A Time for Change

It is the unending curse of every population to one day require that the shackles of their governing bodies be thrown off. At some point in the life of every civilization there occurs the moment in which the people become victims of a government that has far outstripped not only its granted powers but its ability to move beyond a particular M.O. that is tyrannical toward its own people. Each generation is in possession of a longer line of hindsight than the last, yet somehow this comes as a surprise every time it happens.
We are now saddled under the yoke of a president we did not vote for, who now blatantly and consistently ignores the documented will of the people he is sworn to serve. Indeed, even the powers set in place to curb the abuse of power have become little more than advisors with the desire to replace the king. A pissing contest is now in session in which the American people have no say, yet are the direct victims of this power struggle.

Don't believe me?

In the National section of the LA Times for 3/29/07, this article ran concurrently with this article, and if that doesn't chill your blood, please reference the post in slashdot from spiedrazer regarding this conversation between our esteemed Attorney General and one Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18 (conversation paraphrased courtesy of Danny Dorsey):



SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there's an express constitutional provision that it can't be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you're referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.


SPECTER: Well, you're not right about that. It's plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.


GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn't mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?


GONZALES: It has been a while, but I'll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.


SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.


GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. [technically true i guess. so the framers were saying you couldn't take away something that isn't granted or assumed in the first place? clearly.] But it's never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme —


SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?


GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas." It doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —



SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.


GONZALES: Um.

Please read this article from the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel for details concerning the exchange.


Are these truly the people in charge of protecting the American people, of which they are (at least nominally), a part? I do no support violent revolution or terrorism, GOVERNMENT SANCTIFIED OR OTHERWISE, but for how long can the tyrannical leanings of ANY government be tolerated by its own people?

Many will say that such statements are unamerican, to which I would reply that they need to re-examine the nature of our original split with England. To constantly test the decency of the powers that govern us is in the very nature of the American Spirit (at least in theory). To blindly ignore the signs of impending storm and to blithely swallow the ravings of the propoganda-machine that is modern entertainment, to continue to support a government that blatantly lies, misleads, and double-talks its own people, to ignore the mounting outcry of ones fellow men, domestic and foreign, is quite possibly the worst act of treason imagineable in a country that prides itself on the supposed freedom, intellect, and dedication to good of its people and leaders.

It is far past time that something be done to curb the destructive actions not only of our president and government in general, but indeed to re-examine entirely the philosphy of government that can lead to and allow such flagrant war-mongering, hate-mongering, and power-mongering.

It is our job. No one elses.

Read More...

Summary only...