Papers

All right, the semester is over and I'm free for a while. I suppose I'll share some essays written for my English class. It's a long ass paper about the Constitution. Have fun reading it, haha.

"Where is the world headed? Currently, our government is making a mockery of our Constitution. Sometime in the future, if we follow this path, the U.S. may become a police state. Consider these lyrics, “…Cops tape the scene up, gunner downs 9; they're chasin' away kids playin' hop-scotch in his chalk outline. Two F-16's screech an iridescent sky, look down we're not in Iraq we're in NY! Rats in the streets we move underground like earthworms two coasts couldn't abort Satan in his first term. The army in the subway walkin' with toolies(note: Uzi-gun). I'm on the train with the back of the dollar bill still talkin' to me. Drive with my left I know what's right my weapon hand, like the map of DC streets still shows a pentagram. License on the car window when I pass through you've seen the news, no joke, New York pig department will blast you. My Weatherman party is invite-only soldier cuz with one wave of King G Dub's scepter it's over. The right to assemble puts the bureau's team on you. Look into my file and nod to this while Jell-O screams on you."[17]

That’s America’s future: a police state; an abject form of government. We can prevent this. It is America’s future only if we succumb to the whims and lies of politicians. But if we want America to go in the right direction we have to know where we are and where we’re going to get there. There’s only one document that can show us this.

The United States Constitution: a timeless masterpiece that exudes liberty. It is the metaphorical chain that constrains an incessant leviathan of power. Today it seems that beast has broken free of his bonds. How so? A pertinent quote may well explain how, "I prefer a man who will burn the flag and wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and wrap himself in the flag,"(Craig Washington).

Since 9/11, many political pundits claim there will never be peace in a post 9/11 world; we should all stay locked up in our homes, be terrified, and let the government take care of us. Some of us, however, have a problem with the measures the government utilizes in order to "keep us safe."

But, we must never let go. Vandals have tried to tear the fabric of the Constitution since its inception. Just because someone says a slave is three-fifths a person doesn't make it so, nor that they should be slaves in the first place. Just because someone says gays shouldn't marry because it's sinful doesn't mean gays shouldn't have the right to get married. These statements come from people who simply don't understand the Constitution or choose to ignore it for their own personal benefit. You can't claim to be defending every American's rights saying those kinds of things because that technically would make you a hypocrite and perhaps a liar. Unfortunately for many, this isn't a theocracy. If you enjoy that kind of life, there are numerous settings in the Middle East you may be more at home in.

This isn't a tirade on religion. I include that second example because religious ideas, like the flag image in the quote, can also be wrapped around a man. Furthermore, 9/11 is the “flag” politicians cover themselves with while burning the Constitution. We shouldn’t allow this event to act as a springboard for Constitutional annihilation.

Today we see many flag-drapers ‘burning the Constitution.’ I don't want to live in a "your papers, please" surveillance state because it's one of the signets of fascism, "In a free society, the government responds to citizens — laws and government adjust as people go about their lives, change their views, culture, ways and means. Government follows populace. In a fascist society, the citizen responds to the state, or loses primary rights and privileges. You are either within the State or outside the State. Populace follows government. The State becomes the focus, not the individual. [1]"

There is no reason to live in a state like that. We have to understand a few things, first of all, if we're going continue to fight whatever we're fighting. The first thing that we should do, which makes sense, is to figure out who exactly are our enemies. Now, our president has given us a vague ten letter word, 'terrorists,’ which can be interpreted in so many ways just like George Bush’s favorite text: the Bible.

We should remember the statement as the CATO Handbook on Policy points out, "the joint resolution approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives authorized the president,

'to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,’[18]"[2]

The source quoted comments that the U.S. should, "...not to wage an amorphous war on terrorism or evil or to unnecessarily conflate the terrorist threat with rogue regimes that seek weapons of mass destruction...focus the war on terrorism only on the Al Qaeda terrorist network and not expand it to other groups or countries that have not attacked, or do not represent a direct threat to the U.S....recognize that much of the war on terrorism will not involve large-scale military action but will emphasize diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement cooperation with other counties...make domestic counter terrorism to find Al Qaeda operatives in the United States a top priority for the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

The writers also emphasize that we, "must not engage in actions or follow policies that create sympathy and recruits for Al Qaeda; that is, we must avoid needlessly giving Muslims reasons to hate America." We should also, "improve relations with foreign intelligence agencies in order to be able to share information about suspected Al Qaeda operatives. (Such cooperation should be limited to intelligence and law enforcement; the U.S. military should not become involved in fighting other nations' wars for them.)"[2] Note: the point of pointing this out is because it mentions who our enemies are. It can’t be any U.S. citizen picked out of a pile. The government needs to be careful and calculated with who the ‘terrorists’ are, and the difference between them and U.S. citizens.

Now that we understand who our enemy is, the U.S. can focus its efforts and waste less resources. The next thing policymakers should do is reduce the budget for national defense, "from the current sum of more than $400 billion to about $200 billion in increments over five years... and make it clear that the reduced budget must be accompanied by a more restrained national military posture that requires enough forces to fight a major war anywhere in the world."[3]

Advocates like Ben Cohen, the Ben in Ben and Jerry's, show us in simple terms, in Oreos, how much better it would be for America if it spent some money appropriated for defense into other domestic destinations like education, health care, world hunger, and other beneficial causes. We don't need to spend money on weapons and things in our geopolitical situation. Putting it into these other areas almost seems like it would guarantee a tremendous improvement which would be great news for the people of America. We're not going more in-depth because the focus here is on the Constitution, this is a basic wrong that accompanies our focused war on terrorism and the in-depth details aren't necessary.

The next measures seem counter-intuitive. Legislators should, "make it clear to the public that homeland security efforts cannot make the country absolutely safe against possible terrorist attacks...and ensure that civil liberties are not sacrificed for unneeded and ineffective homeland security measures."[4]

The writer, on behalf of CATO, explains the situation well in his piece's final paragraphs,

"Finally, all homeland security actions must take into account civil liberties implications. We must heed Benjamin Franklin's admonition that 'they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' Before the government infringes on civil liberties, it must pass a litmus test: the government must demonstrate that any proposed new powers are essential, that they would be effective, and that there is no less invasive way to accomplish the same security goal. Ultimately, we must remember that although terrorists may take advantage of our liberties to exploit vulnerabilities in our society, our liberties are not the problem in trying to defend against terrorism. In the final analysis, homeland security means securing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not just the country itself."(Italics for emphasis)[5]

That's how it should work today, instead of how it is: rambling on about how unsafe we are and that our liberties may also be an enemy because of the way terrorists exploit them. CATO’s italicized final analysis is what I am adamantly advocating.

This of course leads us into which laws infringe on our liberties and what we should do about it. The most important is Habeas Corpus. It's basically the writ by, "which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment."[6]

James Walsh's Liberty in Troubled Times expands with the title 'Why Holding You Without A Charge Is So Bad',

"Some argued during World War II-- just as some argued after 9/11-- that temporary violations of constitutional rights are not a big deal. And, they argue, this is especially true during wartime, when the whole American system that recognizes and supports constitutional rights is endangered. Those people were--and are--fools. Next to killing its own citizens, imprisoning people without charges is the world thing a government can do. It is the most literal infringement of liberty. On a more abstract level, it assumes that the state's prerogatives come before the individuals constitutional liberties; this is the all-too-common epitome of statist arrogance,"[7]

Further, in the conclusion, “The government's suspension or disregard for Habeas Corpus is always troubling...but it isn't a new problem... The U.S. Constitution is full of Habeas Corpus protections, both explicit and implicit. The 5th Amendment requires due process--from arrest to trail to jail; the 6th Amendment requires a speedy trail before a jury of your peers. The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive bail and unusual punishments...In times of war most of all, constitutional rights need to stand strong. If they don't, the state has no cause to continue fighting."[8]

The second document we should investigate is the infamous Patriot Act. The Patriot Act has some good reasons for its existence and numerous reasons which really tick Americans off. Basically, the good should stay and bad should go away. For example, Representatives Sensenbrenner and Conyers found out a couple of interesting points like how the Justice,

"Department had used the Patriot Act for non-terrorism cases (drug violations, credit card fraud, theft from a bank account, a lawyer who defrauded his clients)."[9] In Liberty in Troubled Times Walsh's conclusion is the appropriate one, "In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Americans wanted their government to do something. John Ashcroft's Justice Department was very savvy at producing that "something." As time moves away from 9/11, the need for "something" diminishes...and the Patriot Act should, too... Maybe the worst effect of the Patriot Act is that it gave state agencies one more excuse to be secretive. It has encouraged the Attorney General to be uncooperative with the head of the House Judiciary Committee. A few parts of the Patriot Act are important tools for fighting terrorism--the ability to use roving wiretaps and the increased flexibility in using evidence gained from FISA search warrants in domestic prosecutions are reasonable changes. But, in 2005, the rest should fade into sunset."[10]

CATO says a rather concise, "Policymakers should not make the mistake of underestimating the American people. Of course, the electorate wants safety, but it wants the federal government to secure that safety by fighting the terrorists themselves, not by turning America into a surveillance state. [11]"

The American people want reasonable measures in America, as we see; they don't want Orwell's 1984 society. Walsh also deduces, "History suggests that those fundamental liberties will rebound. They did after the statist power grabs that produced Adam's Aliens and Seditions Acts, Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus and Roosevelt's imprisonment of Americans of Japanese extraction. Current laws like the Patriot Act will likely join those measures in the reject bin of U.S. legal history. [12]"

Third, we have Posse Comitatus. What is it? Well it basically prohibits our military from carrying out law enforcement tasks inside the United States. The reason for this is quite simple as Walsh writes how,

"This comes down to the issue of rules of engagement. Civilian law enforcement requires the recognition of and focus on individual rights; it seeks to protect those rights, even if the person being protected is a criminal suspect. Prior to the use of force, police officers attempt to de-escalate a situation. Police officers are trained to use lesser forms of force when possible to draw their weapons only when they are prepared to fire. On the other hand, soldiers are trained to use deadly force. Escalation is the rule. In an encounter with a person identified with the enemy, soldiers need not focus on--or even recognize--individual rights. And the use of deadly force is authorized without any aggressive or bad act by that person."[13]

What I hate the most about this law is what Walsh says would be a logical extension: martial law,

"Some fear that the logical extension of the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Bush Administration's desire for secretiveness is--and there's no way to report this without sounding like a conspiracy nut--martial law... The details of martial law exist currently in the law. Section 32 CFG 501.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations states, tautologically:

'Martial law depends for its justification upon public necessity. Necessity gives rise to its creation, necessity justifies its exercise; and necessity limits its duration. The extent of the military force used and the actual measures taken, consequently, will depend on the actual threat to order and public safety which exists at the time.' Virtually any military officer in a position of authority can make the decision to declare it. The Code states: 'In most instances, the decision to impose martial law is made by the president, who usually announces his decision by proclamation, which usually contains his instructions concerning its exercise and any limitations thereon. However, the decision to impose martial law may be made by the local commander on the spot, if the circumstances demand immediate action, and time and available communications facilities do not permit obtaining prior approval from anybody.'

