Formula for Fascism
I love it when a plan comes together. The British, French, Germans and Canadians have all had tremendous success in dealing with Islamic terror cells without violating democratic principles. In all cases, police functioned within legal parameters and the investigations led to legal procedings, as will be the case in this latest British scenario of the not excatly Betty Crocker liquid-mixing terrorists.
The prisoners won't be held in military brigs without charges, and the trials will be fair and legal. This is what it's all about, Alfie.
My recent article about Khalid Sheik Mohammed is illustrative. He could possibly have had relevant intelligence affecting Al Quaida operatives in Western society. Where is he, and why hasn't he been exploited in an open trial?
The low-level shooters are not the threat, though they make for great CNN video clips. If our agenda is to make our society safer, then we must address the threat, which is any future imminent terror scenarios. Just because Bush and his crowd say we're at war doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean we're at the right one, either.
The Democrats are constantly accused of being weak on terror, but the entire U.S. leadership is guilty of this charge. Billions are spent addressing phoney terrorism in Iraq that is not aimed at U.S. interests, and billions are spent on signals intelligence (SIGINT) gathered via disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
This all could be acceptable if it were effective, but it does not address an actual threat to our society. Potential informants in the U.S. are probably reluctant to come forward because of deportation fears, being swept away to secret prisons, or even fears of torture. The public perceptions of our "dark side" are self-defeating in this, what should actually be a legal battle.
In this world, terrorism could be defined as a federal government over-reacting to every incident with further restrictions on my civil liberties. It is a dismal future painted by a government ever constricting our freedoms in the name of preserving them, but actually, concentrating them into a central head. Sounding more like fascism, or one of those -isms we so arrogantly despise, all the time.
The prisoners won't be held in military brigs without charges, and the trials will be fair and legal. This is what it's all about, Alfie.
My recent article about Khalid Sheik Mohammed is illustrative. He could possibly have had relevant intelligence affecting Al Quaida operatives in Western society. Where is he, and why hasn't he been exploited in an open trial?
The low-level shooters are not the threat, though they make for great CNN video clips. If our agenda is to make our society safer, then we must address the threat, which is any future imminent terror scenarios. Just because Bush and his crowd say we're at war doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean we're at the right one, either.
The Democrats are constantly accused of being weak on terror, but the entire U.S. leadership is guilty of this charge. Billions are spent addressing phoney terrorism in Iraq that is not aimed at U.S. interests, and billions are spent on signals intelligence (SIGINT) gathered via disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
This all could be acceptable if it were effective, but it does not address an actual threat to our society. Potential informants in the U.S. are probably reluctant to come forward because of deportation fears, being swept away to secret prisons, or even fears of torture. The public perceptions of our "dark side" are self-defeating in this, what should actually be a legal battle.
In this world, terrorism could be defined as a federal government over-reacting to every incident with further restrictions on my civil liberties. It is a dismal future painted by a government ever constricting our freedoms in the name of preserving them, but actually, concentrating them into a central head. Sounding more like fascism, or one of those -isms we so arrogantly despise, all the time.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 12:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home