Memorials and conquerors

Published 6/2/06

In Albany, N.Y.’s Crossgates Mall, there’s a memorial to the Karner Blue butterfly under a staircase. It’s there because, in building the mall, one of the Karner Blue’s rare habitats was virtually wiped out. So instead of the butterflies, the people of Albany have a steel and glass reminder of them.

In New York, N.Y., there’s a memorial to freedom being built: the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower that’s replacing the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Instead of our freedoms, we have a glass and steel reminder of them.

The old style of war was a war of conquest: One group tried to conquer another by occupying its land. Your fight against the invaders was a fight for your freedom — if they won, they’d impose a law and culture you didn’t want.

In fighting the war on terrorism, though, we aren’t fighting against an enemy intent on conquering our lands. That’s one reason this is a very different kind of war. There is no realistic point in which the Bad Guys will have won. The Western world will not become an Islamic caliphate; the United States will not be wiped off the map.

There is no agenda and there are no demands. They are simply trying to hurt us.

The fight, for us, is simple: Do not let that happen. And there are many ways to accomplish that goal, offensive and defensive.

The problem is that in a desperate attempt to fight that war, to stop ourselves from being hurt, we’ve found a way to lose the other kind.

What does it mean to be conquered? It means that different people set the rules — people you may not like creating laws you may not like. Sometimes those laws are based on ideology, sometimes on religion, sometimes on something else. If those ideals or gods or what have you are not yours, you have lost.

Which is why we as a people are losing that other kind of war. We have enabled a different kind of government to set the rules.

It’s one that taps our phone calls and collects our phone records, then lies about doing it.

It’s one that tells us we must sacrifice our privacy for security, then demands for itself absolute secrecy in its dealings.

It’s one that feels it doesn’t need warrants to search our homes, stamping the paperwork “National Security” and telling us it’s for our own good.

It’s one that gives itself the right to look at our library records, our health records, our phone calls, and our e-mail, but denies us the right to know when this is being done.

And it’s one that portrays anyone who disagrees with it as an enemy.

The age of conquering armies is over. But the potential for the effects are the same: the loss of our ideals, our values, and our freedoms — the very things that make us who we are. When those are gone, we are a different people. Perhaps we should consider this for what it is before we hail our conquerors.

Add to del.icio.us Digg it! Add to Technorati Add to Furl Add to reddit Stumble it!

The Fray


Bob Francis says:

Amen! and we accept it with a smile.

June 3rd, 2006 at 6:39 AM

Leland says:

Andrew, we’re going to disagree again. I think you’re off base.

Other then all pervasive debacle at the airports (which I agree is over kill and badly executed), can you name some things you can’t do today that you could do before Sept. 11th? What freedoms have you lost?

There is no such thing as privacy anymore. With credit reports, medical information bureaus and massive databases all linked together over the internet, almost everything we do is logged by someone somewhere and available to everyone else. Even our grocery buying habits are analyzed for trends for eventual targeted marketing.

Wholesale call logging came to life when the first ESS exchanges went on line in early 1970. Where do you think the call records came from in such high profile cases such as Scott Peterson, The Enron Gang and even as far back as O.J. Simpson? You don’t think someone went back in time and monitored the switch do you?

The fact is that we do not own our call records. Those are property of the phone company and they can do what ever they want with them. As long as my records are being mined, they may as well be mined for something more useful then deciding whether to send me ads for Chinese food or pizza.

When it comes to warrant-less surveillance under the heading of national security, the fact is the president is well and truly covered under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), The Patriot Act, The National Security Act and the mountain of case backing The National Security Act.

The AMUF was passed on Sept. 14, 2001. Within this document congress acknowledged, “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Surveillance of phone calls being made to and from suspected al Queda operatives clearly falls within this description. That concept was upheld in principal in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 547 (2004) when the Supreme Court ruled against Hamdi. Let me quote from the decision, “The AMUF clearly and unmistakably authorizes the fundamental incidences of waging war.” Monitoring the communications of the other team was fundamental to waging war from the beginnings of recorded history.

