where's the DANGER at?
- warantless search and seizure of property and person
- incarceration of indefinite term without trial
- suspension of habeus corpus - the right to DEMAND the accused be presented, to ensure they are still alive, if for no other reason
- the use of force or other questionable means to coerce confessions
- denial of a public, jury trial in which to respond to accusations leveled by the state
Having failed in their first attempt at nation building by creating too weak a central government, the framers of the U.S. Constitution drafted a second attempt, devising a three-part solution that would accept as its fundamental design the tendency for any body of power to ultimately overreach its boundaries.
Despite the fact that what they came up with - the "Executive/Legislative/Judicial" troika that proved so optimally counterbalanced that it has served as the model for nations the world over, these abuses of power noted above so concerned some of them, that they inisted the first ten Constitutional ammendments, commonly referred to as the "Bill of Rights" be attached and considered part of the fundamental makeup of the newly born nation, or they would have no part.
Ironically, on this list are some of the very things our federal administration insists it must do: not to "terrorists", but to us - the American citizens they claim to be protecting - in order to protect us. So what - they have to burn down the village to make it safe?
How is it that:
- when America was a pissant little nation that had just played two superpowers against each other to pull off the greatest coup in European colonial history (ultimately, half the North American continent, some of the most fertile, mineral rich land ever) with good reasons to fear reprisals,
- when it had to have been confronting more stress and chaos than anything we face today, as a global superpower,
- when the most of nations that would be it peers were monarchies or dictatorships, built upon slavery and colonial expansion, and thus would not have looked twice were America to have become such a nation,
- when even the limited direct representation the Continental Congress had allowed was considered madness in many learned circles,
...that the fundamental rights of the citizen was nevertheless so central to the nation they were inventing, that to have denied it would have ended up in a civil war nearly a century before it finally happened? How is it that, when we look back at what was done to Japanese-Americans during World War II, that it must be admitted it was wrong, so wrong that reparations were paid -- and yet we are poised to do it again, only now with anyone that looks like an Arab?
What are we so scared of, folks? How much danger are you in, personally? Do you honestly fear that you will be blown up or killed by a terrorist -- or is it more likely that you might be killed by a drunk driver in your own neighborhood?
Why are so many of us willing to shred the bill of rights for protection against a threat that can't be named, identified, located or described -- because to do so would somehow aid the enemy and increase the likelihood of this supposed, unnamed, unknown, nondescript "threat"?
Why do you trust these madmen who have stolen our country from us, instead of your own senses? I mean, c'mon... ask yourselves just a few simple, common sense questions:
What is NORAD? The North American Aerospace Defense command. Their mission: to protect America from all airborne threats. What is the Pentagon? The seat of our nation's entire defense: supposedly the "most secure building in the world" The entire nation's capitol, in fact, is perhaps the most heavily defended airspace on earth - and with good reason.... So; why am I asked to believe that a single passenger airliner, hi-jacked by some guys with minimal training, hit this center of America's military -- and was not shot out of the sky???
What if that had been a missile? Or a nuke??? Is D.C. protected, or isn't it. FORGET 9/11, forget terrorism. Forget that you're scared mostly because the media and the government won't let up off telling you THAT you are.... answer the question. Why was ANYTHING, EVER allowed to hit the Pentagon??? Under any circumstances.
FUCK 9/11 -- that's headquarters for our entire nation's militiary, offices of the top commanders of all U.S. armed forces. They couldn't stop a plane from hitting it? But they can defend us from nukes? C'mon!?!?!?
How many of you out there know people who have been the victim of either drug abuse, drug related crimes, or the effects of drugs on a loved one? Anyone old enough to remember when cocaine was the drug of the rich? Remember how it suddenly became accessible as a street drug in the '80s... around the same time that the "war on drugs" kicked into full gear?
Ask yourself this simple question -- if it is indeed a "war" on drugs, then why haven't we simply taken out the problem at the source, and destroyed the damned coca fields? Is it a war, or is that just a bullshit metaphor to justify feeding bodies -- Amerian bodies, CITIZEN'S bodies -- to the prison-industrial complex?
If it's a war, then why isn't it being fought like one? We have the satellites; we know where all the coke is grown. We give a week's notice, we give longitude and latitude, and then it's "scorched earth" time. Anybody who's caught in the fields is a casualty of war -- and a warning to those at the next location to get the fuck out when we say we're gonna burn it....
So... what's the answer, folks? We can invade a nation that had nothing to do with the horror of September 11th, 2001 because we basically felt like it, making up excuse after excuse as we went along. But we can't eliminate a scourge on our society so supposedly destructive that it is the reason most of our citizens are even IN prisons: non-violent, drug-related offenses folks - look it up.
We talk war a lot, but it's only a metaphor. If you'll be honest about the "war on drugs" you'll have to admit that it's not a war against drugs, but a war against people, with drugs as the premise. We lock up more citizens, conduct more drug buying stings, put cops in schools and undercover in inner-city gangs, stiffen the penalties and limit the options available to offenders... everything accept attacking the problem at the source.
Because when America talks war, the noun preceding that verb is not the purpose, but the premise of that war. War on drugs uses drugs as its excuse, not its objective, else most of Central and South America would be parched and smoldering. It isn't that we don't have the means, or the method. It isn't even that we lack the resolve -- we have the finest military on the planet, and are quite good at doing war.
Think Iraq is about your safety? Then why is Bin Laden still alive... and why are we hearing about his audio taped threats, instead of being given a weblink to the site showing footage of the smart bomb that took him out??? Think it's because we can't?
America fights the wars it wants to. Consider that, the next time you think that war keeps you safe...
