Land of the Free. Home of the Brave. Not.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin

I, and perhaps you, have noticed that frequently in my posts I make direct or tangential references to freedom when discussing America. I will no doubt continue to do so, especially as the election year heats up. I am sure it is clear that I think freedom in America is illusory - a lovely word for use in a politician's sound bite, but no longer a defining characteristic of the greatest and most ambitious political experiment ever undertaken. It seems the 'land of the free and the home of the brave" is no longer either. No doubt that little statement will raise the hackles of several million of my American cousins and they'll wish to invade Canada and track me down (a la Panama and Noriega).

But consider:

Brave?
There are Americans brave to the point of foolhardiness, no doubt. But, Americans, as a populace, are now so brave that by and large they will not just sit tacitly watching as their rights are stripped from them if it provides the illusion of a modicum of assurance that no swarthy middle eastern type will plant a bomb in the local WalMart, they will actually encourage the rape.

Free? Sure.
America was free relative to most any nation preceding its birth and most that have been born since, but is it still? And the foundation of that freedom was what? The Bill of Rights, of course - a statement of principles ingrained as the essence of the nation and binding not people but governments. So how to measure that freedom now? Simply look at the Bill of Rights. I have, and here is how it appears to me:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Peaceably assemble to petition one's government? Try that on the route of a Presidential motorcade and you are apt to be either herded into a wired compound or whisked away to jail toute de suite. The First Amendment has not yet been pronounced dead, but is definitely on life support.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is obviously the most rigorously defended Amendment in the country, so it is still relatively healthy. (It is also one of the most vigorously attacked - and by people who would claim to be staunch supporters of the Constitution.) That said, there is one interesting thing about it that I have never heard or seen to be discussed. It is clear that the framers were meticulous in their choice of words throughout. So, read this one carefully. It does not say "…security of the state…", it plainly says "…security of a free state…". Can this mean anything other than that the framers recognized that a threat to a free state need not come only from foreign aggressors but can also be the government of that state itself? That is, the freedom, not just the state, is vulnerable if the citizenry is forcibly disarmed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

No problems here that I am aware of.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It seems almost silly and insulting to anyone reading this in the post 9/11, Patriot Act world to have to comment here. Dead dead dead dead. 100% dead and never to be revived.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Ditto the 4th Amendment. Extinct as T-Rex and no Jurassic Park in sight.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Ditto the 5th. Ditto the 4th. Long gone. Adios. Sayonara. A bientot. Hasta la vista, Habeas Corpus.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I don't know, frankly.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

See above, numbers 4, 5 and 6. Requiescat in pace. Oops. wait a minute. Let me think. Silly me. Punishment comes after the conviction. So, if you torture a person in order to get a confession or information from them before you actually charge them with an offense and put them on trial and convict them - IF you actually ever charge them with an offense, put them on trial or convict them - then I suppose it cannot be considered cruel or unusual "punishment", could it? 

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Dead, but was it not stillborn anyway? Rights retained by the people? Sure.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

See number 9.

So there it is: a couple of healthy ones, a couple on the shakiest of ground and seemingly doomed, and the others - the important ones - long in the realm of fanciful fiction. Have the terrorists not already won if the nation has lost its soul? 

If I have misinterpreted anything here I'd be delighted to be corrected.

A final observation - relevant in the post 9/11, P.A. universe: I have reread the damned thing over and over and you know what? Nowhere can I find the word "citizen" or "American". I see "people" and "person" used throughout, but not a single "citizen", not a single "American". And, I have checked all the dictionaries I can find and have to conclude that Arabs, Pakistanis, Iraqis and pretty much every other homo sapien on earth qualifies as a "person". Apparently, unlike the current occupiers of the White House and the Hill, the framers were not restrictive in their interpretation of who has inalienable rights.