Criminal Law Blog
June 25, 2006
Lives Lost and Values Held (or Sacrificed)
“We cannot have free government without elections. And if the rebellion can force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly be claimed to have conquered and ruined us.”
Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln said this during a war in which sacrifice was commonplace, when during a single battle—Antietam— the Union alone suffered 2,108 dead.
I would rephrase President Lincoln’s comments to apply today to our First and Fourth Amendment rights:
“We cannot have government of free people without a free press protected by the First Amendment. We cannot have a free people if the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution does not protect them in their homes, persons, and papers.
And if the war on terror can force us to go without the First and Fourth Amendments, the terrorists might fairly be claimed to have conquered and ruined us.”
In proceeding with warrantless wiretaps of telephone conversations, the President has shamelessly de-emphasized the value we place on “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Gen. Michael Hayden, the President’s latest appointee as Director of Central Intelligence publicly denied that the Fourth Amendment only permits search warrants to be issued upon a showing of probable cause. He was wrong.
Mr. Bush said: “The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.” (Quote from CNN.com).
In the wake of news about the government reviewing certain financial transactions without a warrant, Vice-President Cheney criticizes the media for disclosing “vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult to prevent future attacks against the American people. (Quote from 6/24/2006 Austin American Statesman.)
Lincoln was willing to sacrifice the lives of many men, if necessary, but was unwilling to sacrifice the values for which those men were dying. And in his unwillingness to sacrifice those values, he honored those dead soldiers and made all the more plain what values he would not sacrifice. In his words: “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
The loss of any soldier is all too great, particularly to his or her loved ones and friends. But soldiers and their families usually understand that dying in combat is a serious risk of their occupation and that if they die, they died serving not just their country, but serving to protect ideas that American society values. As of today, the loss of American soldiers, sailors, and marines stands at 2,511 dead since the war in Iraq began over one year ago.
Bush’s willingness to sacrifice 4th Amendment rights and Cheney’s criticism of those who exercise their rights under the 1st Amendment (for talking about Bush’s sacrifice of our 4th Amendment rights) give no honor to our heroic fallen. Their willingness to re-define torture has only brought American stature down world-wide and given terrorists an opportunity to argue (though not credibly) that they are only treating our soldiers as we would treat their colleagues.