Tuesday, October 4, 2011

George Orwell's America

The recent assassination of Muslim cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki marks a tragic point in our nation's history and is an indication of how far we've truly drifted from the society envisioned by the Founders. It was once understood that a country only remains free so long as it jealously guards the natural rights of its citizens.

The first objection to Obama's critics in regards to assassination is that Awlaki was well-known to be associating with terrorists and had therefore committed treason; forfeiting his constitutional rights. But as fellow RevoluTimes contributor Wes Messamore has pointed out, Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states differently:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The Constitution mandates that even in the act of treason, a U.S. citizen is entitled to a trial by jury as indicated in the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." 


Not only has the government failed to present any evidence whatsoever that Awlaki is guilty of anything other than participating in free speech, (no matter how ignorant, hateful and evil the speech may be) but White House press secretary Jay Carney, explicitly stated that there would be no evidence presented to the public to substantiate the claims of the Obama Administration that resulted in the unconstitutional assassination of an American citizen.

What's more disturbing is the widespread support among Americans that their president now claims the power to kill anyone he deems worthy of a death warrant; the 1st Amendment and the Constitution in general be damned.

Is this what we've become? A mere shell of the nation of laws established by our forefathers, replaced with a nation of men that only honors their memory out of ritual and rhetoric? Have we long forgotten the warnings given to us by patriots such as Thomas Paine who said:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself"?

It was once taken for granted that liberty once lost, does not return; that the Bill of Rights was not written to protect the popular or the non-controversial--the popular and non-controversial need no such protection. It was adopted specifically to protect the unpopular, despised and the hated.

But as one individual claimed earlier today online in defense of Obama, "Some people need killing..." But exactly who holds the authority to make such decisions? At what point did the 1st and 5th Amendments become nullified? And how could the president being recognized with the power to order the killing of any American he wished be construed as anything but a threat to the American people? Where are the liberals who protested against Bush's civil liberties violations? And to conservatives desiring limited government, exactly at what point do those limits kick in?


 George W. Bush himself declared in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that, "freedom itself was attacked today," and what did he insist on taking in order to keep you safe? Your freedom. But the so-called president of "change" has out-Bushed his predecessor with his most recent circumvention of the Constitution by declaring himself Awlaki's judge, jury and executioner. No doubt we will be reassured in the latest Orwellian Newspeak such unlawful expansions of government power were necessary to protect our freedoms.

As fate would have it I had finished reading Orwell's classic 1984 the day before the assassination was reported. It's always troublesome when such works of fiction become prophecy. In the novel a tyrannical government kidnaps, tortures and murders its own citizens who it deems are guilty of "thoughtcrime". Thoughtcrime is simply to even consider having thoughts that doubt the actions of the State. As Orwell describes it in the book, "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

An American citizen was killed by his government last week for what amounts to thoughtcrime. This is no defense of his actions, views or remarks-but a defense of the rule of law. Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? Do we have inalienable Natural rights derived from our humanity that can not be taken away without due process? Or are we mere subjects to an omnipotent State? If the president holds the authority to kill anyone he deems a "threat" without having to provide any evidence to the public, what defense do the innocent have against  such actions?

If ideas justify assassination, what ideas are safe? Without free thought and speech, (even if those thoughts and words are repulsive) is there any freedom at all?

As Orwell himself said:

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."