We've been robbed ...
Unauthorized
wire taps, unlawful
monitoring of calls,
universal monitoring of our personal e-mail, monitoring
of our credit card purchases and bank transactions,
the 'Patriot Act', collection of our library records, indefinite
imprisonment of anyone
labeled an 'enemy'.
What I don't understand is, where is the outrage?
Americans are mostly taking this lying down. I don't
understand
it. They should be mad as hell.
How did we get here? ...
The original states were concerned that the Constitution left
too
much power with the federal government. In response to that
concern Congress adopted the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments
to the Constitution in 1789.
The Fourth Amendment says,
"The right of the people
to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Seems pretty straight forward, right? But, the
current
president seems to be ignoring this. So, what happened?
Separation of
powers and checks
and balances were built into the Constitution, with power
shared
between three branches – legislative, judicial, and executive
(the
president). This was done to insure that no branch,
particularly
the executive, could become too powerful. The founders of the
U.S. feared kings and wanted to make sure we didn't end up with one.
What
if, one day, we had a
president who wanted to be King? How could he do
it given
this
balance of power? There is a way to do it. The
president's
powers in an emergency and during war-time are only vaguely
defined. The first thing he'd do would be to declare an
emergency
and a long-term 'war' on a nebulous 'enemy'. He'd claim the
right
to do whatever was necessary for 'national security'. Then,
if
Congress or the courts didn't agree with some of the things he was
doing, he'd quietly ignore them and pull the veil of 'national
security' around those things. If he kept the war going long
enough and if he accumulated power gradually, he could in a few years
be King. He could make the laws, interpret them under the
Constitution in his own best interest, and then execute them.
This situation is described in literature as a
'constitutional dictatorship'.
What is the real
purpose of the
'war on terror'? John W. Dean has written a
short article
you
might find interesting. You be the judge.