Liberties Continue to be Trampled by Fear in U.S.

In a rather disturbing episode, Iraqi peace activist and blogger Raed Jarrar was forced by officials to remove a political t-shirt at JFK airport in New York because officials claimed the t-shirt was offending other passengers. The shirt, which said "We Will Not Be Silent" in Arabic and English, was intended as a protest of the Iraq war. After Jarrar passed through a security search, officials approached him and said that "People are feeling offended because of your t-shirt." They officials asked Jarrar to remove the shirt, and he initially refused, claiming that his freedom of expression was being violated. He later complied with the officials' demands, and changed shirts, though he says that he intends to pursue legal action against the officials.

Strikingly, one of the officials said to Jarrar, "You can't wear a T-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads 'I am a robber' and going to a bank". Have five years of living in fear of terrorism, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and being subjected to the fearmongering rhetoric of our government succeeded so completely in transforming Americans into this kind of intolerant, xenophobic monsters? By what bigoted standard does the Arabic language amount to terrorism, as the official implied in his statement? Even more striking (and indicative of a sick, intolerant culture) is the absurdity of the thought that a terrorist would ever wear a shirt with Arabic writing on it to an airport -- and the fact that most Americans are probably so saturated with fear that they would not realize this. Who in their right mind would think a would-be terrorist would draw attention to themselves in such a manner? This stifling of free expression can thus not reasonably be defended as any sort of legitimate defense against terrorism. It is about something entirely different and more disturbing.

This episode reveals in all its ugliness the transformation that is taking place in American society -- and which has taken place in many decadent, powerful societies -- in which Americans are growing increasingly paranoid, intolerant, militant, and at odds with the world around them. Only in such a decaying, sick society could mainstream conservative writers speak seriously of the imminent danger of Muslim conquest and the threat to our society from immigrants. These nonsensical, paranoid imaginings -- intended to feed a culture of fear and increasing desperation -- are successfully fueling the transformation of our society into one in which absolute government power is welcomed and differences (whether cultural, religious, or political) are seen as dangerous.

If our few remaining freedoms are to survive much longer, Americans need to shake off the cloud of fear and ignorance that has been set in front of them and seek to repair the damage already done.

"If You Don't Like It, Leave"

The blog over at onegoodmove.org has an interesting clip up dealing with perceptions in America of atheists, especially by Christians. The most interesting part for me was towards the end, when an atheist and a Christian are discussing the printing of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency. The discussion had been rather friendly up until this subject came up, with the Christian at one point even apologizing for the general negativity of Christians towards atheists. But as soon as the issue of what to print on money came up, the Christian man insisted that he liked that phrase on the currency, and refused to acknowledge that such a proclamation of faith could be disturbing for atheists.

The conversation got even more interesting when the atheist asked a hypothetical question: What would the Christian man think if the money said "There Is No God" on it? The Christian man, who had up until then been understanding and sympathetic, immediately became confrontational, and refused to even consider the hypothetical. When the atheist related that the current phrase on American money is as disturbing to him as would be a denial of God to a Christian, the Christian man says "If you don't like it, move." This of course is amazing because the man had just moments before been very sensitive and reasonable, and because it assumes that America is in some way an officially Christian country, in which non-Christians should submit to Christianity or leave.

The most interesting aspect of this exchange was not the specific subject being discussed, but the general attitudes of the atheist and the Christian. The atheist was understanding and respectful of the Christian's faith, and the Christian was similarly respectful until the atheist brought up a subject -- changing the phrase on currency to say "There Is No God" -- that the Christian perceived as threatening to his beliefs. The first aspect of this that is interesting is the general difference in outlook between the two people -- the atheist or "freethinker" seemed committed to understanding all viewpoints and discussing subjects objectively, while the Christian did the same except when the subject changed to one that triggered a defensive, emotional response.

