The Long Island Press Drone

Trusting me with a drone is no more ridiculous than allowing the executive branch to unilaterally determine which civil liberties and human rights to recognize, as if an option exists.

This column appears in the July 2013 edition of the Long Island Press.
Follow the author on Twitter @jedmorey

I need my own drone. Not me personally as a citizen (that would be ridiculous) but as a publisher.

A Long Island Press drone (available for sponsorship) would enable us to give timely traffic reports, provide up-to-the-minute surf conditions, look for fugitives and measure the size of the daily sewage leaks from our ever-failing sewer and storm water infrastructure.

The possibilities are endless. Aerial views of town employees driving official vehicles home after work. Spotting sharks too close to shore. You get the idea.

If the American public has little problem with police departments and the FBI using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technology and seems indifferent to disclosures that the National Security Agency (NSA) is harvesting massive amounts of its personal data, then it shouldn’t have a problem with journalistic enterprises enhancing their capabilities with drones. Seems logical to me. Though, admittedly, I’m having troubling locating the drone application form on the Federal Aviation Administration’s website.

Recently, my wife and I joined three members of the Long Island Press staff at the premiere of Jeremy Scahill’s documentary film, Dirty Wars—the companion piece to his new book of the same name. The film has been opening to packed houses around the country so I made certain to procure tickets in advance, for fear of being locked out of its debut. When the lights dimmed the five of us comprised exactly 50 percent of the audience.

Well done, Long Island.

Instead of being chagrined by this lack of intellectual curiosity among my fellow Islanders, I chose to view this remarkable display of apathy in a positive light.

Since many of you missed it, I’ll give you the upshot of the film. Dirty Wars shines a light on the secret, corrupt and illegal wars being conducted against nations we are not at war with. Scahill’s meticulously researched, first-hand accounts of the devastation being wrought by the excessive utilization of drones have put the Obama administration in an awkward position. The recent NSA spying revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden in The Guardian further compound the administration’s problem with respect to human rights and civil liberties. The fact that the Department of Justice under President Barack Obama has brought more charges of espionage (a charge that potentially carries the death penalty) against Americans than all other presidents combined speaks volumes about Obama’s desire to silence critics and whistleblowers alike.

Further, the fact that the administration was forced to admit to killing four U.S. citizens (that we know of) with drone strikes abroad doesn’t seem to have rankled too many of my fellow Long Islanders that much, either. So, like I said, I’m taking this as a tacit show of support for the Press acquiring its very own drone for “surveillance” purposes.

There is one more thing. Because I am licensed by Nassau County to carry a weapon and am the owner of the Press, it’s only logical that my drone should be treated as an extension of me and should also be armed. You know, just in case. Rest assured that I would only use it to strike “high-value targets” who threaten our way of life here on Long Island. And, of course, before using my drone for surveillance purposes or (insert flowery euphemism for assassination here) I would seek approval from my secret hand-picked cadre of advisors from the Press.

That’s how the government programs work. And everyone is cool with that, right? CIA Director John Brennan comes up with a targeted kill list; runs it by a whole bunch of people in the executive branch, then asks the POTUS for permission to pull the trigger. That’s, like, so many people (from one branch of government) who have to determine (rubber stamp) who gets killed remotely in countries that we’re not at war with (except as designated by the executive branch under a perverted interpretation of authority granted under the AUMF law—look it up.) Surveillance in this country goes through just as arduous a process. The NSA has to ask the secret FISA court for permission in secret to secretly wiretap anyone so long as everyone involved keeps it a secret. Just in case, as Edward Snowden confirmed for us, the NSA has been secretly listening to everything we’ve been saying for quite some time now. They even made secret agreements with outside contractors to build secret facilities to store any and every piece of data secretly collected from around the world.

Arduous indeed! This is the process the president recently called “transparent.”

Because commercial licenses for drones have been suspended until the FAA issues new guidelines for their use, I’m invoking my privilege under the First Amendment to procure and operate my drone. How so? My drone is essentially like having a super-reporter on staff. Therefore its actions and the data it collects should be protected as free speech. (If unlimited campaign contributions are protected as free speech, this argument can’t be too far off-base.)

