Ben Metcalf wrote the opening "Notebook" Op-Ed in this month's
Harper's magazine, and it's an amazing work of humor and pain, insight and rage, directed squarely at our dear leader, President George W. Bush--or rather,
the environment, political and social, which protects him.
It has come to my attention, however, that his column might be offensive to people. Let me make it very clear, here and now, that neither his argument, nor mine is about killing the president or revoking any legislature. It is purely and simply a brief history on the idea of sacrificing one's liberties in return for a sense of security, and the resulting uses of that dangerous legislation, in this particular case.
Once again, however, I must reiterate that it's important to discuss these issues as they relate to our current situation of NSA wire tapping and government Partiot-Acting--and the idea that people may support giving up freedoms out of momentary fear, and lose much more in the long run. It's about giving our presidents the ability to go:
There's more...
Cross posted at
Deny My Freedom
I would link you to the article, but Harper's doesn't publish it's articles online--for this reason, I will be quoting more than usual.
Because I am loath to violate whatever fresh new mores the people have agreed upon, or have been told they agree upon, and because i do not care to have my ass kicked repeatedly in a holding cell while I beg to see a lawyer, I almost hesitate to ask the following question. I will ask it, though, out of what used to be called simple human decency:
Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of the United States, and kill him with my bare hands?
(Emphasis mine)
It's a controversial question; a touchy question, with many implications and a long history--but it's an honest question, and an American one, which rattles the chains of liberty going back for nearly a century.
The answer to his question? In a word?
No.
Before we go any further, it should be noted that this is not a question of national security. This is not a meditation on respect nor manners. It is an example of extremes. It is an idea of freedoms, such as those involved with speech and the First Amendment many of us are familiar with.
Subtextually, the question is not am I allowed to say I want to kill the president, but rather How much is too much? What is too extreme? Is there a time or situation in which truncating the public discourse is advisable--and, if so, what are the results of these limitations? Ben explains:
Let me be clear that I have no wish to perform such a deed in fact, nor do I want anyone else to destroy bodily what is, at least in the technical sense, a fellow human being...
In truth, I bring neither a message nor a promise of violence. I seek only to gauge what level of discourse is still acceptable in this country by asking, in hope that I might someday participate in that discourse, whether I am free to posit that it would probably be great fun, and a boon to all mankind, if I were to slaughter the president of the United States with my bare hands.
(emphasis mine)
There is an interesting point to be made here. The argument is not whether or not it is "constructive" to an argument to threaten violence against someone or their proposed leaders, but whether the limitation of that ability is a good thing or a bad thing.
Certainly, this question of limited freedoms and National Security has resonance in these days of Increased Scrutiny against the public.
There are plenty of us here in cyberspace who consider ourselves respectful and mature enough to stop short of threatening violence--or other unfortunate hyperbole--in our arguments. But there are also plenty of us here who consider ourselves angry enough and justified enough to express such passion.
This, my fancy internet friends, is the crux of Metcalf's argument. Does the Federal Government's vilification of such polemic speech, presumably in the interest of 'National Security,' help or hinder the public discourse? And, perhaps more importantly, does it actually act in the best interest of National Security?
Later, we will conduct an examination of a clear disconnect between limiting our freedoms in the interest of National Security, and what effects those limitations actually cause.
First, however, let us look at his eloquent justification of the question:
True, George W. Bush is an ignorant, cruel, closed-minded, avaricious, sneaky, irresponsible, thieving, brain-damaged frat boy with a drinking problem and a taste for bloodshed, whose numerous crimes have been abetted by the moral corruption of his party cohort and whose contempt for American military lives alone warrants his impeachment, but what has it ever won us to say so? How has it profited the people for their writers to argue that a wealthy, comfortable citizen deserves a wealthy, comfortable retirement when we all know full well that he has earned confinement and conviction, and perhaps even a request for that barbaric death penalty he so loudly supports? What goal, besides and impoverished guarantee of my own personal "freedom," is served by a refusal to acknowledge that I might easily, and enjoyably, rid us of this man forever with my very hands?
At this point, I should probably reiterate that I am a peaceful man, with no actual wish to exact payment for anyone's continued debasement of humanity by feeling the life drain out of him, slowly, through the inordinately sensitive nerves in my fingers and palms.
- I would much prefer that the president sleep soundly in his bed at night, even as the 2,376 American soldiers whose lives his lies have ended sleep soundly, if not so warmly, in theirs.
- I would ask, in fact, that the president feel no pain whatsoever, as is felt daily or hourly by the 17,469 Americans blessed by his bellicosity with their wounds.
- I would hope him untroubled even by guilt, as might haunt any normal human being who had caused the deaths of more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians in order, it would seem, to invite the wrath of the world's people down upon the heads of his own [citizens],
...so deeply, does my kindness extend.
(Emphasis and segmentation mine)
So, in a land where the Death Penalty is so ruthlessly promoted, is it entirely out of the question that such a statement be a somewhat rational one? Is our president, George W. Bush, like so many mafia bosses, above reproach because his hand was not on any of these thousands of triggers?
No. He is not above reproach. But I wouldn't, nor would Ben Metcalf, nor would most of us, call for his death--but would he, as we know him, extend to us the same courtesy, the same mercy, the same respect of life?
I think not.
But let us move on to National Security and legality. Is he, or any of us, allowed to say that we would like to kill the president, to express how dispicable we consider his crimes?
No. And why?
Way back in 1917, in the interest of National Security, Congress passed US CODE TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 41, SECTION 871, which makes it a Federal Offense for anyone to:
Knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail... any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States [or the V.P., Next in order of succession, etc]... or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat...
Harper's--and most publications, especially at the time--is distributed by mail. DailyKos might be safe, for the time being, but probably less so, actually.
But the final line is the kicker. Forget publications, forget sending leaflets or promoting assassination in radical newspapers--you can't even say it.
Metcalf takes the time to list when this more invasive legislation has "come in handy" for prosecution in the past:
- When a prospective Vietnam Draftee [at an Anti-War rally] was overheard to say, "If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sites is LBJ." (Watts v. United States)
- When Black Panther David Hilliard was said to have said "We will kill Richard Nixon."(and somehow went unkilled himself).
- When an obviously disturbed man was quoted as saying he would "have to kill" Jimmy Carter. (United States v. Frederickson)
- Or when an already confined mental patient calmly explained to a Reagan-era FBI agent that "If released, I would make my way to Washington and kill him--I would kill the president." (United States v. Howell)
- Or when a brig-bound and pissed-off sailor was heard by his guard to say of Bill Clinton, "Hell, fuck the president... If I could get out of here right now, I would get a gun and kill that bastard." (United States v. Ogren)
(Emphasis and reformatting mine)
So, an Anti-war protester, a social activist, mental patients, incarcerated servicemen. --People speaking passionately, excitedly, either in an adrenaline Euphoria or under duress. Some very real threats here...
...To the public discourse.
I should take a moment now, as Ben had to do so many times in his column, to clarify. This is not and argument for or against the law making threatening the president an offense (though it could be). There are arguments on both sides. Personally, I think it needs re-written to more strongly reflect the dangers of the detailing of a plot to kill the president, and keep its hands off of free speech.
But, I digress. The bottom line is this: It is a limitation of innocent people's freedoms, in the interest of "National Security." Thus far, it has primarilly been used to stifle elements of society which are 'unconducive' to the establishment, or social norms--to stifle dissent in both public discourse and within the ranks of the armed services. It even reaches, obviously, into our private mail.
We must extend the logic here. The MORE of our freedoms we allow to be limited, the more the statutes will lend themselves to social conformity rather than safety--to oppression rather than expression.
Online Communities, NSA Wiretapping, The Patriot Act--
It's a battle they're waging harder than ever, and if we don't fight it, soon enough we won't even be able to try.