A ‘letter of heartfelt differences'

To the editor: This is a reply to Bob Fletcher and Robert Ritzer: I take issue with the notion that “Your freedom of speech and religion is primarily the result of America’s military.” A few months ago I addressed just this issue in my letter to this paper. As an active protester against this war I’ve learned first hand that this administration and police forces in Washington and New York City are far more interested in controlling dissent than they are in encouraging free expression. It is particularly irksome to be threatened with arrest for peaceful, patriotic expression of constitutional rights and then be told that these same “authorities” are the guardians and the foundation of our freedoms. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and Rachel Corrie (the American girl run over and killed by an Israeli bulldozer) are some of the true heroes who have devoted and in some cases given their lives to the cause of freedom. Let me be clear: In no way am I saying that persons serving in our military are anything but devoted to the cause of freedom and civil justice. It is the people in high places that I charge with a lack of patriotic fervor. As well, not for a moment do I doubt that the members of American Legion Post 214 are well-intentioned defenders of American liberties. But I cannot blind myself to the fact that in my experience, resistance to allowing full freedom of expression always come from the powerful men who see criticism of their policy as an unpatriotic action. Previously I described the intelligence that led us to invade Iraq as “skewed.” I was vilified for this statement in a letter by Jerry Berman. I would like to amend that statement. In light of the Downing Street Memo and the Blair documents, I would characterize Bush’s rush to war as “totally fabricated and knowingly misleading.” The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are not and have not since WWII been threatened by outside forces. The foreign military involvement we’ve seen is the result of calculated decisions based on economic advantage. And this advantage accrues to a few at the top and not the average American (not that such advantage would ever justify war even if it was equably distributed). Yes, we were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists. Our response has been retributive, juvenile and ineffective. I blame Bush for this incompetence. Saddam Hussein did not knock down those buildings. There are more willing suicide bombers today than there at the time of the WTC attack. We really are threatened by mayhem and destruction. But the assault on our freedom comes from reactionary forces within our borders that see reigning in of criticism as their first objective. I believe “American Exceptionalism” is threatening world stability. This doctrine posits that whatever America does is “ipso facto” moral. Is it any wonder that we are hated abroad? When we pull out of global warming treaties, when we refuse to support the International Criminal Court, when we violate the Geneva Convention and use torture and extradition to interrogate suspects that are uncharged, when wiretaps are put on peace organizations in the name of national security I have to ask: “Is this the America I will allow our troops to die for?” I am grateful that I live in a country and a community where letters of heartfelt differences can be read and discussed. I thank the members of the American Legion and this newspaper for participating in presenting our views. Richard Bennett Warwick