We are numb. Since 9/11 we have stood by passively during the greatest erosion of domestic civil liberties since the Alien and Sedition Acts and allowed our government to commit atrocities in faraway nations that have succeeded more in fostering antipathy toward our country than the purported purpose of protecting the homeland. Corporate media have furthered the government narrative instead of being a bulwark against it, thus normalizing egregious and unconstitutional behavior in the name of national security. Trusting me with a drone is no more ridiculous than allowing the executive branch to unilaterally determine which civil liberties and human rights to recognize, as if an option exists.

The overarching point that must be understood is that the Obama administration has amplified the assault on our rights in a way that would make Richard Nixon blush and Dick Cheney chortle villainously. The president has discarded every protection granted to the citizenry of the United States—and by proxy the world—that he is sworn to cherish and uphold.

Unfortunately, my ridiculous example of purchasing a drone is about as serious as the discourse taking place in the media regarding Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning. These two men understand what is at stake right now more than every corporate shill actor hired to read news that has been vetted and approved by the government and corporate masters they serve.

Extreme Alliance: Finding Common Ground with Manning and Snowden

Where others have failed to shed light on the dark shadow our military casts over the world, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden have succeeded by demonstrating the courage to reveal our ignominy and speak truth to power

The exclusivity of the axiom that Democrats eat their own has been challenged in recent years by Republican infighting. Libertarians, having fully asserted themselves into the modern conservative movement, have fractured the Republican base and splintered allegiances that have endured for decades. Progressives have all but broken ties with the Democratic Party over a host of issues from single payer healthcare to drone strikes and regularly engage “Obamabots” in Twitter wars. But the blockbuster cases of PFC Bradley Manning and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have perhaps delivered the most bizarre ideological twist of all.

Libertarians and progressives have united on the issue of civil liberties, with Manning and Snowden as the source of the gravitational pull. It’s a tepid alliance of strange bedfellows that grows stronger with each passing day. Although lesser-known to consumers of mainstream media, the cases of Barrett Brown, Jeremy Hammond, Aaron Swartz, Jesselyn Radack and Thomas Drake have also helped to galvanize the furthest reaches of the American ideological spectrum.

This alliance of extremes comes from a deep understanding of the current risks that we face as Americans; an understanding of things rarely addressed with any depth or consistency in corporate broadcast and print media. Savvy and literate seekers of information who eschew corporate media know these risks by their legislative acronyms. AUMF. FISA. NDAA. Moreover, they know how they combine to infringe upon our rights as citizens in a manner that is unprecedented in U.S. history.

Some Americans are familiar with the appalling tributaries that stem from them. Drone strikes, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, domestic communication management units and the overzealous prosecution of whistleblowers. Yet the neoliberal propaganda machine has been in overdrive for decades hammering into us ideas such as American “exceptionalism” (our lives are worth more than all others), corporations are people and money should be protected as speech. The have taught us to believe that our desire for privacy implies that we have something to hide, whereas their need for secrecy implies a sense of noblesse oblige.

Normalizing these absurdities by openly defending them through corporate propaganda channels has dulled our senses as a people. We are the walking dumb. The politically illiterate.

The government relies on its ability to manipulate the public by keeping it in a constant state of fear. Every generation has its Bogeyman beginning with the earliest days of the republic. In school we are taught to embrace the principles of the Declaration of Independence to the extent that they suit the prevailing American narrative. Ignored in school is the racist and imperial dogma found in these words from the same document: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

For years now I have reported on the relationship between the American government and sovereign Indian territories. Therefore, America’s paternalistic attitude toward the rest of the world is entirely familiar. The U.S. government views the world as one giant reservation system filled with dispensable people who receive handouts directly proportionate to the natural resources they possess. Failure to comply with our demands is to risk sanctions or occupation. The world has witnessed the unbroken wave of devastation the U.S. wrought in Indochina, the Middle East and Northern Africa, South America and Central America. The American war machine is fully autonomous, perpetual and indiscriminate.

Where others have failed to shed light on the dark shadow our military casts over the world, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden have succeeded by demonstrating the courage to reveal our ignominy and speak truth to power. It’s why the ideological fringes of our nation see the greatness in what they have done. Progressives and Libertarians, regardless of their differences, do not revere authority. They question it. And while the conclusions they draw on several issues differ dramatically, neither easily accepts the official government narrative regarding Manning and Snowden, which is they recognize these men as heroic.

