RichardHarlos.com

The following is a brief Q&A that I was inspired to write after reading this morning’s news about how President Bush is now considering deploying the National Guard across the U.S.-Mexico border as part of his plan to curb illegal immigration:

Question #1: Why would President Bush consider deploying National Guard troops to monitor the United States’ souther border?

Answer #1: Because he’s erecting a framework that will ultimately end up in an American police-state.

Question #2: What, exactly, is meant by ‘a police state’?

Answer #2: A police state is an authoritarian state which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, often through violent or arbitrary means. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism or other harsh means of social control. In a police state the police are not subject to the rule of law and there is no meaningful distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

A government does not describe itself as a “police state”. Instead, it is a description assigned to a regime by internal or external critics in response to the laws, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime’s stance on human rights, the social contract and similar matters.
     -from Police State, Wikipedia.com.

Question #3: C’mon, get real. We live in America, the good ol’ U.S. of A.! No way is America becoming a police state; you’re just nuts.

Answer #3: Considering what we just read about the dynamics of a police state, have you considered current events lately? Consider these, just a few of the many, many indicators that an American police state may not be as far-fetched as you first thought:

Once again the Bush administration is turning to the military to help solve a domestic problem. But instead of hurricane aid or preparations to cope with avian flu, the
Pentagon is being asked to possibly provide thousands of National Guard troops to shore up the U.S. border with Mexico, as part of President Bush’s effort to gather support for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.
     -from Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S. Border, Yahoo! News, 13 May 2006.

What’s wrong with using the National Guard to secure the U.S. border with Mexico? Quite simply, it’s against the law. You may recall that one indicator of a police state is that “there is no meaningful distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.” In other words, the law is whatever the executive, i.e., President, says it is.

What law prohibits using the National Guard at the border? It’s the law of Posse Comitatus. Full details of this law may be reviewed at Posse Comitatus Act, Wikipedia. A relevant excerpt of that article follows, with my emphasis bolded:

4. Nevertheless, by its express terms, the Posse Comitatus Act is not a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President’s obligations under the Constitution to respond promptly in time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency.
5. Existing laws, including Title 10, Chapter 15 (commonly known as The Insurrection Act), and The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Title 42, Chapter 68), grant the President broad powers that may be invoked in the event of domestic emergencies, including an attack against the Nation using weapons of mass destruction, and these laws specifically authorize the President to use the Armed Forces to help restore public order.

Now let’s be very clear about something: manning the border to help deal with the illegal immigration issue is hardly a “serious emergency” comparable to the other contextual markers such as “time of war” and “insurrection.” Ordering the National Guard to man the Mexican border also doesn’t nearly measure up to the severity of “using weapons of mass destruction” or even of having to “restore public order.”

What we have here is a power-hungry dictator-to-be. You may recall that President Bush just last month referred to himself as ‘the decider:

“I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision,” [Bush] said. …

“I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.
     -from Bush: ‘I’m the decider’ on Rumsfeld, CNN.com, 18 April 2006.

Yes, I realize Bush’s comments were specifically made regarding whether Donald Rumsfeld should stay on or go. Even so, the underlying attitude of ‘what I say goes!’ cannot be easily ignored in nearly every aspect of Bush’s public persona as President of the United States. A few examples are in order:

1. Imprisoning people for suspected involvement with terrorism yet never charging those detainees.
2. Transporting many of those detainees to secret facilities outside the U.S. under a program known as extraordinary rendition (functionally equivalent to ‘federally sanctioned kidnapping of suspects’) where they were, presumably, without any privelage to petition U.S. civilian courts to be charged, or to have their matter heard as to the legality of habeas corpus.
3. Forbidding human rights organizations such as the International Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc., access to any of the detainees as far back as the beginning of the 9/11 tragedy, and continuing until this present day.

There are many, many other incidents that could be cited for your consideration. The writing is on the wall, America. Now, more than ever, is the critically wrong time to be too busy to care about such dangers. If you wait until the tragedy is clearly upon us, the very nature of what you can and cannot do in a police state will prevent you brand you as a threat to national security unless, from that point on, you conform and comply.

After all, only terrorists and ‘enemies of the state’ rebel against the authority that is legitimately in place and whose sole aim is to protect them… right?