...Eternally Wars

Like the signature on an apocalyptic love letter, the message that the Bush administration has been driving into the psyche of the American public is that the "War on Terror" is an ongoing battle that justifies any government action deemed necessary to guarantee the safety of American citizens around the globe. Don't do anything that could possibly compromise any of those "protective" measures, either - and of course don't question them - or you're personally threatening American lives. I see so many inherent problems in this line of thinking that I just don't know where to start. Fear-inciting governments? Gross abuses of power? Multiple intelligence leaks? Irresponsible blame-shifting? The devaluation of non-American lives? So I'll start with what incited today's rant, instead.

Friday's New York Times story (similarly in the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal) disclosed a secret CIA program operating since shortly after 9/11/2001 that collects confidential financial records and data maintained by a Belgian cooperative said to be a nerve center for international banking. Needless to say, Bush and other supporters of Big Brother government are righteously pissed, with Representative King (R-NY) calling for criminal investigations of the NY and LA Times as well as the WSJ. While of course the administration claims that everything that they're doing is simply for the good of the American public and entirely legal, you have to question why, exactly, officials directly involved in the exposed programs would have strong enough discomfort about the programs' legality and oversight to take such risks as talking with the media. I know that mainstream media is all about generating hype and controversy, but there's got to be a lot of truth in this story for everyone to be so upset about it.

This brings me to the first point that everyone's talking about, so I'll just touch on it briefly. What constitutes irresponsible reporting, and how does the public's right to know - a basic tenet of democracy and effectively freedom of speech - measure up to the government's power's and responsibility to defend the public from threats? All I'm going to say is that in my opinion, a public isn't worth defending that would gladly forefit it's rights of information to support that safety. While I'd rather be the farmer than the sheep, I'd rather still we all were famers with no sheep to sheer, and full knowledge of all the wolves and other threats that surround and infuse us. That's a bit corny, but you get the idea.

On to the appropriately-placed second point. This Swift story is the second exposure of questionable (to put it euphemistically) practices by intelligence and security agencies under the auspices of finding and tracking terrorists and their organizations. Of course these methods aren't going to work as well if everyone knows about them, but I highly doubt that they then become entirely useless. More importantly, what was viewed by many of the nearly 20 unnamed officials to speak with the NY Times as an initially necessary yet temporary measure after 9/11 has turned into a permanent practice, even though its implementation was based partly on the president's emergency economic powers. Is the U.S. still in a time of emergency? I don’t think so. You must have a strange definition of the word if you think we are. Are we still under threat? Of course. Have there been two years since the inception of our nation that there hasn’t been a threat of some sort or another? No.

The question is, then, how much of a threat is the country under, and does it warrant the kind of sugar-coated gross abuses of power that the government sells as doctrine every chance it gets? The culture of fear that has been shoved down our throats since 9/11 has now just become a part of our daily diet. Yes, yes, of course there’s a horrible omnipresent terrorist threat that will kill us all if our big brother government doesn’t use all it’s available powers (and some formerly illegal ones, but he said they’re legal now so it’s okay) to protect us – but only if we’re supportive American citizens. We’ve heard it all a million times before. Now shut up and let me get back to watching American Idol. Do whatever you need to do – just don’t interrupt me.

(The whole Ameri-centric-ness-ocity-ism-ness of the majority of public statements also really bugs me, but as I’ve already tried to cram about 5 essays worth of topics into one increasingly lengthy rant, I’ll have to get to it later.)

So, before I prematurely wrap up this unfortunately long rant, let me find my way back to the title. All this fear-based governance has been with us so long already, that it’s becoming a bore. While that usually spells the end of a movement for the increasingly ADHD American public, it seems that the practices will continue, unfortunately. All that’s going to change is the fervor and frequency of the fear-based battle cry of justification. What has me thinking about all this is the number of times you hear the President and his administration saying that we’re at war. Most of the time, the topic is terrorism, but the war they reference is in Iraq. The “War on Terror” is a war just as much as the “War on Drugs” is a war. Calling it a war is almost comically arrogant. Which one is deadlier? Illegal drugs have killed so many more people than terrorists, yet no president has ever even asked for emergency powers during that war. Based on the Bush administration, Reagan should have been exercising emergency executive privileges in order to protect American lives from the unprecedented threat of illegal drugs. Is this “war” on terror that much different? It’s just as futile, just as unending, and is being approached in a manner that is just as stupid as the “war” on drugs. It’s not going to end, especially if the current administration and the prevailing right-wing power base have anything to say about it. War is good for those in power, and as long as we continue to sit on our butts and accept everything we’re fed, It’ll be

Eternally Wars,
AJ