Monday, March 05, 2012

Breitbart, the NDAA, Assassination and the GWOT

If Wikipedia is to believed, in 1994, 800,000 individuals were systemically slaughtered during the subsequently named Rwandan Genocide. There is little doubt that even more bloodshed will eventually follow as people attempt to understand 'what happened' during this turbulent time. Needless to say, this tragedy is due in part to a government's attempt to control another group of differing individuals.

History has seen groups of individuals annihilated because of trivial and matters of great importance. Time and time again, these lambs have been led to the slaughterhouse and while their ethnicity or perhaps their names have changed, the slaughterhouse methodology remains roughly the same. Take an example from Rwanda -
Rwandan police have arrested an independent journalist for comparing President Paul Kagame with the Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler, police said, but an official denied her detention was linked to upcoming elections.

Saidati Mukakibibi, a journalist who works for independent newspaper Umurabyo, was arrested for defamation, inciting public disorder and ethnic “divisionism”, police spokesman Eric Kayiranga said on Monday.
What is not important to this discussion is whether or not Saidati was actually causing any sort of ill consequences in her country. The only germane point at this time is how the government reacted to her. In this example, we see the the government disdain for an opinion that it does not itself possess.  In this case, incarceration was utilized to prevent "inciting public disorder and ethnic “divisionism”".

To prevent these sort of outrages the 1st amendment was ratified that stated in part  -
Congress shall make no law respecting ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 In this act, the framers understood that opinions sometimes run contrary to perceived fact and that in order to ascertain the truth, public discussion must be allowed to occur. By creating this radical doctrine, a country was born where an individual held as much power and rights as those controlled the levers of power. Sadly, the political leaders of our once great nation have seen to it that this will no longer be the case.

At this point, the most egregious example of the erosion of our Constitution is the enactment of the NDAA. Ostensibly, this grotesque piece of legislation redefines the battlefield on the Global War On Terror as to now encompass the American heartland and transfers battlefield rules to the President to facilitate the completion of that role. The literal killer piece of this act, is the creation of a precedent to legally assassinate U.S. citizens without public knowledge!

Now what does Rwanda, Hitler, the NDAA and the GWOT have to do with Andrew Breitbart? The correct answer is, possibly nothing at all. However, if the line of reasoning is that the possibility of unrest due to a journalist making a written comparison of a sitting leader to a mass-murderer warrants arrest, how much more does the actual assassination of citizens by its government directly cause this supposed "public disorder"?

Quite simply, what is the only answer one can give when a concerned citizen asks "Did the US government kill Andrew Breitbart?"

Honestly? We can't reasonably say it didn't, let alone that it didn't do it legally.

And therein lies the rub. How can a government, which purports to be able to legally kill you or your countryman at any time, for any reason, assure you that it hasn't? And if that hurdle has been jumped, what's to assure you that you're not next?

Anything which creates this sort of fear in its citizens is far more devastating to the peace then any silly journalist who says just about anything.

No comments: