Editorial: Troubling time in history

Sunday, May 7, 2006 | 9:07 a.m.

Every so often we come across a reminder that we should never take our freedoms for granted, especially during wartime. One such reminder occurred Wednesday, involving the decision by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer to posthumously grant pardons to 75 men and three women who had been convicted of sedition in that state during World War I.

Many of those convicted 88 years ago were, as is Schweitzer, of German descent. Their only crime was that they were openly critical of the United States. Montana's sedition law made it a crime to make "any disloyal, profane, violent, scurrilous, contemptuous, slurring or abusive" remarks about the Constitution, the federal government, the flag or men in uniform.

To get an idea of just how absurd these convictions were, consider the following case that The New York Times mentioned this past week in a story on the pardons: A traveling wine and brandy salesman, who called wartime food regulations a "big joke," was sentenced to prison for seven to 20 years. The Associated Press reported that another man, a pacifist who refused to buy war bonds, spent 28 months in prison for being outspoken about the war.

While the Times notes that Montana's sedition law was considered the harshest at the time, let's not forget that the state wasn't a complete aberration: a total of 27 states had similar laws during World War I and Montana's law was the model for the federal sedition law passed in 1918. The hysteria that can grip a nation at war is terrifying.

Clemens Work, a University of Montana professor who wrote a book about the sedition convictions that ultimately led to the pardons, told the Times the parallels between 1918 and 2001 were eerie. "The hair on the back of my neck stood up," he said about what he learned during his research for the book. "The rhetoric was so similar, from the demonization of the enemy to saying 'either you're with us or against us' to the hasty passage of laws."

Today's climate is indeed troubling, whether it is the administration's obsession with secrecy or President Bush's decision, without a court order, to authorize wiretaps of phone conversations of Americans suspected of talking with al-Qaida members.

While no Americans today are in prison for speaking out against U.S. war policies following 9/11, the fact is that the rhetoric from this White House has often been beyond the pale, equating substantive criticism of President Bush's policies to being unpatriotic. The CIA leak case comes to mind, in which the Bush White House outed a CIA agent in order to discredit her husband, who criticized one of the administration's justifications for going to war with Iraq.

The First Amendment is alive and well, but in order for it to be more than just a piece of paper, it requires all of us to be vigilant and stand forthright for freedom of speech when bullies - no matter how high their position in government - try to squelch dissent.