One argument in defense of the sweeping wide net of counter measures following 9/11, has been that there has not been any more terrorist attack inside the US national territory.
However, it should be noted that 9/11 followed seven years without any such terrorists attacks. It might be that the “success” of the counter-terrorism measures is just luck of the dice
The immense and growing legal uncertainty about what protections exists for domestic and foreign individuals and groups against harsh and unregulated measures of detention, surveillance and deprivation of rights, have other serious consequences. One being the hampering of public efforts to remedy a renegade government which has cut itself loose from its need for active consent of the governed.
Fear and insecurity about legal protections discourage any persistent and effective effort for change or remedy especially since suppressive preventive measures are coupled with psychological operations to create public vigilance and suspicions against any views and actions which can be perceived as disturbing the internal peace and order [iv]
The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, along with statutory laws, are often evoked as providing protection of rights, liberties, of the relationship that the government depends on the consent of the governed and protection from arbitrary rule. However, nobody can be protected from illegal acts unless these acts are challenged and found illegal by the system of justice, ultimately the Supreme Court which provides the ultimate interpretation of the constitutionality of all actions, decisions and “lower level” laws.
There are many ways in which the Executive Branch, as well and the Legislative, can take measures to prevent a case from coming before a court and influence how the court will decide [v]. Part of the reason why there was such a fuzz over whether there were “improper” political reasons behind the firing of several US Attorneys[vi] in 2006-2007, following what appears to be elaborate political plotting and planning, was the power US Attorney’s hold in deciding when and if to bring criminal charges, and what charges to bring, in cases where the evidence would justify charges [vii].
Those who do refer to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence for protection, should be aware of a crucial fact.
The governing documents for the US government place the ultimate responsibility of ensuring government compliance with it, squarely on the people.
There are times more forceful action is needed, and Thomas Jefferson explained such circumstances in the Declaration of Independence he authored..
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (and) endowed....with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
