By Eric Margolis -- Contributing Foreign Editor Source: Toronto Sun Of all the bad ideas that have been pouring from the Bush administration - the faux war on terrorism, the Palestine mess, invading Iraq, curtailment of civil liberties, unilateralism, growing deficits, farm subsidies, steel tariffs - among the very worst is the dangerous proposal that U.S. military forces be given domestic police powers. Bush administration officials, notably the chief of the newly created Northern Command, Gen. Ralph Eberhart, have been calling for the Pentagon to assume a much greater domestic role in the so-called war against terrorism. A role, apparently, that would give the military power to conduct investigations and surveillance, use troops to "maintain order and security" and arrest American citizens. Canadians might be next, since Canada has been involuntarily placed under the U.S. Northern Command. This frightening plan comes on the heels of Bush's cutely named but sinister TIPs program, a network of citizen informers that recalls evil memories of ubiquitous Soviet and Chinese civilian informers, children denouncing parents, and East Germany, where a quarter of the adult population spied for the Stasi secret police. In the magisterial Roman Republic, father of all our western democracies, consular armies were forbidden by law to enter the city. The Romans realized over 2,400 years ago that soldiers had to be strictly kept out of politics. The Roman Republic died during the 1st century BC civil wars after military leaders Marius, Sulla and, later, Caesar, brought their armies into politics. America's Congress - which was patterned on the Roman Senate - clearly recalled this history when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which outlawed the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. Congress was intent on maintaining supremacy of civilian rule and protecting civil liberties. Properly restrained, the military was a useful tool; unrestrained, a dangerous and ruthless master. Soldiers are trained to kill enemies, not to perform complex police duties that require professionalism, restraint and knowledge of the law. Long, painful experience around the world has repeatedly shown that once the military is brought in to "maintain order" or perform policing, it almost inevitably becomes corrupted, despotic and politicized. One need only look at the doleful history of Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile and Venezuela to see that when soldiers take over internal security, they inevitably end up taking over the government as well. When soldiers are allowed to police, they suddenly realize their latent power and go from being second-class citizens to cocks of the walk. Law quickly gives way before raw power. Those who have served in the military - as this writer has - have a healthy fear of military justice and its drumhead implementation. Interestingly, the Soviet communists were even more sensitive to this threat. Lenin repeatedly warned of "Bonapartism" and urged the party to keep control of internal security and police in the hands of civilians. The Posse Comitatus Act was amended by the Reagan administration to allow use of the military in an earlier bogus "war" - the war on drugs. In this case, the military was sent to identify and intercept drug smugglers outside America's borders. At the time, the idea seemed reasonable. But in retrospect, the inflow of drugs has barely been reduced while the military has ended up with a boot in the door of domestic law enforcement. In 1997, Congress gave the military the power to co-operate with other government departments in countering biological or chemical attacks. This made sense because the military had an arsenal of biowarfare detection, neutralization gear, vaccines and the training to use them. But Congress expressly forbade the military from arresting civilians during biowarfare operations. Now, some of the far-rightists who populate the darker corners of the Bush administration are using public fear and hysteria generated by incessant claims of imminent nuclear or biowarfare attack to press for what amounts to the beginning of national martial law. We hear calls for greater surveillance of phones and e-mail. Next will come calls for limits on speech and dissent. George Orwell laid out this whole grim process in his epochal novel, 1984. Anyone who wants a feel of what martial law would be like should see the gripping Burt Lancaster film about a Pentagon coup against the White House, Seven Days in May. Fortunately, Congress, much of the top brass and even Pentagon super-hawk Donald Rumsfeld seem opposed to this daft idea. Good for them. Separation of the civil and military is even more basic and sacred an American concept than separation of church and state. The voice Americans should be listening to is that of the closest thing the United States had to a noble Roman tribune - former president Dwight Eisenhower. As this great American and former general was leaving office, he warned his people that the gravest threat they faced was not from abroad but from their own military-industrial complex. The U.S. has ample civilian law enforcement agencies to ensure domestic security - perhaps too many. Americans don't need soldiers to act as super-cops. Osama bin-Laden and the far right must not be allowed to stampede the U.S. into military policing. Source: Toronto Sun (CN ON) Author: Eric Margolis -- Contributing Foreign Editor Published: July 28, 2002 Copyright: 2002 Canoe Limited Partnership Contact: editor@sunpub.com Website: http://www.fyitoronto.com/torsun.shtml
Great article. Thanks for posting it. Things are pretty rough here in the states. In just the past one year those of us who read the newspapers -and the alternative news on the Internet- know that all of this is happening because the country is gearing up for war. Or, a "war without end" as the president seems to say. But like Bette Davis said: "fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night." There's supposed to be an opposition party, called the Democrats. but they've been agreeing to everything Bush has proposed. The reason why is simple: they feel that when they get power back in the next elections, they'll be able to employ those same forces against their arch enemy: tobacco smokers. However, the only possible upset could occur if the people who bother to vote felt enough was enough and cast their ballot for the likes of the Libertarian candidates. (of course the election would probably be invalidated, and the Supreme Court re-elect George Bush in a landslide)
That is a beautifully written article! And to Crocii, what is meant by tobacco smokers as the Democrats' arch enemy? I am ignorant to some of these things. Oh yes, and I gots me some kind bud. It's dry and dark and stemmy, and I'm thinking it is probably some kind of indica by the looks of it. This is meeeeeeeeelloooooowwww, and will be very good tommorow morning on the freshly cut grass of marching band camp.
Yea, I know that all politicians, businessman, etc. are all about money, but I still don't get how the tobacco smokers are the enemy,for example, the way you wrote it, it seemed like you were saying that citizens who smoke are bad for the democratic party. You don't have to explain it though. When I am dense on something, it just ends up frustrating the other person.
damn....after 20 minutes i realized i wasnt even halfway done with the article.. sounds interesting from what i read....but.....i can't finish it. those 20 minutes seemed like a LONG time. thanks for posting it, maybe i will have someone read it to me because it sounds interesting.
Bush isn't a bad man........he just does bad things. Americans tend to be alot like sheep these days. I cannot rely on ,nor do I any longer feel any association with any of the 'masses' in this country. I have learned that I alone cannot educate everyone of the truth ,that I can so plainly see. Perhaps it is I who is wrong.