01/11/2006: "War On Bad Hair Or Bad Ties"

President Bush always talks about being a country of laws, but executive privilege always seems to exempt him from acting within the law, and his interpretation of his ordained power has always been seemed to provide more than has ever been intended by the constitution. He always waves the flag of battle with terrorists. How do we really win a war against terror? How do we win the drug war? Do we just forgo all civil rights and submit to martial law? The basis of our constitution is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and if we want to maintain our civil liberties we need to uphold them. If we pick and choose who this applies to, it won't be long until it won't apply to anyone, and how will do the picking and choosing?

Even a pro conservative court has ruled against Bush, and sent his sudden change of classification of a Illegal Combatant to the Supreme Court. The so called "Illegal Combatants" are questionable enough that the Bush administration doesn't want to bring them to trial – for such sure fire terrorist activities, this seems like a cop out, and at the very least an abuse of the constitution. Why would a conservative judge deliver a verdict against the conservatives you might ask? Because even republicans see when we are dealing with un American values. The Supreme Court has not blessed the president's idea of holding people without charge. When the authority to act in such a manner is challenged by the court, the Bush administration can't just say "whoops!" and charge them with something else. War powers should really be reserved for time of war. We could declare a war on poverty would that invoke presidential war powers? If it did, would it help? What about a war on medical costs? If you wish to enjoy the benefits of our constitution, there is a price, some people who are guilty get set free, people who say things that are offensive are protected, everyone is entitled to a trial by their peers, and so forth.

With the statistical risk of being killed in ones lifetime by terrorist attack being less than that of being struck by lightning, I am not afraid. I don't know anyone who has been struck by lightning. Don't get me wrong, I don't deny there is risk, but put it in context with other risks. You're significantly more likely to be killed in a drive by shooting, or self-inflicted poisoning than by terrorist attack. This propaganda gives the President a free hand to act with impunity, regardless of the dubious legality of his acts. We all need to follow his shrill cry or "the terrorists win".

This threat might seem compelling until you look at history and read the quotes of the likes of Hermann Goering – "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Sound familiar? It does to me.