A Humble Question to the President

With revelation a couple of days ago that the president ordered the National Security Agency to spy on citizens of the country, we have seen an orgy of official and officious lying in proportions unprecedented even for this government.

Two, among the first, were downright astonishing. Offensive, actually – anybody who tells you a lie this obvious thinks you’re stupid, or powerless to do anything about it. New York Representative Peter King, for instance, looked a nationwide television audience directly in its collective eye when he said with a straight face that Article Two of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the president to violate the privacy of U.S. citizens. I reached for my copy of that document honored more in the breach than the observance these day (when you’ve lived the life I have, you have one the way I have), then read Article Two aloud to others in the room.
No, of course, not – there is nothing that even remotely suggests such a thing. The man lied (well, we have to think either that or that a U.S. Congressman doesn’t know much about the nation’s highest law).

Attorney General of the United States Alfredo Gonzales didn’t go so far; just far enough to make himself a liar. He said the Bush Administration’s lawyers “considered” that the U.S. Congress “intended” for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to authorize the president to spy on citizens.
Sure, that’s why they set up a special court just for the purpose in question.

Mr. Gonzales, there may be some stupid lawyers - you seem a likely candidate for the title - but none THAT stupid.

So here we go again. The blizzard of lies has begun. Federal, Bush League, “damage” control. As a matter of fact, and to be fair when it’s hard, the only one of the bunch who has come near the truth is the president himself. He admitted immediately that he did it, but said he did it because it was the right thing to do. He says he’s mad at the New York Times for breaking the story because it will make it harder to get intelligence having to do with the war on terror (that Osama bin Laden and cell phone story was a beaut, wasn’t it?).

Mr. President, you’re right as rain. Damned right it will make things more difficult. Doing the right thing is, indeed, awfully difficult sometimes; for the federal government these days it seems damned near impossible, matter of fact. But consider the alternative. If the “terrorists” can make us repudiate the Bill of Rights, the very freedoms you say they hate, they win. We lose.

Now, I may be oversensitive where this matter is concerned. The record of what happened is what it is, and what the U.S. District Court for Colorado a few years ago was so intent upon concealing. You and your patrician gestapo treated me like a pet rabbit, a critter without rights or value. Now you say it’s just this one time, and just for the terrorists. You would never take advantage. Trust you. Sure. The check’s in the mail, if we’re pregnant, you’ll do the right thing, and you won’t -oops! Would you please tell me why - with the record federal government has where truth is concerned - we should trust you? I wouldn’t trust you as far as I can throw you.

That’s fundamentally the reason I had some very harsh things to say here a few paragraphs back. I don’t, parenthetically, take any of them back; this, matter of fact, is my Declaration of Albraoth. This isn’t about pride, bluster, or machismo. It isn’t even about honor. This is about a man who will not be dominated. It’s about freedom, “which no good man surrenders but with his life.” I said this, too, a few lines ago here, but it bears repeating: let me catch you in my house illegally and with the customary federal malice, and I will kill you there. Send one of your SWAT teams, and some, maybe all, will die. I invented the concept, don’t forget, and I still study and train regularly to defeat that kind of intrusion. I have a right to be secure in my house, and I will defend it against everyone and anything.

Which brings me to another thing that seems perhaps to lie at the heart of your apparent misconceptions. That is the fact that it is often heard these days from officialdom, including the Supreme Court, that the Constitution “grants certain rights.” That is a very grave error, sir. The constitution, in fact, grants NO rights; it guarantees certain rights. Rights come from god, from the fact of being man. Neither does the Constitution limit the rights of man to those contained in its enumeration and recitation. That, sir, is the meaning of “free” where a citizen of the United States of America is concerned.

But. If you and your confederates in Washington are so afraid of our enemies, let me help. Obviously, if this kind of thing – destruction of freedom in order to save it - is all you can think of, you obviously need a great deal of help. Just as I offered before you let the same kind of really stupid advice mire us in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’ll offer some advice.

You do not make the camp in hostile territory (and that, whether you’ve thought of it or not, sir, is the basic nature of war with terrorists) more secure by dispersing or sending your defensive forces out into the night. Any military tactician knows that to take a fortified position requires numbers many more than to defend it. More, the weaponry and logistics of attacking “walled cities” – to quote Sun Tzu – requires far more of the attacker than the defender.

But that’s what it’s about, isn’t it? The transport, delivery, and supply logistics of attack are many times that of defense. To attack costs many, many times what it costs to defend. Halliburton and the military industrial complex that owns you body and soul would literally hate to hear that Abu Massad Al-Zarqawi had been captured (matter of fact, I hear that he actually was at one point – why am I not surprised?), or that Osama bin Laden were dead (he is – isn’t he . . .?).

Tell me, why is it that with everyone else in the nation being asked to sacrifice for the “War on Terror,” if the citizenry can be asked to pay the staggering costs, if our soldiers can be asked to give their lives, why is it that certain of us are allowed, even encouraged, to profit immensely? Why aren’t Halliburton and the rest required to contribute some or all of their staggering profits (increased some 280% since the Iraq War began)?

If we are being asked to surrender our freedoms, what will they contribute?