Some Americans favor the federal government’s post-9/11 assumption of power to arrest Americans and treat them as “enemy combatants” in the “war on terrorism.” It doesn’t matter to them that the Pentagon now has the power to round up Americans, keep them in prison camps indefinitely, torture them, and deny them all the rights and guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The reason it doesn’t bother them is that they figure it would never happen to them, only to other people.
That attitude brings to mind the famous poem by German Pastor Martin Niemoller that was addressed to German intellectuals who failed to oppose the Nazi extermination of “enemies of the state” by pursuing a strategy of targeting separate groups:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then … they came for me … And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
There is also another important factor relating to a free society that Americans should consider about this post-9/11 power that is now being claimed by the Pentagon and other federal officials. That factor involves the fundamental right of freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Once it seeps into the consciousness of the American people that the federal government now wields the omipotent power to arrest, punish, and detain people indefinitely without trial, a pall of silence will almost certainly fall over the land with respect to criticism of the Pentagon and the rest of the federal government.
Freedom of speech entails the certainty that no matter what you say about the government there is nothing that government officials can do about it. That certainty disappears, however, with the omnipotent power to take people into custody, torture them, and keep them imprisoned without a trial. Even though the power might not be employed, everyone will know that it can be employed at some opportune time in the future, especially in a major crisis.
Thus, the tendency will be to become more circumspect with respect to criticism of the federal government because of the possibilty that in the midst of a big “wartime” crisis, “patriotic” citizens will report to the authorities critical comments about government that people have made in the past. The attitude will tend toward, “Why take a chance? I’m better off just keeping my mouth shut, and so are my spouse and children.”
I personally experienced this phenomenon several years ago while visiting Chile. Chilean military strongman Augusto Pinochet had recently stepped down as president . I attempted to engage ordinary Chileans in political discussion and noticed a tremendous reticence among them to do so. I finally asked one of them why this was so. She explained to me that throughout the Pinochet regime people were very careful about making critical comments about the government.
The reason for that was that everyone was aware of Pinochet’s power to round up people as suspected terrorists, torture them and sexually abuse them, and incarcerate them indefinitely without trial — the same post-9/11 power that the U.S. government now wields over the American people. Even though Pinochet had mostly employed such power during the crisis period following his coup, everyone knew that he could employ it again at any time against any Chilean labeled a terrorist.
Moreover, much like the CIA has been doing since 9/11, Pinochet’s henchmen were traveling the world executing people they considerd to be terrorists, such as former Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier and his American assistant Ronni Moffitt.
Thus, even if Pinochet wasn’t still rounding up, torturing and abusing Chileans, and keeping them jailed indefinitely without trial, and sometimes executing them, the Chilean people knew that the power to do such things was always there on a standby basis. That’s why they remained so cautious about conversing about political matters, even several months after Pinochet had left office. The deeply seated mindset of caution and fear among the citizenry did not automatically disappear with Pinochet’s departure from office.
The power to take people people into custody as suspected terrorists, cart them away to some prison camp or dungeon, torture or sexually abuse them, incarcerate them without trial for the rest of their lives, and perhaps even execute them is the most tyrannical power of all. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights are worthless in the face of such power. As Americans slowly come to that realization, the tendency will be for them to shut their mouths and, even worse, close their minds.