HR 6166

Posted by: duckandgather on: October 5, 2006

• In: predictions
• 1 Comment

In a posting below, commenter Andy pointed to HR 6166, a bill in Congress that, on its face, seems to threaten the civil liberty of all Americans. Looking at a bullet point list of the bill’s highlights, it certainly seems that Congress may be quite interested in granting the President imperial powers. In other words, they’re about to do exactly what the Founders feared most: they’re about to make the President King.

In history, including America’s own, Kings have used their “God-granted” absolute powers to stamp out foes, including mere critics. That is, in the past, Kings have had citizens thrown in jail for nothing more than political dissent. In fact, until the 1950s, the US government did the same thing from time to time (see, e.g., the “Wobblies“).

But the 1950s saw a breakthrough in the US concerning the rights of dissenters. Many, if not most, recall the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of Education that concerned the equal rights of African Americans. But fewer recall the 1957 case of Yates vs. United States. That was the first case in which the Supreme Court actually protected the People’s right to forcefully dissent against the government. In that case, the speech at issue went so far as to “advocat[e] the forceful overthrow of the government.”

In the 50 years that have passed since Yates, it has become axiomatic that Americans can say just about whatever the hell they want without government recourse. This axiom has been embraced by both the Far Left and the Far Right in America.

Of course, there are cracks in this edifice. The BBC video that Sean blogged about — The Power of Nightmares — depicted some youths of Middle Eastern heritage being arrested and convicted of terrorism. This was in the wake of 9/11. One set of these kids seemed to be simply visiting Disneyland, while another set seemed simply to be playing paintball in Virginia.

I haven’t bothered reading about these cases. I am troubled that innocent people might have gone to jail. But here is what I suspect I’d find in those cases: (1) every defendant was a practising Muslim; and (2) every defendant expressed support for the visions (including perhaps forceful overthrow of the US government) and violent actions of Islamic extremists, including Bin Laden.

Now if (1) and (2) had been the only evidence in these cases, Yates would have prohibited convictions. That’s why “actions” like video-ing Disneyland and playing paintball were necessary to the cases. And sure, since those actions are about as common as taking a poo, it would seem the government may have accomplished an end-around Yates in those cases.

Still, even if those cases were fishy, I say they were a product of the paranoia that gripped America in the first couple of years after 9/11. But since then, the paranoia has subsided.

For example, consider the most recent “terrorism” cases in Canada and Britain. Say what you will about those cases being governmental frame-ups. But if they are frame-ups, the government is at least coming up with better, more narrow “stories”. In other words, the “actions” of the “terrorist” defendants have gone from visiting Disneyland and playing paint ball, to allegedly ordering tons of explosive fertilizer and allegedly creating explosive liquids.

It’s much scarier when the government criminalizes common behavior like taking a poo, versus resorting to making up elaborate frame-up stories that are untrue. We have no chance defending against the first; against the second, we have at least a puncher’s chance.

Basically what I’m saying is that the big fear of the Far Left that government will revert to pre-1957 behavior and start criminalizing basic political dissent (like, for example, the political dissent in our various blogs) is misguided. I say this because the Far Right has the same fear. And I don’t just mean those jokers who dress up in military fatigues and call themselves “militias”.

No. I mean a dinosaur like Pat Buchanan. Check out this quote: “[W]hen we hear phrases like ‘new world order,’ we release the safety catches on our revolvers.” What’s this guy concerned about? Check Buchanan’s positions on various issues.

Sure, the guy is a reactionary on many social issues. But I, for one, read what he has to say on Agriculture (well, I’m thinking about CSAs), Campaign Reform, Congressional Reform, Energy, Environment (well, I do like the word “local”), Foreign Policy, Health Care (well, at least he does “get” there’s something wrong with Big Pharm), Sanctions, Social Security, Taxes, and Trade, and observe that he seems a lot closer to Green-libertarianism than either Democrats or Republicans.

My bottom line: both the Far Left and the Far Right share an equal interest in resisting any effort of the government to criminalize political dissent. So the likelihood of HR 6166 leading to that effect seems remote.

Conversely, if the pre-Yates nightmare scenario does come to pass, then it, like Kelo before it, will serve to awaken the Far Left and Far Right to their common interest. In that case, life in America would become quite “interesting.”