As for the rest of America, the government’s actions, no matter how barbaric or unconstitutional, are cloaked in the flag and sold as necessary tools in the “War on Terror.” To reject this notion as a citizen is to risk being alienated and branded a traitor. We have been brainwashed to believe that to “support the troops” somehow means sacrificing our youth abroad in the pursuit of oil and permanent war. Americans are so far removed from our activist roots that most are unable to see that today’s Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are yesterday’s Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. That today’s Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Alexa O’Brien are yesterday’s Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and Seymour Hersh. That today’s Barrett Brown and Cindy Sheehan are yesterday’s Daniel Berrigan and Martin Luther King, Jr..

As a nation we tend to swallow the wholesale premise that all government actions are for our own good and that they must be employed in secret for our safety. But the secrecy the government defends is not only from the citizens it is accountable to but from the institutions designed to protect us from authoritarianism. To wit, our judicial system no longer has authority over wiretapping. Congress no longer has any oversight over the military. The Fourth Estate no longer enjoys the absolute protection afforded by the First Amendment. And dissidents no longer enjoy the freedom to peaceably assemble without intervention from law enforcement agencies with military arsenals.

Americans suffer from political amnesia. Forgotten are the Indian “removal” policies, Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment camps, the Kent State massacre, McCarthyism and Watergate. Therefore we have also forgotten the protections established to prevent these things from happening again. For those more concerned about whether Edward Snowden visited his mother enough or quibbling over Bradley Manning’s sexual orientation, allow me to demystify the above acronyms and explain what it is they are fighting against.

AUMF: Authorization for Use of Military Force. Immediately following 9/11 Congress granted extraordinary authority to the Bush administration to conduct a global war on terror. It was under this authority that the United States conducted illegal invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan—nations with no connection to 9/11. It was also under this authority that the Bush administration began employing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s), more commonly known as drones, to hunt members of Al Qaeda in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. Both Presidents Bush and Obama expanded upon this authority to include Yemen and Somalia. These strikes are illegal, unconstitutional and immoral. They are not targeted, discriminate or judicious, despite the assertions of the Obama administration. We are terrorizing, and subsequently radicalizing, citizens of nations that we are not at war with.

FISA: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Originally enacted as a result of the Nixon administration’s abuse of eavesdropping, FISA was designed to establish a protocol for U.S. surveillance activities that required the government to obtain judicial approval prior to any such operation. The Bush administration broke this protocol and secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop without warrants. Even after the New York Times revealed the program, Congress amended the act in 2008 and officially granted the administration the authority to continue warrantless wiretapping with oversight from “secret courts.”

Secret courts. Secret. Fucking. Courts. In America.

Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have publicly insisted that U.S. citizens have never been targets of any such program. Now we know this was a lie. Snowden’s recent revelations by the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald have demonstrated that quite the opposite is true and the surveillance state is worse than anyone had predicted.

Spying is big business as evidenced by the fact that there are 1.6 private contractors working for the government in surveillance operations for every one government employee performing the same function. Our information has been outsourced to corporations that are writing and lobbying for the legislation that allows for it. Therefore, even those who defend the actions of the government must then concede that they are defending the actions of private corporations. It’s imperative that we see beyond the argument that if you’ve done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide. It’s false logic because it falls apart in reverse. If this program was honest and constitutional, there would be no reason to lie about it, cover it up then threaten to silence anyone who attempts to speak out about it.

NDAA: The National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA is an act that Congress is required to pass at the beginning of each fiscal year to organize funding and codify policies and procedures carried out by the military. Activists refer to NDAA as shorthand for an amendment authored in secret in December of 2011 by Senator John McCain regarding indefinite detention. Renowned journalist Chris Hedges brought suit against the government arguing that the language of this provision was so broad and vague that it theoretically allows for military detention of U.S. citizens, something the government vehemently denies. Nevertheless, instead of amending the language to quell any fear surrounding domestic military intervention against U.S. citizens, the Department of Justice has vigorously defended the inclusion of this provision in federal court.

The indefinite detention provision of the NDAA expands executive authority granted under the AUMF from those suspected of carrying out the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to anyone suspected of supporting terrorists. Nowhere does the government provide the definition of a terrorist or what might be considered “support.”

