Something To Contemplate As You Go On Your Merry Way...
Hello again folks. I hope everyone out there is happy and healthy.
Here is something to think about during the course of your day.
I was reading an article on the Patriot Act in the Washington Post and something that I learned in college started buzzing around my head. I left it go for a moment, but then I started reading an article on George W. Bush and the DOJ paper justifying the NSA's warrantless spying over on a site called "The Slate". As I was reading, the thought buzzed louder and louder until I decided that perhaps I should write about the thought.
As I stated the thought was of something that I learned in college. While attending Pitt, I took a few courses in terrorism (LONG before it was fashionable to do so). During the course, the instructor started going over what the goals of your average terrorist were. Among things like wholesale political, social, and economic changes and the infliction of mass terror upon a population, was one thing that struck me then, and has comeback to me now.
The instructor stated that when attacking the US, terrorists could not hope to win militarily, nor could they hope to win by injuring our economy. The only way that a terrorist could beat the US was to cause political disruption on such a scale that it would cause us to abandon our constitution and the political principals that we hold dear. Also, the political disruption would cause the government to become more repressive (of our freedoms) in pursuit of security.
Given the current state of affairs with the US holding people indefinitely without a right to an attorney, committing acts of torture, spying on people domestically without first obtaining a warrant or requesting judicial oversight, and with the White House claiming that it has a right to do so by twisting the interpretations of Article II of the Constitution, the Congressionally passed Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), and the theory of Unitary Executive Power, aren't the terrorists winning? By combining the above offenses and the Patriot Act, the government has shown that, in the pursuit of security, it is willing to abandon both the Constitution and our cherished principals freedom and civil liberties. This is the exact manner in which a government becomes repressive. So, I ask you, the readers, if the way a terrorist "wins" is to cause a government to become repressive in pursuit of security, then how can Bush and his pals come on tv and say that we are "winning the war on terrorism"?
I am Chuck and I believe that an educated, free thinking populace is the best armor any republic can have!
Here is something to think about during the course of your day.
I was reading an article on the Patriot Act in the Washington Post and something that I learned in college started buzzing around my head. I left it go for a moment, but then I started reading an article on George W. Bush and the DOJ paper justifying the NSA's warrantless spying over on a site called "The Slate". As I was reading, the thought buzzed louder and louder until I decided that perhaps I should write about the thought.
As I stated the thought was of something that I learned in college. While attending Pitt, I took a few courses in terrorism (LONG before it was fashionable to do so). During the course, the instructor started going over what the goals of your average terrorist were. Among things like wholesale political, social, and economic changes and the infliction of mass terror upon a population, was one thing that struck me then, and has comeback to me now.
The instructor stated that when attacking the US, terrorists could not hope to win militarily, nor could they hope to win by injuring our economy. The only way that a terrorist could beat the US was to cause political disruption on such a scale that it would cause us to abandon our constitution and the political principals that we hold dear. Also, the political disruption would cause the government to become more repressive (of our freedoms) in pursuit of security.
Given the current state of affairs with the US holding people indefinitely without a right to an attorney, committing acts of torture, spying on people domestically without first obtaining a warrant or requesting judicial oversight, and with the White House claiming that it has a right to do so by twisting the interpretations of Article II of the Constitution, the Congressionally passed Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), and the theory of Unitary Executive Power, aren't the terrorists winning? By combining the above offenses and the Patriot Act, the government has shown that, in the pursuit of security, it is willing to abandon both the Constitution and our cherished principals freedom and civil liberties. This is the exact manner in which a government becomes repressive. So, I ask you, the readers, if the way a terrorist "wins" is to cause a government to become repressive in pursuit of security, then how can Bush and his pals come on tv and say that we are "winning the war on terrorism"?
I am Chuck and I believe that an educated, free thinking populace is the best armor any republic can have!
posted by Chuck | 01:36
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home