This is not to say that atheists are always more objective or understanding than Christians, but it raises an important point regarding emotional attachment to ideas, especially religious and political ideas. The exchange described above is repeated in millions of different ways by people everywhere, especially in discussions of religion or politics. When people hold certain beliefs so closely that they personally identify with them -- as is common with religious and political beliefs -- most people respond emotionally and irrationally to anything they perceive as a challenge to their cherished views.

This is seen very commonly in politics when someone criticizes some action of the U.S. government, and is told that if they don't like it, they should leave the country. Of course this argument is ridiculous -- surely the Christian man in the example above wouldn't suggest that someone should leave the country because they oppose the legality of abortion -- yet it reflects an attitude of political and religious intolerance that thrives in an atmosphere of nationalism, partisan politics, and a general "us-and-them" mentality. The idea that everyone in a country should submit to the prevailing religious beliefs and government policies is as deep-seated as it is dangerous. Within this knee-jerk urge to impose standards and oppose differences are the seeds of totalitarianism and fascism.

Ironically, the people who most frequently invoke "American culture" and "American principles" which they propose should be universally held by all Americans are also those most horrified by the idea of Islamic extremists expecting non-Muslims to submit to their Islamic codes. The same kind of worldview lies beneath both tendencies. Americans seek to universalize their values and way of life -- be it Christian, democratic, or something else entirely -- just as Islamic extremists seek to impose strict Islamic codes of conduct on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. While the two tendencies differ insofar as Westerners have been taught to respect individual rights, the same urge towards homogeneity animates both movements. Western culture has grown and prospered specifically because it has sought to suppress such totalitarian urges, however politicians and ideologues still appeal to this dangerous tendency in order to build support, spread fear and nationalism, and secure control over various social forces and political tendencies.

Those who value freedom would do well to look out for this creeping fascist tendency and learn how it is used by the powerful to manipulate and control.

Will the Ceasefire Make a Difference?

With the official beginning of the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah beginning yesterday, August 14 at 8:00 a.m., a number of questions are arising as to whether the UN resolution will effectively halt the hostilities. Passed on August 11, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 set forth a number of basic goals and necessary steps meant to bring about cessation of fighting and stabilize the region. The main points of the resolution are as follows:

• Full cessation of hostilities (OP1)
• Israel to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon (OP2)
• Fully implementing the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords and resolutions 1559 and 1680 urging Lebanon to speed up the disarming of Hezbollah. (OP3)
• Full control of Lebanon by the government of Lebanon (OP3)
• No paramilitary forces, including (and implying) Hezbollah, will be south of the Litani River (OP8).

While these points address the most important aspects of the conflict, there remains some question as to how effective the resolution will be in bringing about an actual end to fighting. The reason for this concern stems not from the basic points of the resolution, but from the means of implementation and the possibly unrealistic conditions that must precede any international involvement. While the assistance of international forces will almost certainly be necessary to successfully remove Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon and disarm them, the resolution makes deployment of international forces contingent on there not being any other armed groups in the region. This means that either Israel or the weak Lebanese government will have to defeat and disarm Hezbollah before peacekeeping forces will even enter Lebanon.

The situation, then, is like this: Israel will not be obligated to leave Lebanon until the peacekeeping forces arrive, and Hezbollah has vowed to continue fighting until Israel pulls out. The UN forces will not move into Lebanon until Hezbollah stops fighting and is disarmed, however Hezbollah will not stop fighting as long as Israel is in Lebanon -- the Lebanese government is far too weak to disarm Hezbollah alone, yet it cannot receive any assistance until after it has already somehow disarmed Hezbollah. Further complicating the issue, Israel has said that it will continue to fight against Hezbollah until the UN forces arrive (story here), and Hezbollah has vowed to continue fighting until Israel leaves. Of course, the fact that the two sides will be fighting will preclude the possibility of international forces coming into the area.