In May of 2013 the Pentagon introduced yet another wrinkle to this very dangerous equation. The Department of Defense altered a rule in the US Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” that grants the military the ability to quell civil disturbances and temporarily control a situation in the event authorization from the President of the United States is impossible to obtain. Nowhere does the DoD define what constitutes a civil disturbance, how long this temporary authority might last, whether or not civilians can be militarily detained without due process or under what circumstances the president would be “impossible” to reach.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.

Tie together the extraordinary authority the government has granted itself under these three provisions and the gravity of our predicament becomes painfully obvious. The government has the authority to listen to our conversations without obtaining a warrant. It is not only tracking every move you make online, it’s storing this information and building a profile from your actions. Any journalist who interviews someone the United States considers a terrorist threat can be seen as supporting this person. The military has the legal authority to quell any gathering it considers a “disturbance.” The military and domestic civilian agencies such as the CIA have the ability to carry out assassinations abroad regardless of whether we are involved in armed conflict in these territories. It can “disappear” anyone inside or outside of the United States for any reason.

These are the real threats to our liberty. To view them as such is to recognize the historical significance of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden and appreciate the service they have performed for the benefit of our republic.

Gun Nuts and Chilled Speech

When Daniel Ellsberg, Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky, along with a handful of the world’s most prominent political activists, join together to bring suit against you in U.S. federal court it’s fair to say you have a problem.

Okay, so now we’re all armed. Present company included. Great job, America. Now what?

The debate over gun control would be uproarious if it wasn’t so pitiful. In typical American fashion we have taken to the streets and airwaves in the aftermath of Sandy Hook to engage in an irrational debate that, once again, places misguided ideology over common sense and humanity. If we’re going to have this conversation, let us at least place the discussion within its proper historical context so we may raise a more troubling question:

Why bother taking the guns when you can indefinitely detain their owners? 

Lost in the emotion surrounding the debate over the Second Amendment is a far more insidious assault on the First Amendment. In no way am I diminishing the consternation over our right to bear arms as citizens; rather, I’m making a pragmatic case for a far more clear and present danger than the idea that federal agents will show up at our doorstep to commandeer our weapons. Before we get to this larger and more important point, let us dispense with the ridiculous.

Of course, we shouldn’t sell guns to crazy people, just like we don’t give a driver’s licenses to  blind people. Of course, citizens shouldn’t own military-style weapons with enough ammunition to wipe out a village. Newsflash: the government has neither the authority nor the desire to seize our guns. We hold the dual distinction of being the planet’s most armed nation and its biggest dealer of arms. What does this mean? The gun culture is here to stay because it’s profitable as hell.

And another thing: Stop yelling sanctimoniously about what the Founding Fathers would say. Find out what they did say. Media pundits insult our intelligence by twisting the meaning of the Constitution and the rationale behind it. So instead of arming yourself with high-capacity weapons, arm yourself with knowledge and learn about the Second Amendment from those who wrote it.

Founding Father Knows Best

During the two short years between the ratification of the Constitution and the introduction of the Bill of Rights, three of the greatest minds in America publicly explored the rationale behind the country’s founding document. A trio of intellectual giants writing interchangeably under the name Publius—Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison—produced a collection of essays now known as The Federalist Papers. They are essentially crib notes to the Constitution left behind by the Founding Fathers.

These are treasured breadcrumbs of reasoning that lead us to understand that the great military concerns of the day were whether or not to allow a standing army and how to prevent one state from acquiring military dominance over another. (The nascent nation could ill-afford Virginia to sack Rhode Island.) This dilemma was at the heart of the federalist argument for a centralized authority. At the same time, the Founding Fathers knew that the great balancing act of the day was in maintaining enough military force to defend against external foes while simultaneously preventing armed insurrections from within.

Publius reasoned that neither citizens nor tyrants should have the ability to circumvent our legal system, therefore arms and force should be evenly rationed but employed by a central government when necessary. (For the politically impaired, this is the part about a well-regulated militia.) The framers of the Constitution were dubious when it came to having full-time, professional soldiers. After all, these men were revolutionaries themselves who intimately understood the danger of uprisings. Moreover, America was also flat broke and could never have paid for a standing army. They did, however, believe Congress should have the ability to organize a militia when necessary.

It was Hamilton (as Publius) who offered the most succinct viewpoint on the military. “To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions on paper.”

