Recently, the Congress saw fit to formally denounce an expression of free speech, MoveOn.org’s full page add in the New York Times popularly known as the “General Betray Us” ad, with overwhelming majorities in both houses.

Regardless of your personal reaction to MoveOn’s ad, whether you liked or disliked it, became excited, angered, amused, disgusted, or whatever, the subsequent activities of our federal legislature ought to alarm everyone on the ideological spectrum, equally and universally. The people behind the ad have a right; the nature of free speech means that people are going to say things you don’t like/disagree with. Opposing viewpoints will surely surface, and this is not altogether a bad thing. Why shouldn’t we have a broad range of beliefs and opinions to give our national community variance and vibrancy? The feelings of congress, it would appear, is that this robust spectrum of beliefs and opinions is tolerable only to the extent that it keeps within reasonable bounds, specifically that it stops short of challenging norms set down by state power. It is this precedent set forth by congress, not by MoveOn, that is especially instructive of what’s gone wrong with America and where we should focus our efforts of reform.

What can such an entity that would so suppress our rights be considered other than an outright enemy of democracy? Their “resolution” is a direct, open assault on the American way of life, plain and simple. Consider the implications of their aggression, what it warrants of the common people. We have just sustained fire, and the justification for responding forcefully against the aggressor is real and clear. Fight against congress? Why not? While our constitution surely includes a provision for government, it certainly has no mandate for this specific government, and, as it stands, this collective of elites that presumes to rule this society have formally declared their opposition to its very foundation. More than suppressed our freedoms, they have attacked them (the word “terrorism” comes to mind). Recalling our commitment to our homeland’s defense, we ought not allow unprovoked aggression against our way of life stand. Again, these principles are not specific to any individual political or ideological camp; an assault on anyone’s freedom of speech is an assault on everyone’s freedom of speech. The precedent that such congressional action sets is not something to be taken lightly.

Beyond the precedent of the resolution’s causes and justification, I feel it is important to consider, critically, the implications of the resolution itself. I am personally very skeptical of what shifts in the political sphere might accompany the passage of such a resolution that calls on members of congress “to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces…”, and “to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity…” (the resolution’s own language). So, just for purposes of reality-checking, we are all, as American citizens, still subject equitably and universally to the law of the land, right? There aren’t any classes or factions of the citizenry that are in any way exempt from scrutiny, correct? I ask because I’d like to believe that nobody, least of all the swaths of blissfully obedient and docile gun-toting warriors of the imperial army, has acquired the sense, real or perceived, of general impunity or infallibility. We scrutinize one another’s actions in hope of establishing a standard of justice, and I will say, while appreciating fully the risk of being tarred and feathered for not “supporting our troops”, that if you operate outside the law, act in moral and ethical repugnance, or otherwise dishonor yourself and humankind, you are deserving of the scrutiny of your fellow man -whether you wear the uniform or not.

Shame on the congress for betraying their own country, and shame on any of our people who fail to call them to account.