Palin Promises More Security than Liberty

September 4, 10:51 AMPolitical Issues ExaminerJudah Freed

Previous Next

19 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Political Issues Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Sarah Palin gives her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night in St. Paul, Minnesota. (Source: CNN.com)

Within a string of one-liner attacks on Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin made a chilling statement during her speech last night at the Republican National Convention. 

"Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America," she stated before asking, "He's worried that someone won't read them their rights?"

Sarah Palin's statement and the roar of approval in the arena from the party faithful frightens me more than anything I've heard so far in this election cycle.

What scares me is the implications of her question.  

The implication is that America's foes do not have any rights, that the U.S. Government can kill its enemies at will and with total impunity.

In essence, the inference is that a McCain-Palin administration would have no interest in arresting terrorists as criminals (or war criminals) and allowing them the right to due process through speedy trials in an open court of law.

Extending the logic, unless I'm quite mistaken, her inferred policy statement essentially says: To heck with international law! To heck with the International Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. To heck with the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Is my reasoning faulty here? I'm willing and actually eager to hear that my fears are unjustified. Yet look at the context.

Outside of the St. Paul Xcel Center where Palin was speaking, despite the dearth of reporting by the mainstream media, the police were aggressively going after mostly nonviolent protesters. At best, the police response was disproportional to any provocation. Beyond the mass arrests and the use on the protesters of tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades, tasers, and batons, there have been "preemptive" raids of peaceful arts organizations and similar progressive community groups. The arrests of Democracy Now host Amy Goodman among other clearly identified journalists, in my judgment, are inexcusable.

We worried last week about the police in Denver recreating the mayhem at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. The police response in Colorado was tame compared to what's now happening in Minnesota.

Based on the civil rights violations in Minneapolis-St. Paul before and during the Republican National Convention, based on the inferred promise of more rights violations at home and abroad if the Republican Party retains control of the U.S. Government in November, we have valid reasons to be afraid, to be very afraid.

Perhaps more disturbing is the discovery that Sarah Palin did not write most of her speech last night. The speech was completed weeks ago, well before her selection. Party speech writers have had to scramble since Friday to soften the language for delivery by a women instead of a man. They asked Palin to insert illustrative examples from her life and career.

If you listen to a recording of her speech last night, you can hear the shifts between the old and new text. The policies Sarah Palin espoused were set in place long before she was chosen by McCain as his running mate.

To any person of faith and conscience, the arrogant attitude at the heart of Palin's canned statement raises a profoundly disturbing question: Would the administration of John S. McCain and Sarah Palin ignore or undermine the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights the same way as the administration of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney?

I cannot and will not speak for everyone about what I want to hear from McCain-Palin, yet I surely would feel comforted by a robust declaration of support for the rule of law with devout respect for our natural rights and liberties.

By now you've heard countless times the famous Benjamin Franklin quote about sacrificing our freedom on the altar of homeland security, yet it bears repeating. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Regardless of whether McCain or Obama wins in November, the truth is that we can have both safety and liberty only if and when we individually and collectively practice mindful self rule. This means developing enough personal maturity that we finally outgrow the addictive need to follow any authoritarian government. Toward that end, I write this column.