To have an army or not? If so, how best to regulate it? This was the debate. The easiest way to raise a militia was to call upon the armed citizenry should the need arise. (This is the right to bear arms part.) More importantly, it was cheap. The ability to compensate servicemen would become one of Hamilton’s central arguments in favor of a national bank—a far more delicate subject at the time than the right to bear arms would ever be. 

It’s fair to say even the Founding Fathers could never have imagined modern warfare and the rise of the military industrial complex. Nor could they have imagined the destructive capability of assault weapons in the hands of citizens. This much is clear from their writings: the Founding Fathers would have punished any idiot who attempted to stockpile enough weapons to take on the government long before they tolerated government prohibition of speech.

On several occasions our founders saw fit to violently quell popular uprisings in order to preserve the central authority of the union. In this there was great philosophical unity among them. They argued more about banking than guns and cared more about protecting speech than organizing militias. It was John Adams who created a divide among them when, as president, he passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, jarring both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison out of retirement; not because they were fearful of his demagoguery with respect to force, but because these acts took away a more sacred right: free speech.

This brings us to the larger issue at hand.

Just as Jefferson and Madison recoiled at the behavior of Adams once in office, the great intellectual giants of our day have come together to challenge President Barack Obama’s authority. 

The man who released “The Pentagon Papers” and forever changed the way in which we view our involvement in Vietnam. The award-winning multilingual journalist who quit the New York Times because it was too tepid and conservative. America’s foremost dissident who has influenced generations of thinkers and helped shape liberal intellectualism. When Daniel Ellsberg, Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky, along with some of the world’s foremost political activists such as Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen – the organizing force of the plaintiff’s team – join together to bring suit against you in U.S. federal court it’s fair to say you have a problem.

Such is the predicament Obama finds himself in today. The above group has brought suit against the government for infringing upon free speech as defined by the Constitution. Thus far, and thankfully, they are winning. Their lawsuit (which I refer to herein as the Hedges suit) not only challenges the government’s unconstitutional behavior, it casts a light on a dangerous trend in America and exposes a surprising secret weakness in the White House and the Justice Department.

Incarceration Nation

“There are now more people under ‘correctional supervision’ in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height.” —Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, 2012.

The woeful mash-up of Conservatives, Libertarians, Tea Party loyalists and Democrats who wouldn’t know a liberal idea if the ghost of Gore Vidal whispered it to them, are so busy deconstructing America’s gun culture they have ignored a more alarming cultural trend: the culture of incarceration.

In addition to being the most armed nation in the world, America also has the greatest percentage of its population behind bars. While this trend has steadily risen over the past few decades, it has gained a level of acceptability in the post-9/11 era. Perhaps, this is why so few bristled at the passage of the provision the Hedges suit aims at. 

The plaintiffs in this suit have made the case in federal court that the Obama administration and Congress violated the First Amendment with the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. The Act is a routine bill that organizes defense spending for the year and typically garners little attention from citizens and the media. But the 2012 Act contained a new provision authored in secret by Sen. John McCain—known as Section 1021—that was so alarming it prompted the above suit.

Essentially, Sec. 1021 expands the scope of existing law that allows the government to hunt terrorists in connection with 9/11 to include anyone seen as providing “substantial support” of terrorism. Ever. Anywhere. The provision offers vague language that attempts to couch it within existing statutes but its very existence is evidence that the government is seeking more expansive authority.

In September of 2001 the White House put forward several provisions that gave the government the power to prosecute those responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The joint resolution—the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—passed Congress quickly and included nearly everything the Bush Administration requested. Everything, that is, except a provision that could have been interpreted as granting the government the ability to militarily detain U.S. citizens. This denial was subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Hedges suit argues that the broadness of Sec. 1021 and vagueness of the “substantial support” language endanger journalists and activists and theoretically expose U.S. citizens to indefinite military detention.

Katherine B. Forrest, district judge in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, presided over the opening salvo of the Hedges suit and delivered a resounding victory to the plaintiffs, and an injunction against enforcement of Sec. 1021, excoriating the government and its case in the process. In her decision she states, “The Government was unable to provide this Court with any assurance that plaintiffs’ activities…would not in fact subject plaintiffs to military detention.”

