Thus spake Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, author of the Contract
Ever since the Bush Administration began pushing for more and more unchecked power in the wake of 9/11, many in the Republican circle of politicians and pundits claimed that security was more important than freedom. Senator Trent Lott opined in 2005 that "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that." And Senator Pat Roberts memorably said in 2006 that "you have no civil liberties if you are dead."
But Gingrich is different. He has already said that in the name of fighting terrorism some speech should be outlawed, thus eviscerating the First Amendment. (And who decides what sort of statements should be made illegal? Why, Gingrich himself, of course.)
We have already been frightened into allowing the White House free rein to track our phone calls and spy on our reading habits. Gingrich evidently cannot wait for the next attack, the Big One that will successfully frighten us into voluntarily surrendering the rest of our freedoms.
So let's suppose the worst does happen, that a nuke goes off on the National Mall or a "dirty bomb" explodes in Times Square. What happens then? Will we really allow the press to be censored, blogs shut down, dissidents jailed?
Or is that just what Gingrich hopes will happen? With himself as president, of course.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety," warned Benjamin Franklin in 1759, "deserve neither liberty nor safety." And while he first used the phrase well over two centuries ago, it is still very relevant today.
We must always watch carefully for those who would use our own fears against us, who in their own way are just as terroristic as Osama bin Laden.
For in Gingrich's repressive world, Ben Franklin would almost certainly be sent to Gitmo to ponder the error of his ways. And he'd probably be waterboarded too.
No comments:
Post a Comment