to take a closer look at who these laws are really targeted at. Giving the FBI unprecedented spying powers will not keep us safe, but rather many minorities and specifically Arab and Muslim immigrants will find themselves overwhelmed by harassment and intimidation. Why is it that we, as Americans, like to boast about civil liberties and the protection of individual rights we offers our citizens, yet during times of national crises; we support decreasing civil liberties and individual rights in favor of security?
The answer is because we do not decrease civil liberties and individual rights for everyone but rather just for a targeted community. We did it during the Japanese internment during WWII and during the Red Scare in the Cold War. In reality we are sacrificing our “commitments to equality by trading a minority group’s liberty for the majority’s purported security.”[1] The Government has assumed powers in the name of fighting terrorism that are not limited to fighting terrorism and are being used to harass, violate and intimidate Arab and Muslim immigrants. The perceived crisis of the terrorist threat has allowed the ruling groups to maintain their legitimacy while justifying their coercive measures.
Yet it is unclear where the ramifications of our legislation will end; one thing is for sure, they will long outlive the current era. This is because it was fear that was used to bring support to the MCA or the Patriot Act, but fear tends to ultimately dissipate. So while the support was there originally, overtime the support for these measures will erode and what we may have in the end is an oppressive regime comparable to a dictatorship. What will happen in the event of a new terrorist attack? What if we get consecutive attacks larger in magnitude than the September 11th attacks? How much are we willing to give up to fight terrorism before we realize that it is not the terrorist attacks themselves but our own reactions to them that threaten to disrupt our society and way of life? We need to fight back against terrorism but we need to do so within the realms of our constitution because that is what defines us and that is what makes this country worth fighting for. We need to first of all restore Habeas Corpus and recall the MCA, because by doing so we are not only truly fighting terrorism but are making ourselves stronger as a people and as a country.
This, however, will take a collective effort since Congress is not doing much to pass legislation that will revoke the MCA and restore Habeas Corpus, but rather is leaving it up to the Courts to find them unconstitutional. I, however, find a bit of a catch-22 hidden in their reasoning because the MCA purposely revokes jurisdiction from the Courts when it comes to challenging the system. These issues cannot be left to the Courts; they need to be put back on the Congressional agenda with greater priority even than the Iraqi War. So how do we get it back on the Congressional agenda: through the power of the internet and political blogs. The contents of the Congressional agenda are often dictated by the opinions of a small group of political leaders such as members of Congress and their staffs, elite reporters or policy experts. Such elites tend to follow and keep up with online blogs which in turn have given the political blog unprecedented power as a political force. Political blogs are now breaking and shaping political topics and influencing top political and media elites.
I think there are two types of bloggers: expert bloggers and general bloggers; and each has their set purpose in the political world. While expert bloggers can frame and set parameters around significant issues, general bloggers are responsible for bringing the issues into the mainstream media and to the ears of congressmen. They are proof that what the expert bloggers are saying is being recognized and accepted as valid by the general public. So I ask now that you go out and read some of these blogs, offer a response or maybe write your own. Your opinion counts and the more blogs there are on the internet, the more the mainstream media will notice and the more the nation will notice. This in turn will put immense pressure on Congress to place Habeas Corpus and political freedom back on top of the Congressional Agenda.
[1] Cole, David and James Dempsey. Terrorism & the Constitution.