For its part, the government’s sole defense seemed to be inaction: If no one has yet been detained, then obviously there is no cause for alarm. Basically, their defense is that even though Sec. 1021 says that the government can punch you in the face if it doesn’t like your shirt, it hasn’t done it yet; therefore we must assume it won’t. Judge Forrest wasn’t buying it. Her decision examines various laws pertaining to what the government defines as criminal statutes related to terrorist activities of behavior in “material support” of such activities. In each case, laws are clearly designed to honor due process. She further argues that the plaintiffs are rightly concerned that Sec. 1021 falls outside the scope of constitutionality with respect to habeas corpus and is therefore not consistent with any legal precedent.

This is where it gets really, really interesting.

 Judge Forrest: “Section 1021 appears to be a legislative attempt at an ex post facto ‘fix’: to provide the President (in 2012) with broader detention authority than was provided in the AUMF in 2001 and to try to ratify past detentions which may have occurred under an overly broad interpretation of the AUMF.”

Whoa.

President Obama doesn’t have a journalism problem. He’s not afraid of liberal scholars, protests, or homegrown terrorism on the rise because of access to Jihadist websites. Barack Obama has a Guantanamo problem.

Ah, Guantanamo. Hundreds of suspected terrorists or their affiliates have been brought here for questioning. Scores have been indefinitely detained. Recall then-candidate Obama’s assurance that Gitmo would be closed. Upon becoming president, it didn’t take long for the political reality to set in that the remaining prisoners weren’t coming ashore to stand trial anytime soon.

On the one hand, the government makes the case that Sec. 1021 is no different than existing authority granted under the AUMF. On the other hand, the government stands by the need for this provision to continue its mission to find and prosecute suspected terrorists, as though AUMF isn’t sufficient enough. Judge Forrest barely shields her disdain for this conflicting stance and rightfully concludes that “Section 1021 is, therefore, significantly different in scope and language from the AUMF.” She goes on to wag her finger at the attorneys for the government, saying, “Shifting positions are intolerable when indefinite military detention is the price that a person could have to pay for his/her, or law enforcement’s, erroneous judgment as to what may be covered.”

Back to Hedges et al. for a moment. Stymieing the government’s continued attempt to cover up potential war crimes at Guantanamo may have been an incredible, yet unintended consequence of the Hedges suit. Remember, the plaintiffs in the Hedges suit aren’t suing over Guantanamo. That’s a different fight. Rather, they take issue with the inherent danger of the language to citizens, activists and journalists. Nevertheless, Sec. 1021 is still on the books as the suit is pending appeal. And regardless of whether or not any U.S. citizen has been specifically detained as a result of its passage (and how would we know?) it must disappear.

For his part, President Obama issued a signing statement distancing his presidency from Sec. 1021. But actions speak louder than words and in many ways he has been far more active in assaulting civil liberties than President George W. Bush ever was. Whether through the wide use of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia or numerous examples of prosecutorial overreach—most recently the tragic case of “hacktivist” Aaron Swartz—or the failure to speak out against the alphabet soup of dwindling liberties (SOPA, PIPA, FISA) Obama has given the public little evidence that he cares about this issue. Perhaps even more troubling is that his tenure as a constitutional law professor has been touted so often that one can only assume he understands the complexity of the issue but has chosen to ignore it, or worse take advantage of it. Bush was able to play the no-nonsense (you’re either with us or against us) cowboy card. Obama has chosen to play the steely intellectual card, and in doing so has created legitimate cause for alarm.

All of which brings us back to the gun debate. As much as I am sympathetic to the right to bear arms, I refuse to capitulate to the cheap argument that it includes the right to possess combat-style weaponry. Furthermore, I’ve grown weary of the ignorant protestations from right-wing figures who poison the words of the Founding Fathers and miss the bigger picture altogether.

The more we divorce ourselves from the notion of liberty, the more abstract it becomes; the more divisive our discourse, the more perilous our future. The vociferous gun debate obscures the very real, current and existing assault on our civil liberties. And know this: Were they alive today, not only would Hamilton, Jay and Madison have joined Ellsberg, Hedges and Chomsky as plaintiffs in this lawsuit, they would challenge every right-wing blogger, talk radio host and television pundit who twisted their words to a duel.

With a pistol, not an assault rifle.

 

Illustration: Jon Moreno

 This version has been updated from the original that appears in the February edition of the Long Island Press.