Bush’s “War on Terrorism” is a crock of shit. Anyone with any kind of brain can see that. The young people in our nation’s military are being squandered for no purpose (no purpose that helps the nation, anyway), our foreign relations are in the toilet, and our rights and freedoms are being raped and tortured to death.
A few news articles to belabour this point:
Bush turns to new gimmick to try and well terror war
Proving he will try any gimmick to sell his failed “war on terror,” President George W. Bush is bringing representatives from countries that have suffered terrorist attacks to populate the audience at his next speech — and effort, the White House says, to emphasize the global nature of the enemy.
In a speech Thursday that launched a new offensive to build support for the Iraq war and for Republicans in the fall elections, Bush said various factions of terrorists belong under the same umbrella, even though many terrorism experts do not agree and some say his new approach is long on hyperbole and short on fact.
War is not a solution for terrorism
THERE IS SOMETHING important to be learned from the recent experience of the United States and Israel in the Middle East: that massive military attacks, inevitably indiscriminate, are not only morally reprehensible, but useless in achieving the stated aims of those who carry them out.
The United States, in three years of war, which began with shock-and-awe bombardment and goes on with day-to-day violence and chaos, has been an utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to Israel; indeed it has increased the number of its enemies, whether in Hezbollah or Hamas or among Arabs who belong to neither of those groups.
What Defending Freedom Really Means
Anyone who appeals to freedom as a reason for war has to support and favor freedom. He has to favor the exercise of freedom over one’s just property. He has to favor the absence of unjust attacks and infringements on one’s life, liberty, and property because that is what freedom means, correct? Not so. Politicians constantly make the appeal to freedom while simultaneously supporting the state’s multiple infringements upon life, liberty, and property.
What are we to think of this blatant contradiction? We can conclude that our rulers are hypocrites. This is true. They pretend to favor freedom while their every act undermines it. Whenever they invoke freedom, watch out. They are talking about other things, things that are not freedom, things that go against exercising one’s free will over one’s property. Their aim is to sabotage freedom.
Privacy: A right to defend
SOMETIMES, AS IN the case of the current domestic surveillance controversy, it’s important to take the long view.
It was in 1978 that President Carter persuaded Congress to create a special secret court that would authorize wiretaps or secret surveillance on people suspected of espionage. I was one of the few members of Congress to vote against the measure.
Although little is known about the court that monitors the resulting Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, analysts generally assume that it has achieved its objectives while complying with the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a warrant be issued by a judge before every search and seizure.
After the 9/11 attacks on America in 2001, however, President Bush decided to finesse FISA and collect information from countless people suspected by the spy agencies of being involved in terrorist activities. Three years after this clandestine program was started, the press revealed its existence. Late last week, a federal judge in Detroit, Anna Diggs Taylor, said that the president’s move to bypass FISA was unconstitutional. Still, the president remains adamant that the plan is essential and that it is justified by his broad inherent powers as commander in chief.
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: