Principalities & Powersrnbv Samuel FrancisrnEnemies Within and AbovernWithin a few hours of the terrorist attackrnon the World Trade Center and the Pentagonrnlast September, it had becomerncommonplace for even high-rankiirgrngovernment officials and elected leadersrnto say publicly that Americans would justrnhave to get used to fewer constitutionalrnliberties and personal freedoms than theyrnhave traditionally enjoyed. Of course, thatrnwas hardly news, though it may havernbeen the first time such leaders actuallyrnadmitted that our freedoms are dwindling.rnAmericans have been losing theirrnliberties for several generations now and,rnfor the most part, seem entirely contentrnto do so. By the end of the week of Septemberrn11, some callers to radio talkrnshows were saying, quite literally, thatrnthey were willing to give up “all our constitutionalrnrights” if only the governmentrncould keep them safe from terrorists.rnThe govemment seemed ready to oblige.rnPlans to expand wiretapping and surveillancernpowers were perhaps understandable,rnand bans on carrying scissors and razorrnblades on domestic air flights were notrninfringements of constitutional rights inrnany case, but some proposals went well beyondrnreasonable security measures. Arnweek after the attacks, the WashingtonrnTimes carried a front-page but none-too-accuraternstory headlined, “Wartime presidentialrnpowers supersede liberties,” whichrnargued that the President’s declaration of arnnational emergency gave him authority torn”impose censorship and martial law.” It alsornmisquoted the U.S. Constitution andrngarbled American history on the suspensionrnof habeas corpus. “In ‘cases of rebellionrnor invasion [when] the public safetyrnmay require it,’ tlie Constitiition pemiits arnpresident to suspend the right of habeasrncorpus—as Lincoln did during the CivilrnWar,” the story reported.rnIn fact, die Constitution (in Article I,rnsection 9) does permit the suspension ofrnhabeas corpus, but says nothing about permittingrnthe president to do so. The suspensionrnpower occurs in the article thatrndeals with the legislative branch, and thernwhole point about Lincoln’s suspensionrnof habeas corpus is that Chief JusticernRoger Taney held in a famous ruling (exrnparte Menyman) that only the Congress,rnnot the president, had the power to suspendrnit. Taney cited precedents fromrnboth previous American presidents andrnjurists as well as Blackstone and the examplernof British monarchs. Nevertheless,rnCongress, under Radical Republican control,rnupheld Lincoln, who proceeded tornlock up pretty much anyone he wanted asrnlong as he wanted. As late as 1946, however,rnthe Court overruled a presidentialrnsuspension oi habeas corpus in Hawaiirnthat lacked statutory authority.rnRegardless of what emergency powersrnthe president really has, the seeming eagernessrnwith which Americans of all ranksrnand degrees were willing to surrenderrntheir freedoms was alarming enough forrnsome civil libertarians to start squeakingrnin protest. The zeal to smother freedomrnalso contrasted strongly with the silencernabout the massive immigration into thernUnited States that made the terrorist attacksrnpossible. In the week after the attacks,rnthe FBI nabbed some 75 foreignrnnationals, mainlv on immigration violations,rnwho were suspected of havingrnsomething to do with the massacres. Thernterrorist hijackers themselves—the “cowards”rnas various public leaders kept callingrnthem (this froiu a nation that routinelyrndrops bombs from 30,000 feet and pushesrnbuttons on guided missiles hundreds ofrnmiles away) —were all foreigners who hadrnentered the country more or less legallyrnand had managed to function quite normallyrnwithin the Arabic-iVIuslim subculturernthat has emerged in the United Statesrnas a result of immigration. Yet at no timerndid public leaders—who did not hesitaternto inform us that the Constitution was essentiallyrnexpendable—suggest that immigrationrnshoidd be restricted or that somernimmigrants and aliens already herernshould be kicked out.rnIndeed, the ruling class not only neverrneven mentioned immigration and itsrnconsequences as possible threats to nationalrnsecurit}’, but it persistently insinuatedrnthat, for all the dangers of foreign terrorism,rnthe threats of “racism” andrnintolerance were even more dangerous.rnThe morning after the attacks, AmericarnOnline posted a greeting that instructedrnits users to guard themselves against “intolerance”rnand celebrate diversity, andrnthe graphic showed a young black manrnreading smilingly from a large book tornseveral young white people, male and female.rn(Only whites harbor “racism,” yournknow, and only blacks are able to curernthem of it.) Whatever the dangers ofrnglobal terrorism, the real enemies remainedrn”racism” and the white peoplernwho practice it. In the next few days,rnnews stories about “hate crimes” againstrnArab-Americans. Muslims, and evenrnSikhs competed with stories about tiie attacksrnthemselves and their consequences.rnBoth the president and the attorneyrngeneral went out of their way torndenounce such crimes and warn againstrnany displays of intolerance against Arabsrnand Muslims, and President Bush evenrntraipsed out to a local mosque, where hernunbosomed various banalities about tolerancernand stupidly remarked, of a religionrnthat boasts of its warriors and its devotionrnto jihad, “Islam is peace.”rnOf course, attacks on Arabs and Mirsliinsrnwere as irrational and ugly as the’rnwere illegal, but, like much of the overreactionrninvolving intensified securityrnmeasiues, the overindulgence in thernrhetoric of tolerance may point to purposesrnother than controlling mass hysteriarnagainst aliens. What Americans werernessentially being told by their leaders andrnthe ruling class in general was that thernAmerican public identity was no longerrndefined by the Constitution or the libertiesrnit protects but by immigration itselfrnand the kind of countrv that refuses to restrictrnit. We can get along without thernConstitution if we have to, but we cannotrnhalt or restrict immigration without cea.singrnto be the country we are and want tornbe, the kirrd of country (the ruling classrnlikes to pretend) that we always havernbeen. As Angela Kelley, deputy directorrnof the National Immigration Forum, remarkedrn(in a statement that confirmedrnher genius for regurgitating cliches):rnWe’re a nation of immigrants. Yourncouldn’t tr’ to solve the problem b’rnattacking all immigrants without reallyrnattacking America at its core,rnand then you’re giving the terroristsrnwhat they want.rnImmigration and our willingness to acceptrnit—not the Constitution and certainlyrnnot the historic identity of the nationrn—is now the “core” of America.rn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn