L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 152, December 17, 2001
NOW THAT'S JUST MEAN!
A Foolish War - Part Four: A Fickle Rumor Of Invasion
by Keith Shugarts
Exclusive to TLE
I invaded the Kennedy Space Center.
It was a dark and stormy lazy Florida night, except it wasn't stormy, just dark and lazy and in Florida.
The red instrument lights of my 1976 BMW 530i glowed ominously as if the car was sensing, in some odd Herbie-the-Love-Bug way, my intentions.
I drove straight down the Florida road towards the brightly lit house imagining that it was just another garish roadside attraction that I'd seen hundreds of times before.
But this was not a normal house, it was the guard house for a section of the Kennedy Space Center. I slowed down, showed proper respect and waited for someone to emerge. No one did and I proceeded on my way. This preceeding on my own way served to attract the attention that was lacking before. The form of the attention was a rapidly closing government issue Jeep with four rather ominous looking figures in it. I began to turn around, not really intending to go any further since I was headed towards the beach and a late night surf.
I had invaded the Kennedy Space Center. At least that is what William F. Buckley would suggest if his recent writing were any measure - and my "invasion" of the Kennedy Space Center would be warrant enough to begin the last stages of the dismantling of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
In order to betray the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, William F. Buckley, writing for the Universal Press Syndicate, wishes to portray the events of September 11th as an invasion. The reason Mr. F. Buckley wishes to paint the events of September 11th with an invasive brush is that this then would allow the United States government to suspend habeas corpus under powers given to it by Article One, Section 9 of the United States Constitution and make greater use of the Constitution wrecking War Powers Act. Mind you, the caveat to this section is included within it when it says when the public safety may require it and that has not been shown or demonstrated. This is how those on the right will salve their souls and destroy the Bill of Rights and Constitution, they will do it with subjective interpretation as have many before them.
"All men own that it is the duty of a prince to protect his people, and some have said, that it is their duty to obey him when he butchers them. An admirable consequence, and full of sweet consolation," from the Cato Letters. Mind you that war has not been formally declared by Congress. To Mr. F. Buckley that is only a technicality since the President is able to operate much like a King-General under the War Powers Act. If Mr. F. Buckley would have taken the time to look at Article One, Section 8 of the same Constitution, he would have found that it is the Congress who has the power to declare war. Of course this is obviously an unnecessary burden and obstacle placed upon the President who must go before the Congress and be accountable for the actions he takes. But it is a burden imposed by the Constitution conveniently ignored by the War Powers Act.
And why did the Founding Father's only include invasion or rebellion in the Constitution as legitimate uses of force when there are governments to be toppled, evil people to be coerced, and lots of bad bad evil things going on in the world? That's simple, because both an invasion and a rebellion are internal conflicts and defensive in nature - neither is provocative, instead, they are reactive. The Founding Father's believed that the use of the military should be limited to the preservation of internal security and not be sent all over the world to invite the atrocities visited upon this country on September 11th. Atrocities that would then be used as the tool to dismantle and then deny the Constitution and Bill of Rights much like the supposed invader is wanting to do.
Then the Founding Father's went on to make it even more difficult by saying that the Militia should be called out in time of invasion (The 2001 version of the United States Standing Army is not the Militia). Why the Militia?
1.) It is made up on individuals not beholden to the government for their daily food and bread.
2.) It is a temporary force and once the threat is gone, so is it.
The creation of a permanent standing army and air force places in this land an armed force capable of destroying the Bill of Rights and Constitution that it was created to defend. The creation of a standing army also serves to place the control of the military under the government and make it beholden to its government controllers.
Of course all these restrictions getting in the way of running a war, and most of these restrictions need not be heeded because the War Powers Act has usurped the Constitution.
Mr F. Buckley also wishes to give the President the power to improvise in his response to this new sort of warfare and most likely the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would only be inconvenient stumbling blocks. "But tyranny must stand upon force, and the laws of tyranny being only the fickle will and unsteady appetite of one man" written in the Cato Letters. The War Powers Act gives King-Caesar George the Shrubbery, the ability to act with the fickle will and unsteady appetite of one man without restraint of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Further on in his piece, Mr. F. Buckley seeks to sooth the mind of the "hysterical chicken littles" of Constitutional doom and gloom as he derisively calls them, when he states in response to fears of the military tribunals that many of those people rounded up and held will be left go (eventually) and out of 10 brought before the tribunals, only 1 will be found guilty. Of course this seems to echo Trenchard and Gordon's writings when they say, "though he may sometimes punish crimes, perhaps more out of rage than justice, will be much more likely to persecute and oppress innocence, and to destroy thousands cruelly, for the one that he protects justly".
Again, mouthing the words of his King, Mr. F. Buckley seeks to put forth the idea that the al Qaida Network's main target is the American people and the freedom that the hold so dear is worthy of sacrifice in the face of such threats. Such threats that do not really exist. Of course. Mr. F. Buckley is not the only one suggesting turning a blind eye to Constitutional protections. Bill O'Reilly, the face of the every-man American Fascist, asked a guest about the news that librarian in Delray Beach, FL had informed federal agents about one of the terrorists use of the computer, "It's about national security - wouldn't you do that? I know I would." Interesting that all the actions to curtail freedom and liberty are all being undertaken by the government while the tyrants all point at the terrorists saying, "it was them."
Mr. F. Buckley suggests that the ACLU take a few days off so that hidden enemy can be rooted out of this country. In a way, Mr. Buckley is asking that the Bill of Rights and Constitution turn their heads away for a moment while these erstwhile leaders avail themselves of a momentary suspension of rights and freedoms. This attitude suggests, despite Mr. F. Buckley's assertions to the contrary, a very flippant attitude towards freedom and liberty and a seeming total disregard for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The events on September 11th were an atrocity, they were however, not an invasion, and more importantly, not a reason to suspend or ignore the Constitution or Bill of Rights as Mr. F. Buckley would suggest. By asking the ACLU, and in that statement asking anyone concerned with the preservation and enforcement of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, to look away while rights and liberties are threatened is the request of a tyrant and another cry for the death of freedom.