Some Dare Call It High

Some Dare Call It High Drama - Do you remember the good ol' days of the Clinton Administration, when some that even we Republicans called "people with issues" circulated lists of involved conspiracies involving the Clinton Administration? It spawned a sub-genre of comedy for a while - the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy of Dittoheaded Diggers after Skullduggerous Plots. Vince Foster and Ron Brown were exhumed - rhetorically, anyway - enough times to cast a thousand "Nights of the Living Dead".

But the beginning of the war has brought out the real experts.

Bill Berkowitz is a writer for "Working For Change". which describes him as "Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange column Conservative Watch documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the American Right."

A simple search gives a more complete picture; Berkowitz is a fulltime purveyor of conspiracy theories about conservatives.

This article's been making the rounds among some of my left-of-center friends:

War with Iraq opens door for accusations that continuing protests are anti-American and un-patriotic

ABCNEWS reported on March 18 that "the government will begin detaining dozens of suspected Saddam Hussein sympathizers in at least five U.S. cities this week.

According to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, "Iraqi state agents, Iraqi surrogate groups, other regional extremist organizations and ad hoc groups, and disgruntled individuals may use this time period to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States and our interests either here or abroad."

Note the context: Berkowitz mentions perfectly legitimate counter-terror investigation of potential Iraqi agents in the US, to link it later in the article to the anti-war movement - trying to buy martyrdom by association.

What will happen to the US anti-war movement when the bombs start falling on Iraq?

As Paul Loeb and Geov Parrish recently wrote on this site, before the 1991 Gulf War "major protests surged through American and European cities, hoping to stop the war before it started. But once the war began, mainstream debate over the wisdom of war quickly became supplanted by the insistence that anything other than relentless cheerleading was disloyal to the troops -- and to the country."

Berkowitz's memory is both selective and defective.

Yes, the mainstream opinion turned against the protestors - because Americans supported the war! Absolutely nothing guarantees the protestor an easy time or instant acceptance by the majority!

If massive protests continue after U.S. bombs start pounding Iraq, expect the anti-war movement to be lambasted by President Bush's pro-war minions. Radio and television pundits will crank up the volume, labeling protests un-patriotic and anti-American. Some may equate dissent with treason. Expect long-winded one-sided debates on the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN focusing on the nature of treason.

Because debating is what they do! Especially when they can't fill their schedules with actual news - as we're seeing now.

With even the mildest Congressional condemnation of war with Iraq stifled, the Bush Administration will take advantage of a jingoist climate and try and rush through the Justice Department's newly drafted "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," aka PATRIOT Act II. This draconian measure would expand the government's powers to gather intelligence on the home front; increased surveillance and the prosecution of American citizens could become the order of the day.

And herein lies Berkowitz' only legitimate point - we do have to be vigilant about our civil liberties.

Over the past few months, as the US moved closer to war, pro-war columnists and radio and television gas bags began a campaign to demonize protesters, labeling them anti-American, Communists, or apologists for Hussein.

Berkowitz is being incredibly disingenous. The "gas bags" (name-calling does wonders for your credibilty, Berkster!) did a lot more than "label" the organizers of the protests. They did what any good journalist does - they traced the paper trail. They followed the money.

In the case of the Anti-Bush protest movement, they linked the organizers of the biggest wave of protests - A.N.S.W.E.R. - had their pro-dictatorship records fairly clearly exposed, and their links to the Stalinist "World Workers' Party" exposed. This is not "Labelling", this is "prosecution"!

Berkowitz is wrapping the protestors in a mantle of victimhood. It doesn't go with the blood on their shoes.

Religious people and groups speaking out against the war, Hollywood celebrities, dissenting academics, "human shields" in Iraq, people committed to non-violent civil disobedience, and the all-too-few-but-gutsy politicians have all come under fire from pro-Bush critics.

Yes, indeed - they have.

Critics - on talk radio, the blogosphere, and all over - have criticized these groups for their faulty logic, the hypocrisies of their stances, and the skeletons in their respective closets. It's a "target rich environment", in the parlance of the day.

# For quite some time, the Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly has been saying that dissent reflects America's freedom of expression before the advent of hostilities -- but after the war starts, anti-war protesters should take their signs and go home.

Yes. It's one man's opinion. O'Reilly is an entertainer, whose medium is yammering about the news. Neither he nor any of the other convenient conservative boogeymen - Limbaugh, Hannity, Jason Lewis - has any more mindshare than the public is willing to give them. Just like Mr. Berkowitz. People vote with their feet - and remotes. And they are speaking, today.

On a recent edition of his nightly program, O'Reilly said that "Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me.

"Just fair warning to you, Barbra Streisand and others who see the world as you do. I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well, let's just say you will be spotlighted. Talking points invites all points of view and believes vigorous debate strengthens the country, but once decisions have been made and lives are on the line, patriotism must be factored in."

OK, Mr. Berkowitz - so what?

It's an opinion, in a medium that thrives on controversy. Turn the channel!

# In early March, Fox News reported that Senator Lindsay Graham had asked Attorney General John Ashcroft "to provide him with a legal assessment of those Americans headed to or already in Iraq to offer themselves as 'human shields.'" Graham compared Americans acting as human shields with John Walker Lindh.

"It is my opinion that any American who voluntarily engages in conduct to impede a potential American military operation, and who thereby endangers the lives of our nation's men and women in uniform, is participating in a program designed to weaken the power of the United States to wage war successfully. I strongly believe efforts to impede a potential military operation against Iraq should be strongly dealt with and I am seeking your assistance in this matter."

Yep. There are laws against giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Don't like them? Get them changed. It's a free country.

A recent column by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin echoed Senator Graham's sentiments: "What color is a human shield?" Malkin writes. "Crayola needs to invent a new hue weaker than lemonade and paler than jaundice: Traitor Yellow." Malkin says that the human shields are as "willfully treacherous as American al Qaeda enemy combatant John Walker Lindh. The only place that's fit for these stateless turncoats to call home is a detainee bunk bed at Guantanamo Bay."

Mr. Berkowitz - the last I checked, the lovely and talented Michelle Malkin's writings do not, as yet, have the force of law.

We're still allowed opinions.

Right?

# In "An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch" dated March 4, the Nashville-based country western singer Charlie Daniels wrote: "Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, 'fact finding trip' to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think that we didn't have the stomach for war."

And...?

So Charlie Daniels disapproves of your side. So burn his albums in a furor of righteous indignation, and sin no more!

# As demonstrators were preparing for the February 15th anti-war rally march in New York City, the conservative New York Sun ran an editorial referring readers to Article III in the Constitution which says, "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." The editorial suggested that "'anti-war' protesters -- we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq -- are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein."

Indeed they are. But you, I, and the Sun all know that it's not actionable as Treason. So relax.

# The Web site of Michael Savage, host of a popular daily talk-radio show and a weekly television program on MSNBC, features a banner headline: "The Sedition Act -- Time to Act. Time to Arrest the Leaders of the Anti-War Movement, Once we Go To War? We Must Protect Our Troops! Sponsor The Paul Revere Society!"

Yep. Michael "Weiner" Savage is another entertainer. He earns his keep by provoking people. That's what he's doing.

Although right wing hectoring has not deterred the anti-war movement, you can bet that folks like Richard Perle, who recently labeled journalist Seymour Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist"; Ann Coulter, whose new book -- set to be published sometime this spring -- is called "Treason"; and talk-radio's Rush Limbaugh and Savage will crank out the vitriol. In the name of "patriotism," their goal will be to silence dissent.

Really?

Because I think their goal is to get ratings and sell books, by simultaneously provoking and givng voice to the opinions of their listeners and readers.

And again - none of it has the force of law!

And while the Bush administration has repeatedly portrayed anti-war protests as evidence of our very freedom, the US has in equal measure a history of suppression of dissent. Between 1917 and 1919, Congress passed legislation aimed at suppressing all forms of dissent....According to The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001, these laws were "vaguely worded and broadly interpreted, [and] they resulted in over 2,000 prosecutions, mostly against radicals and the radical press."

Indeed. The Espionage and Sedition Acts were grave mistakes. They were also 85 years ago, and at a time when the media was thoroughly pro-government, and only sporadically performed its function as a counterbalance to government excesses.

Can you say that's true today?

A mid-March report by United Press International pointed out that "The most contentious provisions in the draft [of Patriot Act II] would allow the government to collect DNA from suspected terrorists or other individuals involved in terror investigations, and the power to revoke the citizenship of, and deport, naturalized citizens suspected of terror activities or of providing 'material support' to terrorist groups."

Robert Higgs, a senior fellow in political economy at the Oakland, Ca-based Independent Institute told UPI, "In my mind, if that doesn't absolutely epitomize totalitarianism I would like to know what does. They can categorize the most innocent action -- from signing a petition or making a charitable contribution -- as an act of terrorism."

Americans who care about democracy and civil liberties need to make sure Higg's nightmarish vision does not become reality.

Indeed. And those same Americans need to make sure that the rhetoric of the Anti-Bush left doesn't go unscrutinized.

Silence will be our biggest enemy.

Although at times it might be your greatest asset.

Feedback is welcomed.

Posted by Mitch at March 20, 2003 10:36 AM