Text 16823, 91 rader
Skriven 2005-12-28 13:47:40 av BOB SAKOWSKI (1:123/140)
Ärende: Comments from a "spook"
===============================
The "Threat" and our Liberties

From a couple of notes I received about the "NSA" piece below it appears
that there is some misunderstanding abut my constitutional views.  I would
have thought that unimportant to anyone but me, but I see there is some
concern about it, for which I thank those involved.

I describe myself as a libertarian conservative.  I think the Constitution
of the United States works just fine and that it created a systen of
government designed to limit power, not to expand it.  The separation of
power among the three branches of the federal government and then between
the federal government and the states should be seen, I think, as retaining
the balance of governmental power in the hands of the states.  We should
always remember that the Constitution is the "creature" of the states, not
the other way around.  Lastly, I would agree with Jefferson and Madison in
the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that creeping expansionism of power
on the part of the Federal government should be viewed with suspicion. 
Lastly, as Mr. Jefferson rightly asserted, the "people" are sovereign, not the
president of the United States.  He is not a king, not an emperor not anything
more really than the person who runs the Executive Branch.

War time assertions of greatly expanded presidential power are nothing new. 
The sainted 16th president of the US; suspended "habeas corpus," imprisoned
thousands without trial, tried civilians before "military commissions"
later found by the Supreme court to have been unconstitutional (ex parte
Milligan), dissolved legislatures to keep them from voting, created a new
state without much authority in law, jailed newspaper editors whose
writings he disliked, etc.  Lincoln believed that he was justified in doing
these things because the country faced an "existential" threat.  That was
the basis of his assumption of unusual and in many cases dubious powers.

Much the same claim is maintained now.  The Bush Administration claims that
its actions are justified because the country faces an "existential"
threat.  It maintains that the international Jihadi phenomenon threatens
the very existence of the United States and on that basis it insists that
it has the right to do "whatever it takes" to keep the United States from
being destroyed in the coming years.  It maintains that a situation of
"total war" prevails and that any amount of suspension of citizen's rights
is justified in the national defense.  It also tells us that this situation
may last indefinitely in a kind of "state of siege" condition.

A couple of problems with that view:

1.  It is open ended.  On exactly the same basis, the often tyrannical
governments of the Arab World have justified since 1947 the need to suspend
"due process" and citizen's rights because "the nation" must be protected
from the Zionist threat.  I thought we were against this kind of thing.

2.  The Jihadis are not an "existential threat" to the United States.  A
great many Americans were overcome by fear after 9/11.  People in my
profession(s) had assumed that everyone in America knew that the world was
not a safe place and that America was not an exception to that really basic
fact.  It is clear now that we were wrong in thinking that.  The events in
New York City and the capital were catastrophic and tragic in the extreme,
but they did not constitute an "existential threat" to the United States
and the Jihadis still do not pose such a threat to the existence of the
United States of America.  What are they?  They are a few thousand
religious fanatics, backed by the money of a handful of really crazy rich
people.  They have been driven from their bases by our armed forces,
harried across the world and continuously pursued by the security services
of a great many countries.  Our own security services have dealt severely
with anyone within the USA who looked liked they were actually thinking of
doing something violent.  Presumably these fanatics have not abandoned
their hope of inflicting grievous harm on the USA if they could manage it.  
It is worthwhile to consider the limits of their capabilities in the
absolute worst cases.  They could destroy a city.  This is unlikely, but
worth taking seriously because the consequences would be so grave.  They
could kill everyone on a train.  They could attack everyone at a major
event.  These are the kinds of things they could do.  None of those kinds
of things constitute an "existential threat" to the United States.  There
would be a lot of dead people as a result of such attacks, but the country
would survive.  It would go on and on as a beacon of hope in the world,
perhaps man's last, best hope.

"Do you want to be safe, or do you want to be free?"  This question is
increasingly asked with some seriousness.  The Jihadis are posited to us as
an "existential threat" on an open ended basis.  They are not, except as a
justificatin for re-structuring American into a "security state."  There
are other "security states."  None of them are really secure but they are
very good at controlling their citizens.  It is up to the courts, the
Congress and the Sovereign People to decide if they are to be the
descendants of those who stood against the King or just more "sheeple" to
be herded about.

Are we really going to accept that the instruments of government with which
we fought the Nazis and Communists are going to be used to pick apart our
lives?  Are we really going to become someone's "subjects?"

Pat Lang
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)