Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 2 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest 1 Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 1 (5 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   4 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

ACLU & CAIR Use Gold Star Father to Claim War on Iraq Was for Bill of Rights

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message David Swanson     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Valuable 4   Must Read 3   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 12/30/16

Author 9
Become a Fan
  (134 fans)
- Advertisement -

Are you old enough to remember when liberal groups openly admitted that the war on Iraq was illegal and fraudulent, based on oil and profit and sadism?

Well, can you recall when the proponents of the war claimed it was a defense against nonexistent ties to terrorists and nonexistent weapons?

Even if you've wiped those memories, let me assure you, NOBODY ever claimed that attacking and destroying Iraq was necessary to protect civil liberties in the United States (which have been seriously eroded during the course of the war).

Yet, in recent months the generic defense of murdering large numbers of people far away has taken over as the explanation for the war on Iraq.

- Advertisement -

The ACLU on Friday used the voice of my fellow Charlottesvillian Khizr Khan to claim that attacking Iraq was done "in defense of our country's ideals."

Also on Friday, CAIR -- which I can recall supporting Dennis Kucinich for president because he opposed the war -- claimed (also through the voice of Khan) that Iraq was destroyed "to continue to have the freedoms guaranteed in the pages of our Constitution." CAIR even suggests that participating in such activities as attacking Iraq -- killing over a million people -- is a duty of American Muslims.

- Advertisement -

Is it possible that civil liberties groups do not know that war is the primary source of violations and restrictions on civil liberties?

We're often told that wars are fought for "freedom." But when a wealthy nation fights a war against a poor (if often resource-rich) nation halfway around the globe, among the goals is not actually to prevent that poor nation from taking over the wealthy one, after which it might restrict people's rights and liberties. The fears used to build support for the wars don't involve such an incredible scenario at all; rather the threat is depicted as one to safety, not liberty. Those people are going to blow us up, not limit our rights in court or restrict our public demonstrations to fenced-in pens where they can't be seen. (We're going to have to do those things to ourselves!)

Sometimes we're told that evil people are going to blow us up because they hate our freedoms. But then, that would still mean we were fighting a war for survival, not for freedom -- if there were any truth to this absurd propaganda, which there is not. People can be motivated to fight by all kinds of means, including religion, racism, or hatred of a culture, but the underlying motivation for anti-U.S. violence from nations where the U.S. funds and arms dictators or maintains a large troop presence or imposes deadly economic sanctions or bombs houses or occupies towns or buzzes drones overhead " is those actions. Many nations equal or surpass the United States in civil liberties without making themselves targets.

What happens, predictably and consistently, is just the reverse of wars protecting freedoms. In close proportion to levels of military spending, liberties are restricted in the name of war -- even while wars may simultaneously be waged in the name of liberty. We try to resist the erosion of liberties, the warrantless surveillance, the drones in the skies, the lawless imprisonment, the torture, the assassinations, the denial of a lawyer, the denial of access to information on the government, etc. But these are symptoms. The disease is war and the preparation for war.

It is the idea of the enemy that allows government secrecy. It is the idea of war that most effectively concentrates government power in fewer hands and expands that power at the expense of the people. Only by restricting, reducing, and eliminating military spending can we restrict, reduce, or eliminate war; and only by restricting, reducing, or eliminating war can we do the same to this erosion of rights and liberties.

- Advertisement -

The nature of war, as fought between valued and devalued people, facilitates the erosion of liberties in another way, in addition to the fear for safety. That is, it allows liberties to first be taken away from devalued people. But the programs developed to accomplish that are later predictably expanded to include valued people as well. First foreigners are imprisoned, tortured, assassinated, or hunted by drone. Then people in one's own country are targeted as well, accused of having joined the enemy. They may be stripped of their citizenship (in the UK version) or their citizenship stripped of all rights or privileges (in the US version) but come home to roost the abuses of wartime will. And there they will remain, even beyond the termination of wartime, should that termination ever arrive.

Militarism erodes not just particular rights but the very basis of self-governance. It privatizes public goods, it corrupts public servants, it creates momentum for war by making people's careers dependent on it. Over a half century ago, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower warned:

"We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. " In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Valuable 4   Must Read 3   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

http://davidswanson.org
David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship