published November 29, 2005
Historian David C. McCullough observed: "History is a guide to
navigation in perilous times." Citizens on both sides of this country's
political chasm agree on one thing: We live in perilous times.
However, we disagree on the nature of the peril.
In a Nov. 18 Letter from readers, Nick Fortunato described the United States as
a "society under attack," but in his view the American Civil Liberties Union is
the source of danger. Calling it the "Anti-Christian Liberals United," he frets
that "Christmas will be the next institution they will assault, in the name of
'separation of church and state.' "
With Mr. Fortunato's hysterical anti-ACLU rant ringing in my ears, I watched
"Good Night and Good Luck," George Clooney's film about the confrontation
between CBS newsman Edward R Murrow and Sen. Joe McCarthy, over McCarthy's
tactics on the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The film uses actual
clips from McCarthy's "investigations," and in one exchange McCarthy grills Reed
Harris, a civil servant in the State Department:
McCarthy: You resigned from the university? Did the Civil Liberties Union
provide you with an attorney at that time?
Harris: I had many offers of attorneys, and one of those was from the American
Civil Liberties Union, yes.
McCarthy: The question is, did the Civil Liberties Union supply you with an
attorney?
Harris: They did supply an attorney.
McCarthy: You know the Civil Liberties Union has been listed as "a front for,
and doing the work of," the Communist Party?
Harris: Mr. Chairman, this was 1932.
McCarthy: I know it was 1932. Do you know that they since have been listed as "a
front for, and doing the work of" the Communist Party?
Harris: I do not know that they have been listed so, sir.
I've finally realized the origin of conservative blowhard Bill O'Reilly's
"interviewing" techniques: As Murrow pointed out in the famous March 1954 "See
It Now" broadcast, McCarthy twice said the American Civil Liberties Union was
listed as a subversive front, when in fact, "the attorney general's list does
not and has never listed the ACLU as subversive, nor does the FBI or any other
federal government agency."
But why let the facts get in the way of ruining someone's career? Murrow
concludes: "The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm
and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our
enemies. ...He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and
rather successfully."
Substitute Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and the same statement applies today.
Terrorism is indeed a global threat in our time, just as communism was in the
1950s. But exploiting fear is something this administration has down to an art.
Just go back to the Republican convention in 2004 and count the references to
9/11. Then ask yourself, a) has the invasion of Iraq really made us safer and,
b) what has happened to our civil liberties in the meantime?
Trying to cut the fine line between national security and civil liberties is not
a new problem for this country; it's something we've grappled with as far back
as 1798, when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed under President John
Adams.
But as Murrow observed of McCarthy, Bush's "primary achievement has been in
confusing the public mind, as between internal and the external threats." If Mr.
Fortunato's letter is anything to go by, there are still people out there
willing to drink the "If you don't agree with us, you're anti-American and a
threat to our way of life" Kool-Aid.
Although the Kool-Aid-oholics will likely dismiss Murrow's words as the voice of
the "liberal media elite," they are more relevant today than ever:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that
accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due
process of law ... We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason ... We
proclaim ourselves ... the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist
in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
Timely words, now that the Senate has voted to abridge rights of habeas corpus
for detainees; rights upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2004. Habeas corpus is
liberty's centerpiece -- one of the few civil rights enshrined in the
Constitution. Is the ACLU, in defending prisoners who are denied access to it,
the true danger here? I don't think so. Loss of liberty is an incremental
process -- and it's this government who's leading us down the slippery slope.
Sarah Littman, who lives in Greenwich, is author of
"Confessions of a Closet Catholic," published by Dutton Children's Books.