The most likely result of this resolution, then, will be a lull in the fighting that will last for a short while as Hezbollah regroups and rearms. After this lull, either Hezbollah or Israel will launch an attack that will spark the resurgence of violence, which will continue indefinitely as UN forces wait for the fighting to stop (and for Hezbollah to give up its arms) before they move into Lebanon. In the meantime, the Lebanese government will attempt to convince Hezbollah to disarm, and will almost certainly fail since Hezbollah has vowed to continue the fight against Israel's invading forces.

This resolution, masterfully crafted by the unquestioningly pro-Israel U.S. to look like a path to cessation of hostilities, will in reality allow Israel to continue their operations indefinitely -- as if there was no ceasefire at all -- since international forces will steer clear until Hezbollah is wiped out. The only way things will progress differently than this is if somehow Hezbollah can be convinced to give up its arms, or if UN forces for some reason decide that they can move into Lebanon before Hezbollah is taken out of the picture. Since Israel and Hezbollah have openly declared that they intend to continue fighting, the only way the fighting will stop is if Hezbollah is eventually defeated or if Israel is forced to pull out of Lebanon. Considering the fact that last time Israel moved into Lebanon they remained there for 18 years, the prospects for peace anytime in the near future aren't looking very good.

Who "Started" The Middle East Conflict?

In the American media, it is constantly repeated in every venue from Fox News to the New York Times that the current explosion of violence in the Middle East was "started" by the Palestinians, when Hamas fighters abducted Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit. Any close analysis of the events leading up to the current conflict, however, will expose this virtually unquestioned claim as completely absurd.

One day before the abduction of Cpl. Shalit, Israeli forces abducted two Palestinians -- a doctor and his brother -- in Gaza. These two remain in Israeli custody. Any claim that the abduction of Cpl. Shalit was unprovoked or in some way "started" the present conflict is thus shown to be mistaken. Those whose bias leads them to habitually blame Israel, such as Noam Chomsky, end their analysis here, claiming that this Israeli action constitutes the "beginning" of the conflict.

The abduction of these two Palestinians, however, is doubtless defended by Israel as a necessary measure in their ongoing fight against the militant Hamas. Hamas, then, would respond that their militancy is made necessary by Israeli occupation of Palestine and the ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people. Israel would respond that their actions are merely self-defense made necessary by a long history of terrorist violence against Israel. And so on and so forth...

The point of all this is that anyone who claims a single action of Israel or Hamas as any sort of unprovoked beginning to the current conflict is ignoring the obvious fact that the present upswing in violence is just an extension of the same violence that has plagued the Middle East for decades. The widely accepted American narrative of the current Middle East crisis always places the blame squarely on Hamas as the aggressor and instigator. The narrative prevalent in the Arab world (and among much of the Left), on the other hand, without fail finds a way to blame Israel for every upswing in the violence.

The only thing that can be deduced from all this is that ideologues and those with unrestrained biases find it convenient to arbitrarily announce certain acts as aggression and others as self-defense. The truth of the matter, which no one wants to admit, is that the violence is ages-old and self-perpetuating -- there have been very few acts by either side in decades that one could definitively categorize as pure aggression or pure self-defense in this conflict.

The truth of such ongoing violence is that reality does not fit into neat categorizations of "good guy" and "bad guy", "aggressor" and "defender". Untruthful, politically-motivated attempts to make such categorizations have little relation to the reality of the conflict, and serve only to further perpetuate the violence by denying any guilt or wrongdoing on the behalf of one's favored side. Both Israel and Hamas have committed horrific acts in the course of this war, as occurs in virtually every war. Only when both sides live up to their past wrong-doings and resolve to prevent future atrocities will any progress be made towards peace. The unlikelihood that any such admission of responsibility will occur in the current climate merely shows how far from peace we truly are.

Moral Relativism - Political Boogeyman

Conservative commentators in America (as well as the Catholic church and other religious groups) are known for frequently referencing the dangers of "moral relativism," an ethical philosophy which they view as threatening to undermine more traditional absolutist moral systems, specifically the Christian moral system. This ethical system, which is frequently referenced as a threat alongside political correctness, multiculturalism, and other "progressive" post-modern philosophical ideas, is widely misunderstood in both its fundamental nature and its effects on our modern society.

