From: Phil Osborn (philosborn2001@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 19:57:07 MDT
The bottom line is that W feels like the U.S. can, if
necessary, take on the rest of the world.
In addition to the examples you cited, think about the
U.S. invading Panama to impose its own drug (morality)
laws on a sovereign nation.
Or, the U.S. seizing ships on the high seas for the
same purpose, something we fought a war over in 1812.
Or, the various U.S. municipalities passing ordinances
regulating access to the internet, and the
prosecutions of people of other jurisdictions for
violating local laws and ordinances about what can go
on-line, in clear violation of 1st Amendment rights.
How the Chinese leaders are laughing at any U.S.
protestations over human rights.
Or the massive seizures of property without due
process under the idiot doctrine that since the
"property" is guilty of a crime and the property has
no rights, then none of the constitutional guarantees
applies.
Or the incredible ease by which any one of us can be
incarcerated at any minute on the testimony of a
single cop who has "found" drugs on us. And then,
since we're CRIMINALS! who deserve whatever happens to
us, we can be traded around for sexual favors by the
guards. How many successful prosecutions of prison
guards have there been in recent years? Or of inmates
for engaging in rapes?
And this is just what they're getting away with (that
we know about). Do you really think that in this
nightmarish inversion of the constitution that these
people feel bound to honor it beyond the need to keep
up appearances? What else are they doing that we
DON'T know about?
The various other laws and packages of laws - the
Internet Decency Act, etc. - that the Federal Courts
keep knocking down (and then Congress or the White
House fume about courts making laws and rush back to
the drawing boards to try to rewrite yet another clear
violation of basic human rights) should tell you that
these people absolutely don't care a fig about rights
or humanity.
They, like their corporate creatures - ENRON,
WorldCom, etc. - will blithely proceed to do whatever
they can get away with, secure in the knowledge that
anyone charged with prosecuting them will have done as
bad or worse - and they have the goods on file to make
the case if necessary.
They have a dumbed-down constituancy that has not a
clue as to the real world and thinks Chandra, or
Jessica, or Samantha, or Diana, or Elvis every morning
for months on end is news. They know that if they
don't support some new draconian idiot law in response
to the media's latest hype, then they're history.
The world as a dream in the "mind" of Jerry Springer.
The world as entertainment for Amerika. That's the
"reality" they're playing to. Like Germany in the
1930's, the U.S. still feels invulnerable. So we
throw a few $billion at a missile shield when the
attacks come from high-school graduates with box
cutters.
>From Harsch's Pattern of Conflict: The German people
were shielded from the war. Germany had not been
invaded in anyone's memory. Even when the bombings
began on Germany proper, they were rarely next door.
While nobody got fat, the NAZIs made sure that nobody
starved. At home, in the Vaterland, there was always
the comforting sense of being on the winning team, of
security. Bad things happened, but almost always
somewhere else or to someone else who was suspect to
begin with. Hardly anyone actually paid much
attention to the war, until near the end, anyway.
The NAZIs had to force their bureaucrats and the
school teachers and kids to attend the war rallies, as
otherwise there would have been nobody there. But
they didn't care. They didn't care that noone
actually believed in their silly philosophy - even in
their own ranks. They didn't care about anything
beyond the next day, in fact.
And that's just about where we are now.
In reply to:
Tue Aug 13 2002 - 13:12:38 MDT, Harvey Newstrom:
We want American POWs treated well under the Geneva
convention, but insist that our prisoners are exempt
from those rules. We want other nations subject to the
World Court and their soldiers tried for atrocities,
but insist that our soldiers be exempt. We insist that
criminals be extradited to the US for trial, but won't
extradite our citizens to other countries for trial.
We want all wars officially
declared and for nations to cooperate with war
efforts, but insist that our war does not need to be
declared by congress and we won't cooperate
with other nations. We want our borders to be
sacrosanct, but insist that we be allowed to
infiltrate other countries and assassinate our
enemies without notifying the country. We demand that
our citizens receive basic rights to council and
trial, and public disclosure both in
our country and abroad, but we deny those same rights
to citizens of other countries. We demand that
evidence against our citizens be made
public and that the accused has a right to
cross-examine any of it, but we insist that our
evidence is secret and the accused have no right to
know of their charges.
All of these provisions may be supported by various
arguments. However, it seems unreasonable to claim
these powers for our country while denying the same
powers to any other country. I have no problem with
any of these actions per se. I only warn that any
action we take will surely be taken against us at some
time in the future. If we suspend any rights for
others, we open the door for other countries to
suspend our rights later. We are setting a dangerous
precedence that we will be stuck with later. While
everyone tends to agree with these actions when
they are taken against others, I wonder if we will be
as happy to support these actions when they are taken
against us.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:07 MST