by Jeff Milchen

My home of Boulder, Colorado made national headlines recently over conflicting interpretations of a powerful icon, the U.S. flag. It seems that the meaning of a symbol—even one over 200 years old—can be changed in a matter of weeks by the way it’s employed.

For me the U.S. flag always stood for freedom above all else. After all, every country on earth has a flag, but none have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that, despite some failures along the way, has protected the liberty of so many citizens so well, and for so long.

I embraced that symbolism so thoroughly that I founded a non-profit organization with the flag in its logo, so I was curious to find myself sympathizing with those in my community who found the idea of the giant flag unsettling.

At issue was an employee request to drape a mammoth flag in our public library’s entrance, which already flew no less than ten flags outside.

My unease made more sense when I recognized that while millions of citizens were waving the Stars and Stripes, our Constitutional rights were being whittled by Congress’ passing legislation that erodes three core protections: free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process.

And the flag wavers overwhelmingly were silent.

I realized I shared a concern with our librarian--that the flag’s interpretation had been co-opted to symbolize vengeance or solidarity against an enemy more so than solidarity in defense of freedom.

Though we have differing ideas on how to achieve the goal, almost everyone shares the desire to prevent terrorism and enable apprehension and prosecution of killers. But something was missing entirely from the minimal debate preceding the October passage of the “anti-terrorism” bill that vastly expanded government power: namely any evidence that our current civil rights protections enabled the acts of September 11 to occur without advance detection or that those rights hinder any post-attack investigations.

Adding to the already formidable power of the Attorney General, FBI and CIA -- broadened already in the 1996 “anti-terrorism” bill--is chilling when one considers the extent to which those parties have abused their authority in recent history to attack non-violent citizen activists that questioned government and corporate power. The FBI’s well-documented Cointelpro scheme to undermine non-violent social change organizations in the 1960s was executed with less power than it wields today. Some common sense measures like strengthening abysmal air travel security should proceed promptly, but curbing Constitutional rights should require evidence of real benefits to society—benefits compelling enough to override the demonstrable dangers.

Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights is not self-enforcing and even our officially existing liberties, such as rights to due process and a speedy public trial (Fifth and Sixth Amendments), have proven inadequate without vigilant enforcement. Since September 11, several hundred people have endured up to two months of imprisonment without facing criminal charges and without their names even being disclosed, despite the law.

Now Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to take away the right to confidential communications between those detainees and their legal counsel. If we let it happen to them with a complicity of silence, we’ll deserve to lose our own rights.

As Congress expands government power to label and jail people as suspected terrorists without reasonably stringent criteria or judicial review, recall that at the time President Reagan welcomed Osama bin Laden's Mujahadeen allies to the White House as "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers," Nelson Mandela was in prison in South Africa and labeled a “terrorist” by our government.

While “terrorism” may describe the mass murder of 5,000 civilians accurately, it is a subjective, political term which has no place in criminal justice where crimes should be defined by clear and objective statutes.

My discomfort over flag waving stemmed also from the warped form of "patriotism" and political correctness unleashed in recent weeks, discouraging many citizens from loyal dissent. I sympathize with fellow journalist Sam Smith’s observation that "it feels odd ...to be lectured on patriotism by those who until September 11 had evinced little interest in loyalty to any larger entity than themselves and their careers."

If only we had a tenth of those now waving flags actually working to defend the rights it represents.

At the Nuremburg Trials, Hermann Goering said, “people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders...All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce (opponents) pacifists for lack of patriotism.” Legislative titles like the “Patriot Act” (for the House bill expanding police and military powers) should raise alarm for jingoism that would make Goering blush.

Russ Feingold, the only Senator with the guts to oppose the Senate’s “Uniting and Strengthening America” (USA) Act said, "A number of my colleagues said I was right on the merits but felt they had to vote for it.” Clearly, the legislation was named to intimidate and silence dissent even in Congress. Senators reasonably couldn't be expected even to understand much of the 243 page bill before voting on it.

The crucial freedom to dissent must be defended most vigorously when dissenting opinions are least popular. But instead we had White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer pronouncing that good citizens "need to watch what they say" after learning that Bill Maher, host of the TV talk show “Politically Incorrect,” dared to criticize U.S. military policy post-September 11. Fleischer’s chilling remark was omitted from the official record, due we are told to "a transcription error."

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), a watchdog of academia created and chaired by vice-president Cheney’s wife Lynn, stepped up the intimidation tactics this week. ACTA published a report, “Defending Civilization” that accused more than 40 faculty and even students at universities as “short on patriotism” while issuing a broad attack that ''college and university faculty have been the weak link in America's response to the attack.” The report attacked people who, agree with them or not, have spent the bulk of their lives striving to make our country better, such as Jesse Jackson. His “anti-American” behavior? He is accused of encouraging people to “buildbridges and relationships, not simply bombs and walls” in a speech at Harvard Law School.

The greatest threat to America may well come from within. Generations of Americans in the military and social justice movements have fought and died for the civil rights we enjoy today, but they are never secure without vigilance.

While dangerous laws like the USA Patriot Act already have passed, remember that serious attacks on liberties have occurred in each major war, including imprisoning dissidents during the Civil War and World War I, mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and jailing and killing of war protesters during the Vietnam War.

Each time our rights have been curtailed, we not only have struggled successfully to reclaim those rights, but progressed further. For Old Glory to remain a potent symbol of freedom, we must do it again.

Jeff Milchen is the founder of ReclaimDemocracy.org, devoted to revoking illegitimate corporate power and restoring citizen authority over corporations.

###