Before we can analyze the political implications of moral relativism, we must first present the philosophy in a coherent manner, rather than relying on the confused, incomplete theorizing of largely ignorant conservative commentators. In order to understand the basis of moral relativism, it helps to first look at the concept of cultural relativism, which is in most cases synonymous with multiculturalism.

Cultural relativism posits that the actions and beliefs of individuals make sense in the context of their culture. Rather than attempting to separate the individual from numerous, important environmental influences, cultural relativism recognizes that the intended meanings of actions and beliefs can only be correctly understood within the correct cultural context. For example, a painting of a man making the "peace sign" would have completely different meanings if it was made in Medieval times or in the 1960s. In Medieval times, archers would taunt their opponents by putting up their pointer finger and middle finger, showing that they were still capable of using their bows -- archers taken prisoner would often have these fingers cut off so as to prevent their rejoining fighting.

This same principle applies not only throughout time, but also throughout the world in different cultures in the present. While the differences between cultures are often rather subtle, making contextual changes in meaning less obvious, it is still largely impossible to understand the full meaning of actions and ideas without including consideration of the cultural context in which these things arise. Viewed this way, there is nothing destructive or threatening about cultural relativism or multiculturalism -- all that this theory seeks to do is to accurately interpret events occurring in different cultures, rather than judging all events as if they had occurred in our culture.

Moral relativism can be seen as an extension of the principle of cultural relativism, wherein the moral standards of a society are viewed as a product of that society's prevailing cultural norms and ideas. Proponents of moral relativism claim that the morality of the actions of those in other cultures can only be determined in the context of that culture's prevailing moral system. Contrary to the heated accusations of many ill-informed pundits, only a small number of moral relativists denounce any application of one's own moral system to other cultures as illegitimate. Moral relativism is merely the recognition that there are a number of moral systems throughout the world, and that the people subscribing to these moral systems judge actions according to their own morals, not those of Americans or other observers. For some reason, it is usually easy for most people to accept the validity of cultural relativism as a means of better understanding the world, but it is often difficult for some to accept moral relativism in a similar manner, despite the fact that the two ideas share the same fundamental justifications and goals.

Despite the politically motivated claims of some, moral relativism does not seek to undermine the ethical standards of Christianity or any other religion. In fact, moral relativism can help those in other cultures to understand Christian morality, by helping them to view the actions of Christians in the appropriate cultural and ethical context. Likewise, moral relativism does not amount to defense of terrorism or Nazism or any other violent ideology. The ethical implications of these extreme ideologies actually make moral relativism all the more important, by enabling us to accurately analyze the cultural and ethical context in which such horrific acts became acceptable. In order to fight extremist ideologies and violent groups, it is necessary to first understand them, in order to undermine their twisted ideas and to prevent re-emergence of similar movements.

What is rarely recognized by conservatives is that the Western democratic liberalism they claim is being threatened by moral relativism actually requires moral relativism to be an important part of society. In order to establish limitations on government and respect the rights of all members of society, it is necessary to recognize a number of differing viewpoints and ethical ideals, and to respect these differences. If American Christians viewed their morality as absolutely universal rather than relative, there could be no acceptance of homosexuals in the United States, since homosexuality is seen as immoral in Christian morality. It is by analyzing the relative importance of that Christian ethic against the importance of individual liberty that our culture is capable of securing equal rights for all members of society. If morals were treated as absolute in all respects, rather than as relative, there would be no room for civil liberties or for democratic government, since the exercise of civil liberties or the outcome of democratic elections would often run counter to prevailing moral principles. The prevalence of moral relativism does not constitute a threat to the liberal traditions of America and Europe -- in fact, attacks on moral relativism have the potential to threaten the very basis of our free institutions.

Libyan WMDs and Dubious Republican Claims

I just today stumbled upon some very interesting information regarding Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs, and Libyan leader Qaddafi's post-Iraq-invasion offer to suspend them. This provides a good opportunity to discuss the dubious claims by Republicans that this (and other events) was a direct result of the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq.

One of the most rarely challenged claims of victory by Republicans involves the offer by Libyan leader Qaddafi to suspend his chemical and nuclear weapons programs and allow international weapons inspectors into Libya in 2003. Republicans seized this as an obvious positive consequence of the war in Iraq, claiming that Qaddafi was afraid of the repercussions of maintaining WMD programs similar to the programs the U.S. had claimed that Saddam Hussein had. While I am certainly no expert on Libya or Qaddafi, it still surprised me that it took until today, at least three years after Republicans first started making this claim, for me to come across a solid refutation of the Republican line on this issue.

In fact, Qaddafi had made a commitment to fight against al-Qaeda and offered to open its WMD programs to international inspections two years before 9/11 (information here, under "Reformed Character"). At the time, the Clinton administration was more concerned with the refusal of Qaddafi to extradite two terrorist suspects to Scotland for prosecution, so the offer did not go anywhere. While this could be seen as a failure of the Clinton administration, the important point is that Qaddafi had decided to give up his WMD programs long before Iraq was invaded -- in fact before President Bush even became president. The moves in 1999 by Qaddafi were part of an established policy of moderation aimed at improving Libyan relations with the United States and other countries. Qaddafi's reiteration of his offer in 2003 was most certainly not a result of any fear resulting from the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- it was a calculated diplomatic move to maximize the positive response to his cessation of WMD programs at a time when WMDs had become an important international issue.

This issue is of course rather old, and the reason I found it worthy of blogging was largely because it struck me as so interesting that the truth regarding these claims was so hard to find that it took a compulsive political reader like myself three years to come across the truth. Granted, I had not spent time specifically looking into this claim, nor have I spent much time studying things relating to Libya, but it is still striking. The important point is that, for the average American who does not invest nearly as much time in political issues, the truth regarding this and a number of other issues will probably remain forever hidden. This is a rather minor issue, but it seems to me that this instance is merely one of a huge number of cases in which small misleading or untruthful claims pass below the radar and become accepted as political truths. While a single one of these lies probably has little effect, the cumulative effects of all such distortions are probably extremely large.

This all points to a fundamental flaw in our system of media and information dissemination, in which the 30-second soundbyte rules and "fair and balanced" means letting both Republicans and Democrats make unsupported, false claims without being challenged. This problem is being reconciled by other means of spreading information, such as Wikipedia and other in-depth, unbiased, massive sources of information. The sooner we can cast aside the corporate-and-government-controlled, obsolete, harmful media structures that have dominated for at least a century, the sooner we will be able to expose and eradicate the propaganda and fear-mongering that has come to dominate our national political discourse.

Chad-Sudan Relations Improving

Relations between the governments of Chad and Sudan seem to be improving, as the two states re-established diplomatic relations (BBC article here). During a visit by Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir with Chadian president Idriss Deby, the two men embraced warmly, symbolizing a newly established bond between the two countries.

In 2005, the government of Chad declared a state of hostility with Sudan in response to the continued spill-over of the ongoing conflict in Sudan's Darfur region, and in response to allegations that the Sudanese government had backed rebels who had attacked the capital of Chad. The ongoing conflict in Darfur -- which has been characterized by many nations as a genocide -- has repeatedly led to confrontations between the Janjaweed militias, who are backed by the government of Sudan, and Chadian military forces on the border between the two states.

