“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school…”
”...It’s a wonder I can think at all…” (Paul Simon, Kodachrome)
These lyrics played in my mind as I read the news about two Bay Area students being questioned by the Secret Service. It’s a strange country that sends its young people to school to learn about the rights they have under our Constitution (and under Miranda v. Arizona), but then tells those same students that they have no rights at all: Secret Service Questions Students (link from this entry at MetaFilter)
Apparently there was a classroom discussion about the war in Iraq in which two students expressed the opinion that we would all be better off if someone assassinated the president (or something to that effect, I don’t know the exact details). As I’m sure you all know, the Secret Service takes all such threats seriously and so it arrested these two students when it was called in to investigate this situation.
Perhaps this article is more meaningful for me because I spent part of my high school years in the Bay Area (I even took my SATs at Oakland High, the school in question in this article), but I thought this article was noteworthy because in my youth I think I might have made similar comments in a such a classroom discussion. There but for the grace of God (and the decade that has passed since I was in high school) go I. It struck me as very chilling. As one of the teachers involved noted, those students will probably never express an opinion about anything ever again.
What bothers me about the way this situation was handled (aside from the fact that the Secret Service was notified at all—frankly, I think the teacher should have pointed out that such comments are inappropriate and illegal, rather than immediately calling in the goon squad) is that the students’ parents were not notified prior to the interrogation—and when the students inquired about their rights, they were told: “we own you, you don’t have any legal rights”.
The whole issue strikes me as a tempest in a teapot, but some wingnut would probably say that the tragedy at Columbine “shows that the threat from students should not be underestimated” or something similar. What I think this shows is that kids should be careful to phrase such wishful thinking in a manner that makes it clear that they have no intention of being the agent of death. Something along the lines of “We should all chip in for a big bag of pretzels for Bush” or “Gee, wouldn’t it be great if Cheney had fatal heart attack” or “All our problems would be solved if Karl Rove got hit by a bus” would not be as likely to attract unwelcome attention from the Secret Service.
Do any of those expressions suggest much maturity? Not really, but we’re talking about high school kids, not adults—which is why they should be protected from their own foolishness until they grow up. We should worry more that their rights were violated than we should about their (presumably offhanded) statements in class.
Talk about an over-reaction…I agree the teacher should have told them that the remarks were inappropriate and maybe given them some extra homework to show why. They were probably doing it from immaturity and to show off.\r
\r
Definitely not handled appropriately.\r
Since we are talking about a class-room situation, I don’t see why the comments even need to labeled as “inappropriate”. As you pointed out, they are highschool students. Such a comment could have sparked a great discussion of US politics and assassination. Did previous assassinations or attempted assassinations actually achieve significant change? etc. Yes, as comments go, they were probably just saying that to try to sound cool to their friends. But getting the secret service to come in and question them? I suppose it is fitting. Secret Service - SS. Hitler would have approved as would Pol Pot (except he would have shot the teacher as well). Perhaps that’s next on Mr Bush’s agenda. Where exactly would a good place for the US killing fields be? Do you think he’s picked out a plot?
Gomichild,\r
\r
I’m sure you’re right: I know I would have made such remarks simply to show off. I agree that a homework assignment on the duties of the Secret Service (particularly with respect to the First Amendment) would have been a far better way to handle the situation.\r
\r
Andrew,\r
\r
Bush certainly behaves like Hitler sometimes, but I don’t think he is downright evil—at least, not to the extent of picking out killing fields in the United States! He is no friend of the Bill of Rights (or of rights in general, except for those he reserves for himself), but in this case I think he allows this sort of questioning to take place because he knows that it will chill criticism in the future. It’s very similar, I think, to his silence when Republicans came “mighty close” to accusing Sen. Daschle of treason for criticizing Bush’s diplomatic failure at the U.N. He allows it to happen because he knows that he only stands to benefit from it. If it backfires, he can always claim that he wasn’t involved. If it works, however, then he gets what he wants without getting his hands dirty. A more patriotic (and more intelligent) president would encourage dissent, but Bush prefers to see it stifled whenever possible. \r
\r
Would he actually have these students (or their teacher) punished for speaking out against him? I strongly doubt it, but I also strongly doubt that he will ever stand up for anyone’s right to disagree—just ask Jacques Chirac!
