A new low in Iraq (Warning Unsightly Picture)

3. The federal government

As our Founding Fathers understood so well, the primary threat to our freedom lies with our own government. That’s in fact why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – to protect us and our freedoms from federal officials. If the federal government did not constitute such an enormous threat to our freedoms, there would be no reason to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Yet, what is the primary means by which a government takes away the freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer: its military forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers opposed a standing, professional military force in America – they knew not only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in costly, senseless, and destructive wars abroad but also that government officials would inevitably use the troops to ensure a compliant and obedient citizenry at home.

Consider the words of James Madison:


A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Here’s how Patrick Henry put it:


A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to deploy against the American people and take away our freedoms?

There is no doubt about it. Of course they would, especially if the president told them that our “freedom and national security” depended on it, which he would.

As I suggested in my article, “The Troops Don’t Support the Constitution,” in the United States the loyalty of the troops is to the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the Constitution. Recent evidence of this point, as I observed in my article, was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.

What if the president ordered the troops to deploy across the United States and to round up “terrorists” and incarcerate them in military camps, both here and in Cuba? Again, there can be no doubt that most of the troops would willingly obey the president’s orders, especially in the middle of a “crisis” or “emergency” because they view themselves as professional soldiers whose job is to serve the president and not to question why but simply to do or die.



Another good example of the allegiance that the troops have toward the president involves the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Labeling Padilla a “terrorist,” the president ordered the troops to take him into military custody, deny him access to an attorney, and punish him without a trial and due process of law. The troops obeyed without question. Do you know any troops who have publicly protested the Padilla incarceration or who have resigned from the army in protest? How many have publicly announced, “I refuse to participate in the Padilla incarceration because I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution”?

Indeed, how many of the troops resigned in protest at the president’s orders to set up a prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, knowing that the reason he and the Pentagon chose Cuba, rather than the United States, was precisely to avoid the constraints of the Constitution?

If the troops didn’t protest with respect to Iraq or Padilla or Gitmo, what is the likelihood they would protest when their commander in chief ordered them to arrest 100 other Americans “terrorists,” or 1,000?

I repeat: The troops, from the Pentagon on down, would not disobey orders of the president to disarm and arrest American “terrorists,” especially in the midst of a “crisis” or “emergency.”

And even if some were to protest, they would be quickly shunted aside (probably punished as well) and replaced with those troops whose allegiance and loyalty to the president would be unquestioned.

Now it’s true that soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders, but as a practical matter most of the troops are not going to overrule the judgment of their commander in chief as to what is legal or not. After all, how many troops involved in the torture and sex-abuse scandal refused to participate in the wrongdoing, especially since they thought that it was approved by the higher-ups? Again, how many refused orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that there was no constitutionally required congressional declaration of war?

Imagine that the president issues the following grave announcement on national television during prime time: “Our nation has come under another terrorist attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been identified by the FBI as having conspired to commit this dastardly attack or who have given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also ordered the JCS to take all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate weapons in the areas where these terrorists are believed to be hiding. These weapons will be returned to the owners once the terrorist threat has subsided. I am calling on all Americans to support the troops in these endeavors, just as you are supporting them in their fight against terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will prevail. God bless America.”

Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would disobey the orders of the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked and terrified Americans and the mainstream press were endorsing his martial-law orders?

The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would not consider it their job to determine the constitutionality of the president’s orders. They would leave that for the courts to decide. Their professional allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would trump all other considerations, including their oath to “support and defend the Constitution.”

Therefore, if the federal government is the primary threat to our freedom, then so are the troops: their unswerving loyalty to their commander in chief makes them the primary instrument by which the federal government is able to destroy or infringe the rights and freedoms of the citizenry.
 
The solution

No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president wields, albeit unconstitutionally, the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war against another nation – and that he has the means – a loyal and obedient army – to exercise that power. President Bush made his position clear prior to his invasion of Iraq, when he emphasized that while he welcomed the support of Congress in the event he decided to wage war on Iraq, he didn’t need its approval. His position was reconfirmed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who informed Congress on October 19, 2005, that the commander in chief’s position was that he did not need the consent of Congress to send the nation into another war, this time against Syria.

No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president claims the omnipotent power to jail and punish any American citizen whom the president labels a “terrorist,” denying him due process of law, trial by jury, and other constitutional guarantees – and that he has the means – a loyal and obedient army – to exercise that power.

Thus, as a practical matter the troops serve not as a defender of our freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands. It is an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and attack, kill, and maim any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S. invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to take into custody any American whom the commander in chief deems a “terrorist” and to punish him accordingly.

There is one – and only one – solution to this threat to our freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the warning of our Founding Fathers against standing armies before it is too late, and to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago: dismantle the U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the troops home, discharging them into the private sector, where they would effectively become “citizen-soldiers” – well-trained citizens prepared to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion of our country. And for the American people to heed the warning of President Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex, by shutting down the Pentagon’s enormous domestic military empire, closing domestic bases, and discharging those troops into the private sector.

“Oh, my gosh, if we did all that, how would our freedoms be protected?”

Protected from what? Again, there is no threat of a foreign invasion. And again, terrorism is not a threat to our freedom. Moreover, dismantling the standing army would remove the primary means by which presidents have succeeded in engendering so much anger and hatred against our nation – anger and hatred that in turn have given rise to the threat of terrorism against our nation. And finally, the worst threat to our freedom is our own government, and by dismantling the standing army we would reduce that threat significantly.

What would happen if a foreign nation ever began constructing thousands of ships and planes and mobilizing millions of people to invade the United States? The answer to that threat was also provided by our Founding Fathers: the foreign nation in question would be met by a nation of free well-armed citizens who would be prepared and willing to rally quickly to oppose any invasion and conquest of our nation. Invading a United States filled with well-trained, free men and women would be much like invading Switzerland – like swallowing a porcupine. Don’t forget that the men and women who currently serve in the U.S. armed services wouldn’t disappear; instead they would join the rest of us as citizen-soldiers, people whose fighting skills could be depended on in the unlikely event our nation were ever threatened by invasion by a foreign power.

We should also keep in mind the tremendous economic prosperity that would result from the dismantling of America’s enormous standing army. Not only would all the taxpayer money that is being used to fund the standing army be left in the hands of the citizenry for savings and capital, but all those new people in the private sector would be producing as well, instead of living off the IRS-provided fruits of other people’s earnings. Thus, the economic effect would be doubly positive, and, while weakening the federal government, it would make our nation stronger.

What about foreign monsters, tyrants, oppressors, and conquerors? The answer to that was also provided by our Founding Fathers: Our government would no longer go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but foreigners suffering oppression and tyranny would know that there would always be at least one nation that would accept them – the United States of America. Rather than police the world, Americans would focus on producing the freest and most prosperous society in history as a model for the world and to which those who escaped tyranny and oppression could freely come.

Of course, those Americans who would nonetheless wish to leave their families and jobs to help oppressed people overseas would still be free to do so.

We should also bear in mind the perverse results of the federal government’s military empire and overseas interventions. World War I brought World War II, which brought the Soviet communist occupation of Eastern Europe, which brought the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, along with an enormous standing army in our country. The Middle East interventions and meddling have brought us terrorism, the war on terrorism, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Padilla doctrine, military torture and sex abuse, and CIA kidnappings and “renditions” to foreign countries for the purpose of proxy torture.

By their fruits, you shall know them.

One vision – the vision of militarism and empire – will bring America more violence, death, destruction, impoverishment, and loss of freedom. The other vision – the vision of a limited-government, constitutional republic with citizen-soldiers – would put our nation back on the right road of peace, prosperity, harmony, and freedom.

October 22, 2005
 
Quote from hapaboy:

Are you out of your goddamned mind? That case WAS front page headlines and the lead story on TV, news radio and talk radio.

What planet are you living on? Oh, Toronto...
More...

I didnt write that it was a paste from elsewhere.

BTW good job attacking a small line in the piece and ignoring the main issue. Full marks for living in denial.
 
Quote from TorontoTrader2:

I didnt write that it was a paste from elsewhere.
More...
Then why didn't you note whether or not you agree with the content, since you posted it?

BTW good job attacking a small line in the piece and ignoring the main issue. Full marks for living in denial.
More...
"Small piece"? Almost the entire piece is about the details of the rape, which you copied and pasted.

If you are proposing that it is unfortunate that Michael Vick is more well known than one of the rapists of that Iraqi girl, you're right. But then again, you haven't made it clear whether or not you've cut and pasted the opinion about Vick or if it is you're own...

And how on earth do you get to "living in denial"?

Try and be clearer about your frenzied moonbat postings!! :D
 
Bullshit...

You're a cop




Quote from hapaboy:

Apparently you do, given the rest of your post. ROFLMAO!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! You're so off-base it's hilarious!

LOL! Not even close. Have never been a cop or aspired to be one, although I do respect them very much. Wrong again, Einstein.

Given your emotional outburst, I think it's fair to ask - do you have something against cops?

I speak, think, and post like a fascist on the basis, obviously, that I do not share your moonbat philosophies. Too bad, so sad.

Cops are fascists you say - now there's a sweeping statement! What a knucklehead you are. What happened to you, Doc? Did some cop kick your ass once because you were DUI or something? C'mon, fess up why you have this rage against cops.

Uh, given that you are wrong on ALL counts, it is obvious that you have the instincts and intellect of a retarded child. Therefore it is you that shouldn't be a trader, because your powers of deduction are worse than lousy, they're abominable.

Typical moonbat - wrong on all counts and so predictable.


:D :D :D
More...
 
Quote from hapaboy:

What is it, do you suppose, that they hated about that 5-year-old boy?
More...

Exactly. They didn't hate him; they simply used him as a vehicle for as shocking an atrocity as they could come up with. The extremist fringes on all sides ( including Israelis ) are fond of killing children because they know that atrocities against children are unforgivable and are a way of guaranteeing the continuation of conflict.

The problem in the Middle East is that both Jews and Muslims believe that history is purposeful and is moving toward some final destination but they disagree on what that final destination might be; couple this with the "the end justifies the means" argument and you have the formula for ever-escalating misery.

If you were to interview the perpetrators of this horrendous act they could present you with a perfectly consistent rationale for their behavior and therein lies the greater horror of the situation.
 
Quote from heidegger:

Exactly. They didn't hate him; they simply used him as a vehicle for as shocking an atrocity as they could come up with. The extremist fringes on all sides ( including Israelis ) are fond of killing children because they know that atrocities against children are unforgivable and are a way of guaranteeing the continuation of conflict.

.
More...

Excellent review.

It is exactly this kind of event that keeps the world turning...to continue the conflict in the mind that makes the world.

The world needs the idea of guilt and an automatic, knee-jerk judgement system to keep itself going.

These stories trap those without wisdom into a cycle of projection, condemnation, self-judgment and denial. To merely read about it is to be touched by it's poison.

The story kills yet more for the killers.

The truth is that whoever the script says will be burned will be burned.

Who writes this script?

All those involved.

Why?

It is the echo of Self-judgement calling for punishment. So it is self-punishment and self-condemnation.

There is only one Self.

But the appearance is that one self is doing this to another self.

But that is the echo of a belief in separate selves.

A belief in separate selves is a Self-judgment leading to mistakes in judgement, leading to condemnation...to guilty feelings, to anger, fear...leading to insanity.

The script is written.

We are merely players until we see that it is a script.

Then it can be seen that you can no more blame these than you can blame actors in a play who pretend to beat each other up.

If you can face this fact, then you can allow for the idea of innocence to enter the picture.

If you can do that, then love can enter.

If you can allow that, you can escape the tragic drama and help bring it to an end.

Such scenes test your will to bring the drama to an end.

Any judgement on the perps are a judgement on self.

Even though the perps are illusions of Self, to condemn them is to condemn Self...keep Self-condemnation going.

The self-illusions live thousands of incarnational cycles each...experiencing both sides of the story and in every possible way.

But ultimately, all self-illusions are one illusion.

Again, there is only one Self which writes it's own script for self-condemnation.

And the self that is condemned is but an illusion of Self.

Confused?

It's meant to be confusing, because it's meant to be painful.

Still,

There are only two choices:

Forgive or condemn.
Release or imprison.
Truth or illusion.
Joy or pain.

The choice is yours.

Choose wisely so as to end this attack upon yourself and return your mind to the sanity of one Self.

Jesus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top