Team Bush and their mob-lawyers have spent an awful lot of time looking for loopholes in the Constitution and the civil code of late, haven't they?

They have now rendered unto themselves the power to a) spy on, b) apprehend, c) imprison, d) torture, and e) disappear any citizen they see fit and can execute the entire process without a shred of oversight or accountability. Is there a better definition of despotism? Anyone?

The "9-11 changed everything" defense is still no excuse for the continuing infringement of due process. As every judge, lawyer, legislator, libertarian, or borderline fan of freedom in the world will tell you, if you don't like a law, you work to change it - you don't just break it. Why does Team Bush keep arguing as if critical needs cannot be secured except through illegal means? Have they even tested that proposition?

Of course, they constantly assure us that there's been no impropriety, that only known contacts of al-Qaeda are being targeted - which we're supposed to take on absolute trust. But, oh my, why are there are so many known al-Qaeda contacts still running around?

As with everything the Bush administration has done since coming into office, it is not necessarily the bold-faced deceptions or illegalities that should really have your average American riled up, it's that they have fuck all to show for it:



But it is the landscape of rank inadequacy and policy failure for which the Bush administration should be taking heat - the fact that all these self-declared powers, these breaches of civil liberties, and this trashing of the Constitution, have not produced results is what should really be causing the White House to be held accountable. In fact, the scale of unchecked powers insisted on by the President's handlers seems to grow in tandem with its ever-burgeoning corruption and ineptitude. This is a point that we must drive home to those still desperately clinging to the credibility of this administration. Because it's the truth.

What saved the asses of Bush I and Reagan back during Iran-Contra scandal was that the public a) found itall a bit hard to grasp and b) were actually somewhat comforted by the misguided belief that it had all worked out for the best, thwarting dangerously evil Commies at our back door.

But while Iran-Contra was a bit of a sideshow at the time, this is all Team Bush has - and they no longer seem to be in control of anything they've started.

An increasing number of Americans have gone beyond wondering if the Bush administration lied here and there to wondering if the president's manipulators ever - EVER - tell the truth. The current barrage of clips of him talking about how everything is being done legally and with warrants is downright chilling, given how typically smarmy he looks. There is no question but that the man is lying - and enjoying it. "Trust us" should no longer be reassuring to anyone.

While, on their own, many of this administration's abuses might be explained, if not excused, the fact that there's such a host of them - amidst suspicions of war profiteering, crony capitalism, and the unjustified expenditure of tens of billions of dollars - should make everyone feel like we're well on the road to becoming one of those archetypical banana republics whose ruling kleptocracy silences or imprisons its critics as "enemies of the state", while truckloads of national treasure head off to Switzerland.

Are we there yet?

We should all be wondering.

Since the FBI and the Pentagon have determined that a broad range of civil, domestic dissent is aligned with terrorism, how far of a leap is it to the assumption that a similar bleed ist occurring across the board, over at the NSA? Indeed, one may even assume that such broad purview over domestic affairs is precisely the reason for the seizure of such powers.

If these powers were being applied with due respect to the stated intent (i.e., protecting American lives by thwarting terrorist plots), why is the process so intent on avoiding accountability at every stage?

Again: American citizens can be spied on, apprehended (a.k.a. kidnapped), imprisoned, tortured and - well, with an unaccountable government, who knows?? That "who knows?" is an important question. In such a scenario, it's far easier to just terminate the innocent than it is to re-insert them back into the real world. Indeed, it is the logical conclusion of such a process.

So: are these the powers we wish to grant anybody, let alone managerial incompetents? Another important question, yeah?

Another reason why the existence of such secretive channels pose problems is that this grey world so loved by the neo-cons is also an excellent means by which foreign powers can penetrate and corrupt our national security. Although rarely discussed, the nature of spying is greatly assisted by the cover such operations provide. This parallel, privatized, presidential justice system is the perfect entreé for foreign agents seeking to manipulate or exploit our national security apparatus (do the fundamentalist adherents to a certain Middle Eastern religious figure whose birth is being celebrated today count as "foreign agents"?). The cloak of secrecy, while promoted as a necessity for security, may in fact provide the perfect cover our enemies need. This is a far more important issue than is credited. Has anyone seen a single mention of it anywhere?

Indeed, one might begin to wonder if the administration hasn't already been infiltrated - at every level - by people pursuing agendas of personal gain or ideology, people who can be corrupted and who can, under cover of national security, work to subvert the national interest and defraud the public purse. Indeed, I have seen some compelling speculation that Team Bush has already been manipulated by such foreign interests. At any rate, the combination of greed, stupidity, self-righteousness, and secrecy cannot possibly end well - can it?

Equally troubling in relation to Pentagon and FBI domestic surveillance, is the absence of known terrorist leaning militias and white supremacist groups. How is it possible, particularly after the Oklahoma City bombing, that such groups avoid scrutiny? Are they being "protected"? If Quakers and gay rights organizations are enemies of the state, are fringe religious zealots and armed militias friends of the state?

In New York, revelations about the NYPD's use of agents provocateur should also trouble us. If the excuse of stifling domestic dissent arises from their perceived capacity for violence, well... hmmnnn. Simply plant an agent to throw something at a cop and - hey, presto! - you can arrest the whole crowd. Damn, you could probably send them all to Gitmo - or Poland, even. (Don't forget about Poland! Or, as one friend moaned when hearing that we were using Stalin era secret prisons there, "Oh great, when do we re-open Auschwitz?")

How far away are we from declaring whistleblowers like former General Greenhouse enemies of the state? Would revealing details about a corrupt Halliburton contract make you an enemy combatant since to disclose such details regarding procurement is tantamount to aiding the enemy? Since we know that Team Bush has been a bazaar for all kinds of hucksters, hacks, and nepotistic second-raters, what assurance do we have that this system is not being used to facilitate and cover-up all kinds of other felonies?

For years, "humorists" like Ann Coulter have passed off their hate speech as mere free speech. But these repeated depictions of liberals as traitors ripe for a beating have placed our republic on the razor's edge of chaos. What would happen if opposition to the President's prerogatives grew in volume and intensity? What if riots and civil unrest grew? Is that what they are really preparing us for?

Sorry, but speaking of a police state is no longer hypothetical. The entire apparatus needed for one is in place - has been for some time. All that is missing is the will. We have no guarantees here - no assured liberties or rights. Not any more. All we have are the administration's assurances that we should trust them.

Our response - quite simply - must echo the Great God Reagan: "Trust, but verify." It is, after all, the American way.



Oh - Merry Christmas.

Tags: political rant, tin-foil hat?
humour: deeply troubled