A Price Worth Paying, As Long As It Is Done Right & Lawfully
Estimated Price Tag Of Security Measure Causes Stir
With all the billions being spent "over there" rather than right here, it is actually a relief to see some debate on spending money on the issues, procedures, methods and infrastructure as recommended by the 9-11 Commission. While I am happy to see some of these issues come to the forefront, especially regarding security matters of our own shores, ports, railways, borders, roadways and industrial plants, I am also concerned that the taste of fascism that we have experienced under George W. Bush's direction will continue to be the overriding ideology of our security measures.
Security measures are not supposed to be fascist when they occur in a democracy such as ours. We are supposed to be implementing security to keep our people safe in accordance with the purposes of government as set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution. If, however, we implement rules that require excessive measures (i.e. the national identification card movement), ridiculous procedures (i.e. taking shoes off at the airport), or methods that are ineffective and non-productive (i.e. the illegal NSA domestic spying programs, database collection from telecom and Internet companies, the building of DNA databases for everyone arrested, etc.), we are going to kill our entire idea of freedom.
Liberties allowed in a democracy require risks. We risk being invaded every time our leaders engage in diplomacy. We count on the decency and humanity of the other nations with whom we interact, even when there is conflict. Most of the time our efforts to avoid outright combat are successful. But what we must do is adhere to our principles in our diplomatic interactions. We must not compromise our principles to obtain military, economic and geopolitical power. We can achieve such power by employing our principles in all that we do.
We do not need to worry so much about most nations invading us. Perhaps China has the capability to do so, but most other nations are lacking the political organization, the economic and militaristic logistics, or the will to do so. So we have been relatively save from invasion for some time. But we haven't been save from attack, as was proven by the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers in 1993 and 2001.
But at the same time, we must realize that it is our status, our compromise of our principles, our support for despotic regimes, our own hypocrisy that enables terrorism. Since we are not likely to be attacked by most civil nations, and most despotic regimes fear our potential for reprisal, the tactics of terrorism and guerrilla warfare are relatively the only approach that can work against us.
We saw that in our (illegal) invasion and conquest of the Saddam Hussein regime. Our military forces rolled over Iraqi military forces in both the justifiable Gulf War of the 1990s, and our most recent illegal invasion. The Iraqi forces were not really a match for what was called our "shock and awe" approach. But as is seen under the present conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, small clandestine units carrying out guerrilla tactics (such as IEDs) are able to thwart our overall effort to implement military security. If the Mufti Militias were to confront US forces directly--even with the money, supplies and support from all over the Middle East--our military might would bowl them over.
But what is the goal of the insurgents? Are these insurgents really terrorists or merely patriots--right or wrong--seeking to oust external forces and bring the conflicts over power, wealth and ethnicity to a head to allow a new Iraq, in whatever its form, to emerge?
But I digress. We need to begin employing our most treasured principles--those embedded and embodied in the Constitution--in the way we treat security and our own people. We need to restore standards that the courts have previously held sacrosanct, but have been eroding in the face of pseudo-justification under the umbrella of fear-mongers and fascists that would rather have big government intervention over the very principles our founders and framers gave us. Our liberty is what makes us great and secure. It is our liberty that motivates Americans to serve their nation. It is our greatness--as expressed by exercising our highest ideals and most precious principles--that motivates Americans to stand ready to defend our way of life.
So here we are stuck with a $21 billion over six years for implementing some very real security measures. While we're at it, let us spend some more of our money on restoring the integrity of our infrastructure. Let us cutback on the waste, fraud, profiteering and theft we see in government contracts associated with the military (especially those in Iraq at this particular time), corporate welfare, corporatism, and poor management. Let us cutback our excessive military spending on things like nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and put our money into public health, civil defense, roadway maintenance and upgrade, railways systems that work more effectively, a national health plan, housing or other things that improved our way of life.
Then we need to export these things to other nations. We need to deal with other nations with integrity and compassion. We need to offer food, health care and technical support for infrastructure instead of military and geopolitical manipulations. We need to assure that any aid we offer is directed properly and focused on what we intended it to do, or we need to withdraw it. We need to stop dealing with despots, maniacs, dictators, criminals and nut cases, and start dealing with nations that are working toward compassionate care for their people. And if military intervention is needed, and we are called upon to provide it, we need to assure that there is a plan for quickly and efficiently implementing a plan for restoring self-government for whatever nation we have entered.
But our security is entirely dependent upon the way we deal with others in the world. We certainly do not want to be bullied, manipulated or ripped-off by other nations, or even groups. So we need to remain vigilant in this regard. But at the same time we cannot allow ourselves to be hypocrites.
Let us spend some money where it will do some good. Let Representative King (R-NY), stick a tube in his sock and spend some money on the American people instead of the cycle of destruction and restoration of other nations, or on making the top five percent of Americans who already possess too much access, influence and wealth even more wealthy and influential.
With all the billions being spent "over there" rather than right here, it is actually a relief to see some debate on spending money on the issues, procedures, methods and infrastructure as recommended by the 9-11 Commission. While I am happy to see some of these issues come to the forefront, especially regarding security matters of our own shores, ports, railways, borders, roadways and industrial plants, I am also concerned that the taste of fascism that we have experienced under George W. Bush's direction will continue to be the overriding ideology of our security measures.
Security measures are not supposed to be fascist when they occur in a democracy such as ours. We are supposed to be implementing security to keep our people safe in accordance with the purposes of government as set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution. If, however, we implement rules that require excessive measures (i.e. the national identification card movement), ridiculous procedures (i.e. taking shoes off at the airport), or methods that are ineffective and non-productive (i.e. the illegal NSA domestic spying programs, database collection from telecom and Internet companies, the building of DNA databases for everyone arrested, etc.), we are going to kill our entire idea of freedom.
Liberties allowed in a democracy require risks. We risk being invaded every time our leaders engage in diplomacy. We count on the decency and humanity of the other nations with whom we interact, even when there is conflict. Most of the time our efforts to avoid outright combat are successful. But what we must do is adhere to our principles in our diplomatic interactions. We must not compromise our principles to obtain military, economic and geopolitical power. We can achieve such power by employing our principles in all that we do.
We do not need to worry so much about most nations invading us. Perhaps China has the capability to do so, but most other nations are lacking the political organization, the economic and militaristic logistics, or the will to do so. So we have been relatively save from invasion for some time. But we haven't been save from attack, as was proven by the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers in 1993 and 2001.
But at the same time, we must realize that it is our status, our compromise of our principles, our support for despotic regimes, our own hypocrisy that enables terrorism. Since we are not likely to be attacked by most civil nations, and most despotic regimes fear our potential for reprisal, the tactics of terrorism and guerrilla warfare are relatively the only approach that can work against us.
We saw that in our (illegal) invasion and conquest of the Saddam Hussein regime. Our military forces rolled over Iraqi military forces in both the justifiable Gulf War of the 1990s, and our most recent illegal invasion. The Iraqi forces were not really a match for what was called our "shock and awe" approach. But as is seen under the present conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, small clandestine units carrying out guerrilla tactics (such as IEDs) are able to thwart our overall effort to implement military security. If the Mufti Militias were to confront US forces directly--even with the money, supplies and support from all over the Middle East--our military might would bowl them over.
But what is the goal of the insurgents? Are these insurgents really terrorists or merely patriots--right or wrong--seeking to oust external forces and bring the conflicts over power, wealth and ethnicity to a head to allow a new Iraq, in whatever its form, to emerge?
But I digress. We need to begin employing our most treasured principles--those embedded and embodied in the Constitution--in the way we treat security and our own people. We need to restore standards that the courts have previously held sacrosanct, but have been eroding in the face of pseudo-justification under the umbrella of fear-mongers and fascists that would rather have big government intervention over the very principles our founders and framers gave us. Our liberty is what makes us great and secure. It is our liberty that motivates Americans to serve their nation. It is our greatness--as expressed by exercising our highest ideals and most precious principles--that motivates Americans to stand ready to defend our way of life.
So here we are stuck with a $21 billion over six years for implementing some very real security measures. While we're at it, let us spend some more of our money on restoring the integrity of our infrastructure. Let us cutback on the waste, fraud, profiteering and theft we see in government contracts associated with the military (especially those in Iraq at this particular time), corporate welfare, corporatism, and poor management. Let us cutback our excessive military spending on things like nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and put our money into public health, civil defense, roadway maintenance and upgrade, railways systems that work more effectively, a national health plan, housing or other things that improved our way of life.
Then we need to export these things to other nations. We need to deal with other nations with integrity and compassion. We need to offer food, health care and technical support for infrastructure instead of military and geopolitical manipulations. We need to assure that any aid we offer is directed properly and focused on what we intended it to do, or we need to withdraw it. We need to stop dealing with despots, maniacs, dictators, criminals and nut cases, and start dealing with nations that are working toward compassionate care for their people. And if military intervention is needed, and we are called upon to provide it, we need to assure that there is a plan for quickly and efficiently implementing a plan for restoring self-government for whatever nation we have entered.
But our security is entirely dependent upon the way we deal with others in the world. We certainly do not want to be bullied, manipulated or ripped-off by other nations, or even groups. So we need to remain vigilant in this regard. But at the same time we cannot allow ourselves to be hypocrites.
Let us spend some money where it will do some good. Let Representative King (R-NY), stick a tube in his sock and spend some money on the American people instead of the cycle of destruction and restoration of other nations, or on making the top five percent of Americans who already possess too much access, influence and wealth even more wealthy and influential.
The federal government would need to spend $21 billion through 2012 to pay for provisions in a House bill aimed at implementing unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Budget Office said late Friday.
The bill, which was the first to be pushed by House Democrats after they took control of Congress, would establish several new spending programs that would need appropriations, such as paying for grants to help state and local government buy interoperable communications equipment, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction abroad, and improving airport security checkpoints.
According to CBO, the cost to implement the legislation would result in new discretionary spending of $21 billion from 2007 to 2012.
The price tag set off a tiff between House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and ranking member Peter King, R-N.Y.
"This bill was rushed to the floor without the Democratic leadership giving us any indication of its massive cost--and now we know why," King said. "I think this $21 billion estimate makes it clear that the bill actually contradicts 9/11 Commission recommendations, which called for a risk-based allocation of homeland security resources. Had we known this before the bill was brought to the floor, it would have been a different story."
posted by Jim Downey at 5:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home