YOU MIGHT BE A
TERRORIST
11/15/01
by Brad Edmonds
H.R. 3162, "The Patriot Bill," or the
antiterrorism bill, might make you a terrorist. Any persons among
us who have accepted that certain civil liberties must be abridged
in time of war, or forever, for the sake of security, are going to
learn Ben Franklin’s lesson the hard way: Those who would give
up freedom for security deserve, and will get, neither.
First, the antiterrorism bill so loved by Congress and the White
House has redefined terrorism. According to Sec. 802, (a)(5)(B)(ii),
"the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that
appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion." Again: If the activity appears to
be intended to influence the policy of a government – not just
the United States government – by intimidation, it’s domestic
terrorism. Most important: Since all we require is intimidation,
how would we define that?
"Intimidation" does not seem to be defined in H.R. 3162.
We thus must turn to authoritative dictionaries, which say such
things as "to make timid." Put it in the hands of a
trial lawyer, and here’s how it could play out: Have you ever
felt intimidated by someone smarter, larger, older, wealthier,
higher in rank, more attractive, more physically fit, more
passionate, or more popular than yourself? That’s all it takes
to establish intimidation in court – being made timid. Get a
jury or judge to buy your version of events, and you win.
So while intimidation is a weak criterion, far too easy to
establish in a court of law, you don’t even have to establish
anyone’s intent to intimidate, much less his success at
intimidating someone. You, the prosecutor, have to establish only
the appearance of the intention to intimidate any government, and
you can try anyone for domestic terrorism.
So, those of us who disagree publicly with the government’s
responses to 9/11 – especially if our disagreements are
reasoned, well-supported, and impassioned – are, by definition,
terrorists. The only requirement is that someone, somewhere
believes it appears we’re trying to intimidate the government.
This is an ominous glower over free speech.
How ominous? It depends in part on whether you’re a foreigner.
Suppose a Canadian citizen writes an anti-war column for an
American website. Bush signed an executive order on Tuesday,
November 13, which allows for any foreigner connected to the
events of 9/11 to be tried by military tribunal. This means, among
other things, that the trials can be held in secret, defendants do
not get the usual protections (such as an extended appeals
process), the death penalty is an option, and Bush decides who is
tried. If the notion of "connected" is as vague and
potentially encompassing as the definition of "domestic
terrorism" mentioned above, all foreigners who speak out in
disagreement with the US government might have reason to fear
suspicion with regard to 9/11.
Remember that foreigners aren’t alone – H.R. 3162 applies to
everyone. Foreigners are singled out only in Bush’s executive
order. The only difference between foreigners and citizens is the
option of the military tribunal.
We’ve all heard how new laws won’t function in unintended
ways: The Civil Rights Act wouldn’t result in hiring quotas; the
Americans with Disabilities Act wouldn’t result in costly and
ridiculous lawsuits (such as the Supreme Court deciding the rules
of golf) ; and the Endangered Species act wouldn’t threaten
property rights.
With such unintended consequences being the rule rather than the
exception, be careful not to complain about the amount of your
Social Security check or tax liability. Don’t complain about
emissions regulations. Don’t complain about anything the
government says or does. According to the definitions in H.R.
3162, your speech (especially if it’s cogent) need only
criticize the government, and you could stand accused of domestic
terrorism.
Brad Edmonds, MS
in Industrial Psychology, Doctor of Musical Arts, is a banker in
Alabama. www.lewrockwell.com
Home
email Jacq'