(This was adapted from my March 7, 2012 blog post)
March 13, 2012
Glenn Greenwald has a lengthy post on AG Eric Holder’s recent speech defending a president’s “right” to kill you because he has deemed you to be a “terrorist,” a criminal, or just a bad guy or gal, simply because he said so, with no evidence provided, removing your right to defend yourself against accusations. Only in dictatorships and banana republics do we have this sort of power grab by bureaucrats.
The American Revolutionaries had a deep understanding of human nature, and knew that men were not angels, and that, when given the power of monopoly and compulsion over others, there needed to be legal checks on the bureaucrats’ power, with no exceptions. That is why the Revolutionaries wrote into the U.S. Constitution the Fourth and Fifth Amendments especially. Of course common sense dictates that if someone accuses you of something they must be required to bring forth evidence to prove their accusations. Jeepers, should we just allow someone to accuse someone else of something without proof, and then kill him? (C’mon, we’re talking about people like George Bush and Barack Obama, for crying out loud! And worse, Willard Romney.)
This 21st Century government criminality and barbarism masquerading as “waging a war on terrorism” is merely part of America’s decline as a nation, and degeneracy as a collective of people, in this national trend of short-sightedness and immediate gratification. The legitimate, legal and moral way to administer justice regarding a criminal suspect (such as Anwar al-Awlaki, for instance) requires the U.S. government including the President to make public all evidence they have against that particular individual, and let such evidence be read and heard in a court of law. In contrast, the impulsive, immature, short-sighted way of seeking justice would be to forgo the restrictions on government bureaucrats’ power that the law requires, as Obama has done.
What AG Eric Holder and Obama say is this: “I say this guy is guilty of terrorism, or helping terrorists, therefore I will kill him. No need to present evidence to back up my allegations. Period. I want to do this, NOW, not later. I can’t wait until later!” So this kind of dictatorial policy is part of the short-sightedness, immediate gratification society America has become.
Whether you trust those specific individuals — Obama and Holder — or not, the new short-sighted, illegal and unconstitutional policy will be in place for the next people in charge to use, people that you might not trust, such as Willard Romney or Rick Santorum. Or Hillary Clinton. And as broad and undefined the definitions of “terrorist” are that we already have, future government bureaucrats will broaden such terms even more.
The reason why so many people seem to be yawning at all this is because America’s government-controlled schools have essentially cut history out of their curricula, so most people now really don’t know about the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Mao’s China, and so forth. Most Americans are so obsessed with their distractions, their texting and their TV shows, they don’t even know what’s going on in North Korea. Yes, it is no exaggeration to say that the same things are increasingly happening here in the U.S. Our government bureaucrats are going after political dissidents, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The more powerful the government is, the more those selfish, immediate-gratification-oriented bureaucrats will act to further increase their power, and that means shutting up their opponents, people who are anti-Establishment, and yes, it is already happening here. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe has some further insight on the inherent nature of compulsory government here and here.)
One example, believe it or not, of the dangerousness of the short-sightedness of an immoral government run amok was the individual Obama murdered last year overseas, Anwar al-Awlaki (before going on to murder the accused terrorist’s 16-year-old brother), whose First Amendment-protected religious sermons merely were critical of U.S. government policy, and who was never charged with anything, not even actually being a threat to Americans. The Administration claimed that the suppression of evidence was to protect “state secrets,” but, given so many past instances of such suppression of “state secrets” having been used to hide government criminality, this was a also very suspicious case.
My point is, in these politicians’ zeal to please the American people by pretending to go after “terrorists” (as a means to get reelected and further expand their power for their own short-term use of it), the government begins by targeting the people whose denial of basic rights to due process seems “acceptable,” and then the bureaucrats move more to those whose skepticism and challenging of government powers are perceived by those bureaucrats to be a threat to their power (and not a real threat to fellow Americans). The Occupy Wall Street protesters already have had a taste of this, and I have addressed how the left-Obama crowd will go after the Tea Party protesters here.)
This always-growing government and expanding bureaucracy mentality, bureaucratizing the government’s education monopoly and “Child Protective Services,” and bureaucratizing and militarizing otherwise everyday life coincides with the trend toward selfishness, short-sightedness and immediate gratification. School is a prison now, and a police state within our Amerikan police state.
The educrats love their powers over the children and their parents, and more recently we have a fusion between the educrat bureaucracy and the growing police bureaucracy. The teachers are more and more merged with the police now, many of whom love the monopolistic powers that they have as well. Many police now love to intimidate ordinary civilians, and push them around and handcuff them — including children — and many of them seem to enjoy shooting people with tasers and even guns, because they know they will get away with it. Many of them get off on it. Most police get away with their assaults and their murders, and Obama and other government bureaucrats are getting away with their abuses of powers as well. As I have already mentioned, de-monopolizing the police will resolve our current problems in that area. And getting government out of the education business will resolve these problems in schools as well.
And now, we will have a short-sighted rush to war with Iran, that the already-stretched American forces can’t win, and based on the fantasies of the fear-mongers in charge. Obama’s narcissistic drive toward reelection and the neocons’ desire to further destroy Muslim countries as planned are what matters here, not the protection of Israel. In contrast, more realistic, long-term considerations would take into account the retaliations that will be inevitable by not just Iran but the other Muslim countries surrounding Israel, and the blowback against America. To the immediate-gratification-oriented warmongers (including not just the neocons but also the “humanitarian do-gooders,” a.k.a. war-mongers with a yellow smiley-face), all the deaths and ruined lives, property and infrastructure of the civilian populations of these countries will not matter, as has been the case with Afghanistan and with Iraq, twice.
As long as the war-starters themselves do not have to go to war, or their children, of course. In fact, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Willard
Dukakis Romney, not only avoided the military draft in the 1960s but actively protested against, no, not against the Vietnam War and not against the draft, but against the anti-Vietnam War draft protesters. And throughout his two failed presidential campaigns (yes, he will lose to the corrupt Obama-murderer), Dukakis Romney has consistently tried to out-warmonger every other candidate. A real chickenhawk’s chickenhawk. Yes, as Romney merely reflects the selfish Amerikan population in general now, that is how selfish, short-sighted, narcissistic and clueless many people are now.
As Hans-Hermann Hoppe also observed,
Since man is as man is, in every society people who covet others’ property exist. Some people are more afflicted by this sentiment than others, but individuals usually learn not to act on such feelings or even feel ashamed for entertaining them. Generally only a few individuals are unable to successfully suppress their desire for others’ property, and they are treated as criminals by their fellow men and repressed by the threat of physical punishment….
(However)…by opening entry into government, anyone is permitted to freely express his desire for others’ property. What formerly was regarded as immoral and accordingly was suppressed is now considered a legitimate sentiment. Everyone may openly covet everyone else’s property in the name of democracy; and everyone may act on this desire for another’s property, provided that he finds entrance into government. Hence, under democracy everyone becomes a threat.
Consequently, under democratic conditions the popular though immoral and anti-social desire for another man’s property is systematically strengthened.
Professional bureaucrats and politicians are driven to armed political power, and they long for always-expanding power for themselves, power over others, power for power’s sake, and the power to plunder from the private wealth of the workers and producers of society, and the power to kill with impunity.
And the masses being masochists of course cheer their rulers, their dictators, their slave masters. Yeah, baby, give it to us, good and hard!