Warrant-less Surveillance under The National Security Act has been upheld over and over again by courts up and down the judicial hierarchy. The repeating theme in all those decisions is that it is better to preserve a country in which these concepts can be debated then it is to lose the country.

Here are a couple of highlights:

* The Supreme Court recognized that the President has always had the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes in handing down the decision on Katz v. United States 389 US 347, 363-364 (1967) when they wrote a warrant is unnecessary “if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.”

* The Supreme Court ruled that “warrants are generally required in the context of purely domestic threats, but it is expressly distinguished from foreign threats.” - United States v. United States District Court 407 US 297, 308 (1972)

Congress knows this too. It was sadly obvious during the hearings on the matter. With the TV cameras on and all the national exposure those talking heads went on for days. Almost every representative went well over their allotted time to posture and postulate for the voters at home.

However, when the hearings went into executive session the landscape changed dramatically. With the TV cameras off and the spectators gone, all of seven representatives felt the need to sit in on the hearings. The executive session lasted an hour and a half.

You just have to love politics.

Now, just for fun, lets take a practical look at the now busted surveillance operations. Not too long ago I read there were 159 million cell phones in the United States. If the Federal Government wants to listen to all those cell phones for just one minute a year, they would have to have over 300 people working 24 hours day, seven days a week. And that does not include one residential or commercial landline. Now most reasonable humans know they can’t do that.

Unless you’ve been making calls to Iraq, there’s an excellent chance the boys and girls at the NSA don’t know you exist. The NSA could not possibly care less who your bookie is, where you buy your grass, who you’re cheating with or talking dirty to. If for no other reason, they simply do not have the time.

As for the “source” that leaked information about ongoing intelligence operation, I would put him under the jail. No one will ever know the damage done when al Queda operatives read their communications had been compromised. But you can bet your bottom dollar and a couple donuts that the boys that want to attack this country made some changes in their command and control structure.

Would I make any changes to the Fist Amendment? No. But I would make an addition to the federal law books. If another attack takes place and it is discovered outing the operations alerted terrorists to make changes in their ops to avoid detection and allow a successful operation, the new law would allow victims and their families to recover damages from the news organization that originally broke the story. They may as well have someone that owns some responsibility for the attack rather then innocent airlines and building owners.

With freedom comes responsibility. That includes the all mighty press.

June 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 PM

Richard says:

Thanks for the on-the-mark commentary about our open-ended “War on Terror,” and the freedoms that that war (not the terrorists) are costing us.
I’d like to add that while “there is no realistic point in which the Bad Guys will have won,” there is also no point at which you can declare victory in a war against a tactic — which is really what makes the accompanying incremental loss of our civil liberties so frightening.
As mentioned on this Web site, this trickle-down terrorism has even spread to Community High School District 128 in Illinois, where students’ blogs are being monitored to find infractions punishable under the district’s code of conduct. It also has infected the private sector. As I document on my Web site http://www.JuniorG-ManAward.com, every fan attending an NFL football game is patted down, every fan at a Major League Baseball game has his carry-in bags rifled, and patrons to museums, night clubs and other venues around the country are being subjected to punitive personal searches and pat-downs that accomplish little more than violating their privacy.
The people of Nazi Germany were lucky in a way. Because Adolph Hitler did not rule the most powerful country in the world, he lost the war. When the people of America finally realize that their freedoms have been lost in the “War on Terror,” who will come to restore them?

June 5th, 2006 at 4:01 PM

Weigh in

Yer name:

Yer e-mail (to be notified of responses or I can respond privately -- never ever shared):

Yer Web site (if you like):

What you have to say (Be civil, or it might be removed; comments with links
might be held for moderation, just so you know):




Site created with

and


Blog run by