Beyond the Politics of Fear: Reclaiming Our Civil Liberties

The first impediment is the “leftist” label that’s commonly applied to defenders of civil liberties, usually in a derogatory way. Greenwald clearly established that civil liberties are some of “the elemental values on which our nation was founded,” but have been twisted by politicians (and the media, taking politicians’ lead) into something very different, even undesirable. He described being criticized for “what I thought were non-ideological ideas… [like] presidents shouldn’t break the law,” and pointed out the tendency of certain columnists to call people interested in presidential prosecution “liberal score-settlers,” as though non-liberals couldn’t possibly be interested in holding anyone accountable for rampant civil rights violations.

Rather than recognize civil liberties as a foundational element of democracy, critics call Greenwald and his colleagues “civil liberties extremists.” In response, Greenwald declared, “I consider that to be a huge compliment… there’s no way to believe in that document [the Constitution] without being an extremist about it.” The text of the Constitution clearly protects liberties like free speech, and takes great care to limit presidential power. Just because Bush spent the last eight years ignoring these limitations doesn’t make them nonexistent.

Though it’s “irrational” to affix a “leftist” label on defenders of the Constitution, Greenwald brought up a new way in which that label can be viewed even more negatively. Barack Obama’s election has supposedly brought us into a “post-partisan” age in which, according to media portrayal, “the greatest accomplishment [Obama] can aspire to is to scorn the left.” Much praise of Obama is grounded in this post-partisanism, rather than in any liberal values he might hold. This lends the “leftist” label even more negativity: it’s not just inherently "bad" to be on the left, but to be there also means you haven’t embraced the post-partisan new world order. Politicians who defend civil liberties not only get labeled leftist, but also partisan and unwilling to compromise. All this for supporting what the Constitution requires.

The idea that a president, even Obama, should govern by fiat is another obstacle to civil liberty. Rather than place trust in Obama to follow the Bush administration’s example of heavy executive power but be a benevolent dictator, we should take caution to ensure that government goes back to doing what it’s supposed to do—protect us, not infringe on us.

Despite all the change we think Obama has brought (or will bring), Greenwald reminded the audience that “There is a permanent Washington political class that doesn’t go anywhere when we have an election,” and there still exist many folks in Washington “who are nowhere near accepting the imposition of limitations on what they can do.” These folks have a “vested interest in downplaying the last eight years” and continuing its ominous precedents, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.

The last impediment to civil liberty that Greenwald cited was the troubling idea that we shouldn’t insist on prosecuting our political leaders for their criminal offenses. This may stem from Obama’s own assertion that “what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed [to] looking at what we got wrong in the past.” Problem is, we can’t get things right in the future unless we correct what we got wrong in the past. Greenwald pointed out that we did the same thing with Nixon, with Iran-Contra—and our nation as a whole regularly prosecutes and imprisons people for far less serious crimes. Why let our most powerful, high-profile people get away with much worse?

“If you announce to political leaders that there’s no consequence for breaking the law,” said Greenwald, you simply ensure they will continue to do so. He cited an absurd Ruth Marcus article that simultaneously claims punishment is not the only way to prevent wrongdoing, that politicians are undeterred by the threat of punishment, and that actions taken under legal advice should not be prosecutable. She also assigns a mere “symbolic benefit” to prosecution.

Greenwald revealed the ridiculous nature of arguments like Marcus’ by saying, “We cannot be a nation of laws unless there are consequences for breaking the laws that we pass.” On the same note, we need to pass laws that are appropriate and prosecute them appropriately. We need laws that protect our freedom rather than limit it, and we need to prosecute all law-breakers rather than those who lack the money or power to block prosecution.

The inspiring keynote was followed by a plenary discussion titled “Taking Back America.” Greenwald was joined by Michael (Wes) Macleod-Ball, ACLU Chief Legislative Counsel; William Strickland, Professor of Political Science at UMass Amherst; and Nancy Murray, Director of Education for the ACLU of Massachusetts. Carol Rose directed some questions at the panelists, then opened it up to the audience.

Macleod-Ball emphasized the need for a comprehensive and highly visible evaluation of executive branch abuses of power, and reminded us of the impending reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Strickland had some of the best one-liners of the day, opening with the controversial assertion that he would “guillotine Bush,” and describing the Bush administration as “neo-comic government” that reminded him of “Bugs Bunny gone wild.” Nancy Murray brought up the troubling fusion centers that compile and share (potentially unreliable and unverified) information about citizens and assume that we are guilty until proven innocent.

Macleod-Ball and Greenwald both emphasized that the administration needs to be prosecuted not just for "illegal" activity, but for unethical or questionable activity in general, as subsequent legalization of certain actions does not necessarily make them acceptable. After the discussion, the group broke up into individual workshops focusing on free speech, LGBT rights, immigrant rights, racial justice, surveillance, the bill of rights, and torture.

As Macleod-Ball put it, “We need to have a vehicle that is going to allow us to focus the nation’s attention on the abuses that have been going on.” Macleod-Ball proposed a "Church Committee" like that used for Watergate, but it's still not clear what the best vehicle would be (though the ACLU has a general plan). What is clear is that we need such a vehicle, and we need to drive it as far as it can go. Otherwise, we remain vulnerable to further attacks on our liberty—from our own government, not from terrorists.