Up in the Windy City, Mayor Rahm Emanuel is preparing to host both a NATO summit and the G8 summit. And, since we're living in a dangerous world, new security measures are a must.
Mr. Emanuel wants to spend money on the summits without first getting approval from the City Council. He wants local police to be empowered to deputize out-of-state law enforcement officers and he wants to be able to restrict the times and locations of protests.
He claimed the requested measures would be temporary - to shut down protesters while the world's eyes were on Chicago. But, like most "temporary" government measures, the changes would have been permanent. The police want more power to deal with any possible scenario - no matter how far-fetched it might be.
Here's an idea, Mr. Emanuel, why not allow Chicago to be a shining beacon of just what the First Amendment means. You chose to have these summits come to your city; in other words, you invited the problems you foresee. Let the world see just how much the right to assemble and voice your grievances means to Americans.
The greatest threat to democracy, Mr. Mayor, is intolerance of differing opinions. Sure, free speech can be ugly. It can be rude. It can be inconvenient. But the people's dissent serves as a check on government. Instead of being afraid of what protesters might say and do while the world is watching, embrace this celebration of the Bill of Rights.
People have died in the streets of Cairo, Damascus and other cities throughout the Arab world over the last year because the authoritarian regimes would not tolerate dissent. In this country we have witnessed the orderly handing over of power for more than two centuries because dissenting opinions are not only tolerated, but encouraged.
Petty tyrants must be in control of everything. Differing opinions must not be tolerated. A true democrat embraces the cacophony of voices and celebrates the people's right to be heard.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Sunday, October 23, 2011
More questions than answers
One of the trademarks of a dictatorship is the Law of Rule. When the forces of democracy finally topple the old regime (which they always do), the clarion call is for the Rule of Law. In order for civil society to evolve, the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the Law of Rule must be done away with.
But in nearly every one of those countries where the old regime has been replaced, the old dictator has either taken refuge in a friendly country or met a gruesome end. This past week in Libya was no exception. Col. Muammar Gaddafi was killed after attempting to escape from his hometown of Sirte.
The former dictator was found hiding in a culvert after his convoy came under fire from NATO forces.
Exactly how Col. Gaddafi met his end is not certain. What is certain is that it was an extra-judicial killing - in other words, Col. Gaddafi was murdered.
Sure, not too many folks are going to be too upset that he's dead. But, does killing a defenseless man who has just been captured make life in the new Libya any better than life in the old Libya? What does it say about the prospects of the Rule of Law?
A larger question is whether NATO forces should have been involved in what amounted to a civil war in Libya. Was there any justification for outside forces to align themselves directly with one side in an internal conflict in another part of the world? Let's not kid ourselves, by declaring no-fly zones in Libya, NATO was providing support for anti-Gaddafi forces in the country. What price will be paid by the new government? What promises were made? What was the cost of NATO's air power?
The task in Libya is now to establish a new government and constitution and to implement the Rule of Law so that all of the trappings of a democratic society can evolve. Unfortunately, the first chance the new rulers had to implement the Rule of Law was an abject failure.
See also:
"Another one down," Gamso for the Defense (Oct. 21, 2011)
"On the killing of Moammar Gaddafi," Koehler Law Blog (Oct. 21, 2011)
"Mystery surrounds Gaddafi's end," BBC News (Oct. 21, 2011)
But in nearly every one of those countries where the old regime has been replaced, the old dictator has either taken refuge in a friendly country or met a gruesome end. This past week in Libya was no exception. Col. Muammar Gaddafi was killed after attempting to escape from his hometown of Sirte.
The former dictator was found hiding in a culvert after his convoy came under fire from NATO forces.
Exactly how Col. Gaddafi met his end is not certain. What is certain is that it was an extra-judicial killing - in other words, Col. Gaddafi was murdered.
Sure, not too many folks are going to be too upset that he's dead. But, does killing a defenseless man who has just been captured make life in the new Libya any better than life in the old Libya? What does it say about the prospects of the Rule of Law?
A larger question is whether NATO forces should have been involved in what amounted to a civil war in Libya. Was there any justification for outside forces to align themselves directly with one side in an internal conflict in another part of the world? Let's not kid ourselves, by declaring no-fly zones in Libya, NATO was providing support for anti-Gaddafi forces in the country. What price will be paid by the new government? What promises were made? What was the cost of NATO's air power?
The task in Libya is now to establish a new government and constitution and to implement the Rule of Law so that all of the trappings of a democratic society can evolve. Unfortunately, the first chance the new rulers had to implement the Rule of Law was an abject failure.
See also:
"Another one down," Gamso for the Defense (Oct. 21, 2011)
"On the killing of Moammar Gaddafi," Koehler Law Blog (Oct. 21, 2011)
"Mystery surrounds Gaddafi's end," BBC News (Oct. 21, 2011)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)