Something You Should Read.
Hello again readers, I hope everyone is doing well.
Today, as I was going through my usual routine of reading the news and a few of my favorite blogs, I came across an article that I think you should read.
The path I used to find the article was somewhat circuitous and the blogs involved deserve both credit and a mention here. The story goes like this; I was reading a post on "Politics through the eyes of a teenager". The article, concerning a humorous video clip on the subject of illegal immigration, had a reference to another blog at the bottom. The blog mentioned at the bottom of the article is called "Terrorism News". I clicked on the link and began reading the blog. As I read, I came across a post called "Top 10 Signs Of Impending US Police State". The post had a brief comment and a link leading to the article I think you should read. The link lead to an article called "Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State" by Allan Uthman and Buffalo Beast. While it is obvious what the article is about, I think that it is a very good, thought-provoking, and chilling piece. I urge all of my readers to go to the site, read the article, and then see if you don't find yourself agreeing with the authors' points and conclusions.
I am Chuck and this has NOT been a rant, but rather a recommendation.
Edited: 27 May 06, 0257hrs to correct an HTML link.
Today, as I was going through my usual routine of reading the news and a few of my favorite blogs, I came across an article that I think you should read.
The path I used to find the article was somewhat circuitous and the blogs involved deserve both credit and a mention here. The story goes like this; I was reading a post on "Politics through the eyes of a teenager". The article, concerning a humorous video clip on the subject of illegal immigration, had a reference to another blog at the bottom. The blog mentioned at the bottom of the article is called "Terrorism News". I clicked on the link and began reading the blog. As I read, I came across a post called "Top 10 Signs Of Impending US Police State". The post had a brief comment and a link leading to the article I think you should read. The link lead to an article called "Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State" by Allan Uthman and Buffalo Beast. While it is obvious what the article is about, I think that it is a very good, thought-provoking, and chilling piece. I urge all of my readers to go to the site, read the article, and then see if you don't find yourself agreeing with the authors' points and conclusions.
I am Chuck and this has NOT been a rant, but rather a recommendation.
Edited: 27 May 06, 0257hrs to correct an HTML link.
posted by Chuck | 02:54
2 Comments:
Yes, i read this article aswell.
Personally it all seems to stem from 9/11, as from that day forward the president had support from both parties and was allowed to do what he wanted "to protect America". During this time Congress was ignoring their oversight function, and anyone who questionned anything was "un-american" or worse sympathising with the terrorists.
Someone needs to buy Bush a copy of your constitution and highlight the sections which refer to executive power, because I think he is getting a bit confused at the moment and just assuming any power that he wants. So far the Supreme Court are guilt of too much judicial restraint in not challenging the executive.
The most worrying aspect is the politicisation of the CIA. All intelligence bodies need to be scrutinised so that they dont become rogue or assume to much power, but tehre is no way that the executive should control them. Do you remember the number of high ranking CIA officers left when Goss was confirmed? How many do you think will leave now Hayden has taken over?
These are definately dangerous times that we live in.
Political Teenager,
Thanks for the comment. As usual, your assessment of the root cause of this problem is right on.
I have to agree that everything has pretty much "gone to Hell in a handbasket" in regard to Congress and their oversight role. That is what traditionally happens when the House, Senate, and White House are all controlled by the same party. It doesn't matter whether it is the Democrats or Republicans, when one party controls both Congress and the Presidency, Congress generally becomes a "rubberstamp" agency for whatever the White House wants. The sad part of it this time around is that the bills that Congress is rubberstamping aren't things bloated appropriations bills and the like, they are signing away our fundamental rights. What is even worse is, as you point out, if you question or disagree with what they are doing then you are a "bad" American or possibly even a terrorist sympathizer. I have been called "un-American", "defeatist", "a terrorist sympathizer", had my patriotism repeatedly questioned, been told that I don't love America, and that I am standing against my country, and all by a guy who works for me!! I refer, of course, to Bush.
As for buying Bush a copy of the Constitution, he already has one. The problem with his copy is that he divided it into small squares, put it onto a cardboard roll, and hung it in the loo. Bush's problem isn't that he is doing something that no other president has tried before (Jackson, LB Johnson, and Nixon are all good examples of executive power grabs). His problem is that there is no one around to tell him "no". So just like a spoiled kid who gets everything he demands, Bush continues to demand more and more. And just like when the spoiled kid is finally told "no", Bush will probably throw a tantrum and call everyone nasty names. But like the spoiled kid, if the parents (in this case Congress) make the "no" stick, eventually he (Bush) will discontinue the tantrum and comply with their wishes.
As for the Supreme Court in this whole mess, they really can't do much about it right now. I don't know how the courts work in the UK, but here in order to challenge a law, first you have to break it. In other words, to challenge something like the Patriot Act, first you have to violate it. Unfortunately, those who violate the Patriot Act generally find themselves in a place devoid of legal counsel or a trial. If a case doesn't come to trial, the law in question can't be challenged. The Federal Courts, whether District, Circuit, or Supreme, cannot arbitrarily declare a law "unconstitutional" without a case being presented to them. I singled out the Patriot Act because it is the most repugnant and insolated current law. The act itself prevents a person charged under it from seeking legal counsel by making it a felony to even discuss a violation with anyone (lawyers included)! So therefore, none of the Patriot Act cases can come to a trial as to even talk about a violation would be to commit another violation of the act in front of a federal judge! So the Supreme Court really has its hands tied on the issue of challenging this executive power grab.
As for the CIA and politicizing it, that is really nothing new. All the way from "Wild" Bill Donovan to Goss and Hayden, the CIA has been more of an instrument of Executive political will than a true intelligence gathering tool. It has been shown time and again that the CIA has analyzed intelligence to fit the political landscape rather than the actual world situation. It happened most notably during Kennedy and Johnson to justify an increase in the US presence in Vietnam, and during the Reagan years to justify an increase in military spending. During the Kennedy and Johnson era, the CIA repeatedly overstated the popular support (by the S. Vietnamese people) for the South Vietnamese government and during the Reagan years, they repeatedly, and grossly, distorted the military capabilities and economic health of the Warsaw Pact. So the politicization of CIA really doesn't worry me too much. And as for the analysts leaving, I think that those who are there now will stay, but the CIA may have some tough work ahead in order to recruit new analysts.
Well, gotta run (getting severe thunderstorms). Thanks again for the comment.
--Chuck.
Post a Comment
<< Home