Can the US gov't allow effective criticism of its policies?
The US government cannot allow effective criticism of its policies. It cannot allow such criticism because it commonly engages in obviously objectionable behavior.
Of course, one would think that we live in a free country where you can criticize your government without being afraid of reprisals. There may be some people who question whether you should be afraid of being punished for what you say. But, most people assume they have freedom of speech.
I don’t think we can make this assumption. The fact is, not everyone is in a position to make an effective criticism of the US government, and those people who are so positioned do not have the right to speak freely in any important sense.
I admit, this claim would frighten our children, so I should not throw the accusation around. However, we should understand the kind of place we live in.
The issue of whether the US government can allow effective criticism is raised by the case of Lt. Watada’s refusal to go back to Iraq. That case is briefly described here,
“FORT LEWIS, Wash. -- The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq barred several scholars on international and constitutional law from testifying yesterday about the legality of the war.
Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, of Honolulu, is charged with missing a movement for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He also faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for accusing the Army of war crimes, denouncing the U.S. for conducting an "illegal war" founded on "lies" and encouraging fellow soldiers to "throw down their weapons."
As the court-martial got under way, military judge Lt. Col. John Head refused to allow almost all defense witnesses to take the stand. Col. Head previously ruled that Lt. Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, could not debate the legality of the Iraq war in court.”
Soldiers in the US military do have the right to say things without being afraid of reprisal. So, the Lt. would be able to express his opinions if he was speaking to his family, or, if he was speaking in the privacy of his church, or someone’s pizza store down the street.
However, as a member of the US military, Lt. Watada cannot speak his mind in such a way it reflects back on the US military. In other words, He could speak his mind so long as he wasn’t a soldier in so doing. By doing so, he would raise the question whether the US military acted of one mind. He could not suggest that there was dissension in the ranks.
Even more importantly than whether he could speak about the advisability of US military policy, is whether he could effectively challenge US government policy effectively. As Lt. Watada is in a position to challenge the war in Iraq more effectively than if he were just a protester out on the street. The difference being that the USG can easily ignore protesters, even if the number of protesters amounted to several million. As the President says, deciding political questions is not a matter of looking at polls. However, if Lt. Watada was correct in his criticism of the USG’s war, then he would make the war impossible to pursue. Lt. Watada would make it possible for any soldier to walk off the field of battle.
The USG cannot allow such a thing.
I think people do not realize the argument that the US government is making on its behalf. Lt. Watada, according to the USG, cannot act upon his criticism of USG policies, especially if they are well founded, because the USG will not allow any criticism based on anyone’s opinions but those of the US government.
That is, in Lt. Watada’s case, he cannot site International law to argue that the United States has committed a Nuremberg type crime. If the United States had just invaded Poland and was in the process of destroying Warsaw, any American Lt. Watada could not argue that soldiers in that army had the right to refuse to destroy Warsaw because it was a crime that has been and could be prosecuted in an international court. An extreme view would be that the refusal to destroy Warsaw and the killing of all Jews within it would amount to treason against the American war effort on Poland.
This might seem to be a terrible policy to pursue. The United States in fact argued that it was the responsibility of the soldiers in the German army to have refused to participate in the invasion of Poland, the destruction of Warsaw, and the killing of Jews, because they were illegal as well as immoral acts.
The current position of the USG is that both the German soldier as well as the American soldier commits treason if they disobey the orders of their superior officers.
The position of the USG with respect to Lt. Watada has implications for other policies both foreign and domestic. So, for example, if there was a law enacted that required the rounding up and extermination of homosexuals in this country because they have committed some unspecified crime, it would also be a crime to dissent from that policy. People who would want to protect homosexuals because it was against international law to discriminate against anyone for their sexual preferences, much less immoral to kill anyone for that reason, would just as easily have no defense against the dictates of such a US government.
The USG hasn’t recently changed its mind on this issue. It refused to allow the legality or morality of the Vietnam War to become an issue in cases of draft evasion. One could not argue, that is, that people were right to refuse induction because it was an illegal war. The courts refused to rule on the issue of the Vietnam War’s legality. They said it was, instead, a political issue to be decided by the legislative branch of government.
The idea that Lt. Watada should not be allowed to argue that reporting to duty in Iraq would violate international law is one example where the US government prevents effective criticism.
Some people believe that we now live ion a dictatorship of a sort could point out how this case demonstrates how far down that road we have gone.
