Skeletons popping out of US' closet
Edward Snowden, the man who gave up his job, his family, and his partner, and ended up in Russia, has a lot of fans, and detractors. Some stand by him as a hero, while some call him a traitor. To each his own.
In this backdrop, one must look at what is going on in the US. This précis will present some facts, and some speculations, and will leave it up to the reader to pick a side.
On the 4th Amendment
The National Security Agency, or NSA, has been accused of "unreasonable search," and was declared
probably unconstitutional by federal judge Richard J. Leon, who remarked, "Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment." Not surprisingly, another federal judge, William H. Pauley III, declared that, "While robust discussions are underway across the nation, in Congress, and at the White House, the question for this Court is whether the Government's bulk telephony metadata program is lawful.
This Court finds it is."
So, which judge is correct?
That, is the question.
Either we accept that there is a constant threat of terror attacks and NSA must be allowed to do what it has been doing, or accept that there is
little evidence that NSA has helped prevent terror attacks and is actually used for
industrial espionage, causing US companies to
lose trust, and eventually, business.
On the 2nd Amendment
There has been a concerted effort to portray guns as the single biggest evil in the US today. CNN has also roped in a charming British journalist, Piers Morgan (pronounced: Pie's Mo'gan or "mow-gun" if you will) to champion the cause of the anti-gun lobby. While Piers Morgan has managed to garner much popularity, ended up being almost physically threatened by Alex Jones, he has also been accused on "
standing on the graves of the Sandy Hook" victims by Ben Shapiro, a pro-gun activist.
So, what is this hullabaloo about? Should we limit guns? Are we going in the right direction? Looking at the recent unfortunate events, that seems so. However, historically, the US is going the opposite way.
The American independence came about as a result of non-conventional armed struggle between Americans and the regime forces of the British government, along with their American loyalists, and the success can be largely attributed to the balance of firepower that the two warring sides had - they both had muskets. Thus, when it came to writing the Constitutions, it was observed that it offered no protection from a tyrannical regime the freedom fighters had just defeated.
"Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, 'What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.'" The story goes on, but let us look at the current scenario. If one were to ensure the same balance as the freedom fighters enjoyed against the then British regime, should the Americans not be allowed to own the very weapons the government has in its disposal? Yes, the ordinary citizens should be allowed to own rifles with standard magazines, including drum magazines, fully automatic assault rifles, sub-machine-guns, machine-guns, sniper and anti-materiel rifles, RPGs, Carl Gustav type RCLs, . . . , and anything that an individual can feasibly own and operate, and don't let this surprise you, it includes fighter jets as well.
To return to a realistic chime, one should consider the path shown by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Mandela, i.e., the path of non-violence as a tool against tyranny. The only problem with these great men's philosophy is the lack of the option to use violence. That is where one needs to rope in the philosophy of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. While non-violence should always be the first option, it would be unwise to exclude violence as an option.
On the 6th Amendment
Holding prisoners in a place that is not a war-zone and is under American control, and denying them trial, not telling them what the charges against them are, and not allowing them to see and know who their accuser should be unconstitutional. It has been argued, that it also
violates the 5th Amendment and the 8th Amendment.
Exception has been made, but
concerns remain.
On the 1st Amendment
The US is generally a free country and allows everyone to express themselves freely. However, the recent
prosecution of Dinesh D'Souza might suggest that the government will use any means it can to stifle any opposition to the government, and not let the Constitution come in the way of the larger scheme of things. This isn't the first time such concerns have been raised. The
Internal Revenue Service has come under scrutiny on suspicions that it was being used by the government in politically motivated targeting of people.
Whistleblowers' character assassination
We have seen this with Julian Assange, as he was
accused of sexual impropriety. Now, Edward Snowden is being, in a not so explicit way, shown as
a possible Russian spy. Where is the evidence? "Well, it is classified," seems to be the only answer.
Why is the government offering plea bargains, when it is one of the parties accused of violation of the people's right? Will the government acquiesce to a referendum on whether Snowden should be given clemency? This seems to be the most logical way out.
A quasi-hijacking
US Ambassador to Austria, William Eacho, the brainchild behind this "hijacking," used all the finesses he could muster, by getting the
Bolivian President's private jet to be denied entry in France, Spain, and Italy, and having it searched in Vienna, Austria. Austria, being a subservient spineless forgettable European country, could only bow down to the "master," do the bidding, in gross violation of International Law, as well as the basic decorum required in the comity of nations. According to
an article in The Guardian, UK, "In revealing
a vast Orwellian police state apparatus servicing history's greatest war-making machine, they illuminate the true extremism of the 21st century. Unprecedented, Germany's Der Spiegel has described the Obama administration as '
soft totalitarianism.' If the penny is falling, we might all look closer to home."
Marijuana, the new cool thing
Colorado and Washington (the state) have taken steps to gradually legalize, in a controlled fashion, marijuana use. Obama has gone on to
equate that with drinking alcohol.
Putting it all together
So, we have curbs on freedom of speech, curbs on right to a free, fair, and speedy trial, a neutering of the American people by taking away their guns, unreasonable and warrant-less search, and seizure without the possibility of
habeas corpus petitions, and the willingness to take extreme steps, even if it means endangering the life of the president of another country, allowing the people easier access to intoxicating agents, hitherto legally and socially unacceptable.
The excellent speech by William Binney (above post) only demonstrates and accentuates the fear that the government, regardless of the party it claims to represent, will always do the bidding of the large corporations, and by extension, will go to war for these corporations, and will also violate the rights of its own citizens for these corporations.
It appears that the government is anticipating an uprising, and not wanting a "well regulated militia" rising up in arms against what it might perceive as a "tyrannical regime," the government wants to take away the guns, keep the young people busy with marijuana (the inebriate won't fight for a cause) and thus off the streets and from protesting, demonstrate the promise of retribution in the event of criticism of the government, and the resolve to hold people under detention indefinitely. The recent court judgments in favour of the government on issues where so many people have been skeptical about the government raises questions about the Judiciary. Is it really independent?
Famous and relevant quotes
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Emerich Edward Dalberg
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson
"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." - Gordon Hewart
[HR][/HR]
@JMM99,
@ladder,
@Adux,
@Known_Unknown,
@W.G.Ewald
