[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 10556]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
                                DISSENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida). Under a 
previous order of the House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, to publicly disagree with the President 
in wartime is seen by some as being somehow un-American. However, such 
dissent in this country has a long and distinguished heritage. Thomas 
Jefferson and James Madison protested John Adams' undeclared war 
against France. Madison in turn presided over a war so unpopular that 
it caused the New England States to consider secession. Abraham Lincoln 
and John Quincy Adams also criticized President James Polk's war on 
Mexico; and Theodore Roosevelt harshly criticized President Woodrow 
Wilson's handling of World War I.
  Efforts to stifle criticism of the President and his administration 
during war also have a long history in this country. The Sedition Act 
of 1798 led to the arrest of many who criticized the Adams 
administration. A new Sedition Act was passed and enforced during World 
War I. It was not until 1964 that the Supreme Court effectively 
eliminated the crime of sedition in the United States and reaffirmed 
the constitutional right of free expression.
  But my own recent experience and the experience of others who opposed 
military action against Iraq demonstrates that there are still many who 
believe freedom of speech should be curtailed when American troops go 
into battle. Respected elected officials have been lambasted for 
criticizing President Bush's foreign policy failures. Musical groups 
have been boycotted for making their anti-war feelings known. A 
screening of Bull Durham at the Baseball Hall of Fame was cancelled 
because two of its stars are outspoken peace advocates.
  When Lincoln was challenged to defend his dissent in 1848, he 
explained that the Founding Fathers' decision to give war-making powers 
to Congress was primarily influenced by a long history of oppressive 
kings involving their peoples in wars under the pretense that it was 
for the public good. ``But your view,'' Lincoln argued to his 
correspondent, ``destroys the whole matter and places our President 
where kings have always stood.''
  Lincoln saw a great peril in the contention that the President should 
be the sole judge of the necessity to invade another country. He wrote, 
``Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall 
deem it necessary . . . and you allow him to make war at his 
pleasure.''
  Theodore Roosevelt had strong views on the need to speak out in 
wartime. Regarding the Sedition Act of 1918, Roosevelt wrote, ``To 
announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we 
are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic 
and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.'' In 
that one eloquent sentence, Roosevelt neatly summed up the point that 
needs to be made. When we disagree with the President and his 
administration during a war, we have not merely a right but a 
responsibility to publicly air those disagreements. Accepting that 
responsibility is imperative for the survival of the Republic as we 
know it. Without it the checks and balances of our separated system of 
government would be lost. The suppression of dissent in wartime would 
provide an unscrupulous or overzealous President with additional 
motivation to wage war. Senator Robert LaFollette said it best on a 
speech on the Senate floor in 1917. ``It is no answer . . . to say that 
when the war is over, the citizen may once more resume his rights and 
feel some security in his liberty and passion. . . . If every 
preparation for war can be made the excuse for destroying free speech 
and a free press . . . then we may well despair of ever again finding 
ourselves for a long period in a state of peace.''
  LaFollette was not un-American nor were Abraham Lincoln or Theodore 
Roosevelt. They were patriots in the true sense of the word as are 
Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon and the Dixie Chicks. Patriotism is 
defined as ``love for or devotion to one's country.'' Our country is 
not one President or one administration or one military action or even 
one flag. It is a place where we are free to openly disagree with our 
President and his decisions. That is what our country stands for. That 
is the principle to which we are devoted, and that is what we love.
  The most recent ostensible reason we went to war to remove Saddam's 
regime was to bring this principle to Iraq. Would we have any 
credibility as freedom preachers if there were no public disagreement 
in our own home? Vocal displays of dissent during war do not hurt the 
cause of democracy and freedom. On the contrary, they provide a shining 
example for those parts of the world that are not yet free. Let us 
continue to show the world what it is like to live in a country where 
one can protest against its leaders without fear of reprisal. Let us 
continue to speak out. Let us continue to be true patriots.

                          ____________________