Most of the Code of Federal Regulations is made up of dry, legally-precise technicalities. The sections on martial law are distinctive because they're so vague."[14]

Walsh's conclusion is one I agree with,

"In the United States, the Posse Comitatus Act and the tradition of civilian control of the military are strong deterrents to the coups and military juntas that plague so many developing countries. But Americans need to be careful to maintain these deterrents. There's nothing in the American water or Americans' genes that make us free. Our institutions and laws do that... The erosion of liberty--like all erosion--is difficult to recognize because it goes so slowly, so gradually. Bright lines can help prevent erosion. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Freedom of Information Act are two such bright lines. People who love liberty should protect these bright lines jealously."[15]

The final problem we have to deal with is with National ID cards. They provide a negligible amount of security for a rather large amount of privacy. It makes no sense to use them. Cato’s handbook on policy goes well in-depth so I may as well make their argument mine,

"Every policy proposal should be carefully examined for effectiveness and consistency with our values and freedoms. A national or uniform ID system offers less protection at greater cost to freedom than it appears to. Verifying identity is just one, fallible, way of attempting to secure transportation systems and infrastructure. A national or uniform ID system would be a small but significant step toward future impingements on freedom, including mandates that all Americans carry identity cards at all times, the creation of an internal passport system, and government tracking of individuals' travels and financial transactions...

Indeed, past incidents of terrorism have been carried out by people born and raised in the United States, people who had been issued proper, fully valid identification. Knowing who a person is reveals little about his plans or motivations, and a national ID system would do nothing to distinguish first-time terrorists before they attack. Terrorist recruits or people who newly adopt terrorist methods will not be revealed by a national ID system until after our security has failed and disaster struck...Proponents of national ID systems point to countries in Europe, such as France, that already have national ID card systems. But the experience of those countries is nothing to brag about. The people in those countries have surrendered their privacy and their liberty, yet they continue to experience terrorist attacks. National ID cards simply do not deliver the security that is promised."

What I find most important is the reasoning in third paragraph,

"In the countries that already have the national ID card systems, the police have acquired the power to demand identification at will. Implemented widely, such power would become an "internal passport" system. "Your papers, please" could again become a familiar request, harking back to the worst totalitarian states of the last century. Americans are rightly suspicious of national IDs for this reason. A uniform requirement to carry and produce identification could quickly devolve into a comprehensive tracking mechanism, used by government at first to investigate ordinary crime but over time to systematically track and control ordinary, law-abiding citizens."

Therefore, "It is very important that policymakers not lose sight of what we are fighting for in the war on terrorism. The goal should be to fight the terrorists within the framework of a free society. The federal government should be taking the battle to the terrorists, to their base camps, and killing terrorist leadership; it should not be transforming our free society into a surveillance state."[16]

All of these cases brought up infringe our Constitutional freedoms. Constitution burners: flag embracers and religious zealots, tend to be unscrupulous. They contend that our Constitution holds us back from safety and “freedom.” It makes me sick to see this case of ironic intuition. It’s sad how 9/11 is used by these zealots in an attempt to proselytize its citizens. Banning gay marriage? Is this some kind of joke? It’s practically guaranteed by the Constitution, if anything. There are no double standards in the Constitution. Everyone is equal and able to pursuit whatever their heart desires so long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. If politicians can’t understand that they are hypocritical. If somebody swears to uphold the Constitution but doesn’t why isn’t he punished? Maybe the great American experiment was destined to fail. I won’t give up on it, though.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It’s unfortunate that “we” the people are going to have to do this sooner or later; but, this tree is suffering from a drought.

Works Cited:

[1] http://susiemadrak.com/2005/08/19/09/06/your-papers-please-2/
[2] CATO Handbook on Policy: Chapter 49 ‘Dismantling Al-Qaeda’
[3] CATO Handbook on Policy: pg. 511
[4] CATO Handbook on Policy: pg. 501
[5] CATO Handbook on Policy: pg. 508
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
[7] James Walsh’s Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 130
[8] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 134
[9] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 238
[10] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 241
[11] CATO Handbook on Policy: pg. 204
[12] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 328
[13] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 146
[14] Liberty in Troubled Times: pg. 148
[15] Liberty in Troubled Times; pg. 150
[16] CATO Handbook on Policy: Chapter 27 ‘National ID Cards’
[17] http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=3530822107858581264
[18] http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html"