power and consequences

An almost daily theme these days is the ‘war on terror’. I have already spoken about how our action in Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars, at least not by the definitions that have existed up to the 70's. Perhaps those definitions should be redefined, but that is not for me to decide alone. Even so, the sound bites continue to proliferate faster that a Carnival samba dancer can dance. And decisions that will affect the future of not only this nation but the world continue to move forward.

Some have questioned the various aspects of the programs employed currently to retard and prevent those that would attack this nation. Now I do not believe there should be a lack of criticism of the government. That is an essential right and strength of our nation. That doesn’t mean I agree with them. One case in point was addressed by Mr. Stuart Levey, undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, in that the efforts of the nation to prevent funding for terrorist activities is only a small but important part to defeat terrorist acts in America. Often detractors of one aspect of the efforts to protect the nation fail to see the whole picture, or choose not to see it as it allows them an opportunity to create political sound bites that are more catchy, even if they are somewhat inaccurate in my view.

Some would say that my comments in questioning the need to use the term war, and the identification that our national efforts to fight that ‘war’ will amount to an endless struggle are in fact detractions like those I mentioned above. I do not believe this is true. I believe that in pointing out logical conclusions to facts and actions occurring currently the opportunity to make proper decisions is created. I do not have a problem fighting terrorism, ideal or not. I do not have a problem with having military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, whatever the reason for being in these countries. I have always been confident that we are, in the net result, positively affecting the lives of those who live under the threat of oppression and terror. This thought is also shared, I believe, by James S.

I think that we cannot lose sight of the freedoms and rights provided and protected by the Constitution and Amendments. The need to protect ourselves from fanatics, does not require us to become fanatical ourselves. I disagree in part with <>F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee<>. Perhaps it is due to being a Hispanic Black African American, in that I recall the actions of the FBI against Dr. Martin Luther King, or Malcolm X, or the Black Panthers. Each was done as an act to protect the nation, and in each case the government has admitted it was wrong. Recent allegations of illegal use of power by President Bush, in the wire-taping of perhaps millions of calls, is another items that causes me pause. If the wire-taping had not been found by a reporter, it would have gone on for an untold amount of time in secrecy. Perhaps only as long as we fight the war on terror, which in my view will not end as it is an ideal backed with a religious fervor and that cannot be defeated (similar I think to the attempts of the Crusades to remove Islam). My disagreement does not question that there is a need to have laws in place to address those fanatics that would seek to destroy us. Nor do I feel that safeguards placed upon those laws are unwarranted or lack vision to the future. But human nature is such that all eventualities cannot be accounted for, and interpretations of law change, and power corrupts even when the intentions are good.

This is what I think, what do you think.