You know, I’m not convinced when you say Bush is not evil. He seems to take a sadistic delight in death and appears to have no empathy with the feelings of others. Maybe this makes him a psychopath rather than evil, but then, how may good psychopaths have you known?\r
In his case, I would say actions speak louder than words - even if we ignore the Afghan/Iraq messes, we can look at his record on international treaties and agreements. Not one of his positions has been on what I would call a “good” side - all have tended towards the dark, evil side of the American Nightmare.\r
I think he is evil, and the USA and the world will remember his reign with a profound sense of relief that it has ended (and the sooner that day arrives, the better). Oh, and if the Secret Service is reading this, I have no intention of speeding up the process using anything but legal methods.
I get the distinct impression that Bush feels a great sense of pride in being legally authorized to wield powers that give him control of whether others live or die. His record as both the owner of Texas and occupant of the White House seem to uphold this view. \r
\r
Still, I don’t think he is evil exactly. Rather he is an unschooled and overly arrogant man who assumes that everything he does has God’s blessing—and that all those who oppose him can be lumped into one big group, whether they be terrorists, sovereign nations, Democrats, or protesters. \r
\r
But his (mis)use of Secret Service protection certainly borders on a serious threat to the freedom of speech, just ask Brett Bursey! In any case, Bush cannot truly claim to be a defender of freedom, not with his record.
Unfortunately, the attributes you assign to the current occupant of the White House (unschooled and overly arrogant) are those generally believed by non-Americans to be those of every American - making Dubya a perfectly representative leader of the USA. Though I know that there are Americans who are well-schooled (actually, Bush is very well-schooled indeed- he’s uneducated - by choice) and not at all overly arrogant, when I meet ones who think that nuking Iraq and the whole of the Middle East would be a good idea, I despair.\r
I recently suggested to an American that sanctions would be a good idea - he thought I meant against France - I meant against the USA. Unfortunately for the world, most of the USA’s population is so parochial and ignorant that they wouldn’t notice. If only Japan would show some cojones and keep to their (US-imposed) constitution, breaking off diplomatic relations with a country that wages unprovoked war…
That’s an interesting idea. Unfortunately it seems that Japan and the US are so inextricably tied together that it is difficult to tell where one starts and the other stops. \r
I agree that sanctions against the US or at least against US interests (ie US companies) might be the only way to slow the place down.\r
They have ignored the UN, ignored public opinon, all but destroyed democracy and everyone seems to have their heads buried in the sand. It’s as if there has been a global sigh of resignation. “Oh well, yes the action was illegal, yes they lied to the world, no there is no proof of WMD, yes everyone who stood their ground against the action has been labelled either a turncoat or ridiculed or worse and yes even domestically the US seems to be recreating a Nazi-like state complete with SS (a couple more concentration camps, a few internments of “suspect” US citizens and we are there) but, what’s done is done, and they’re so powerful, and what can we do?”\r
\r
So most people seem to have let the whole thing go, safe in the knowledge that at the very least, a bad man (Saddam Hussein) has been removed from power. That’s good, right?\r
\r
Well, no. It’s not. Vigilanteism is usually considered to be a crime. When people take the law into their own hands they are usually punished. That is why we have processes and procedures, courts and established standards of behaviour.\r
\r
The US is a rogue state acting globally in the pursuit of its own interests and using the guise of the promotion of democracy to do it. “We are acting to protect all of YOUR interests,” they say. “Who are you going to call in your darkest hour? Who will be there to help? We will.” They would have us believe. But do you call on a vigilante when you need help or do you call on the authorities?\r
\r
Sanctions and fast. This has gone on too long.\r
\r
Andrew
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.