This reconciliation between the two neighboring countries could help to buttress ongoing attempts to stop the ethnic and religious violence that has plagued western Sudan for years, if the Chadian government decides to pressure Sudan into ceasing support of the Janjaweed militias who have been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Darfur. The conflict, which has been widely characterized in the Western media as a conflict between Arab/Muslim Sudanese and Black Sudanese, is in fact much more complicated, drawing on centuries-old tensions between Sudan's farming and semi-nomadic herding classes. These tensions have been repeatedly exacerbated by droughts and starvation which have led to shortages and violence over claims to land. Long-standing grudges between ethnic, economic and religious groups related to inequalities in political power, economic development, and geopolitical resources have also served to reinforce attitudes of hostility and promote violence.

Although the UN has stopped short of labeling the violence in Darfur as a genocide, it is widely viewed throughout the international community as such. Millions of people have fled the country or been forcibly moved to refugee camps, hundreds of villages have been completely destroyed, and at least 400,000 people have been killed so far in the widespread ethnic violence.

Ending the Conflict in Lebanon

The United States, still in the process of putting together UN resolutions to end the conflict in Lebanon, has unsurprisingly taken the side of Israel in the current conflict, an action which could hurt attempts to stop the fighting. Since Israel moved into Southern Lebanon, America has openly provided Israel with military supplies, and has stood firmly behind Israel in its comments and in the details of the still-incomplete UN draft resolutions.

In the simplistic view being peddled by the Bush administration, which characterizes the conflict as an attempt by Israel to defend itself against the terrorism of Hezbollah, this support of Israel makes perfect sense. The reality of the situation, however, is not so simple, and neither are the effects of the position being taken by America in the conflict. The U.S. has not only supported Israel's right to defend itself, it has given the Israelis carte blanche to escalate the war to whatever levels it feels necessary. Furthermore, the U.S. has failed to pressure Israel to minimize the violence whenever possible, and has sidelined the Lebanese government.

By pretending that the conflict is simply between Israel and Hezbollah, and by treating the Lebanese government like a non-entity, America has failed to recognize the real victims of this war -- the people of Lebanon who have been placed in the middle of a bloody conflict. The numbers reflect the sad reality that innocent Lebanese are being hurt most, with more Lebanese civilians dying than Israeli civilians, Israeli soldiers, or Hezbollah militants. Furthermore, the primary concern of the U.S. in trying to end this conflict should be the welfare of those who are suffering most -- the Lebanese people -- however, President Bush seems much more concerned with not challenging the autonomy of the Israeli military, which has resulted in the escalation of the conflict and an explosion of civilian casualties.

The draft resolution currently being proposed by the U.S. has been rejected by the Lebanese government primarily because it reflects this attitude -- the resolution does not call for Israel to leave Lebanon, nor does it seek to include the Lebanese government in any substantial way. For all the talk from Bush and Rice of the neccessity of addressing the deeper causes of the conflict, they fail to realize that the weakness and exclusion of the Lebanese government is one of the most fundamental issues. Hezbollah has remained a power in Lebanon and attempts to disarm it have failed because the Lebanese government has been unable to assert power in the south -- a situation that could be changed drastically by U.S. cooperation with the Lebanese government.

While the Lebanese government is unquestionably weak and would likely be incapable of eliminating Hezbollah by itself, the U.S. has the power to engage the Lebanese government (which is pro-U.S. and wants the fighting to stop also) as a partner and turn the balance of power against Hezbollah. By failing to address the complicated nature of the conflict and unquestioningly siding with Israel, the U.S. is, in practical terms, siding against the people of Lebanon. If the U.S. truly wanted the bloodshed to stop, it would work to reconcile the interests of the pro-West Lebanese government and those of Israel, who both have a stake in the destruction of Hezbollah.

As things stand now, America is perceived throughout most of the Middle East as an instrument of Israeli belligerence, little concerned with the well-being of Lebanese Muslims. Arabs see the denunciations of Hezbollah's Katyusha rocket attacks on civilians, but then see Americans making excuses for the massive civilian casualties caused by Israel's huge air offensive. An unbiased approach to the conflict truly concerned with ending the fighting would seek to empower and assist the legitimate Lebanese government in disarming Hezbollah, while pressuring Israel to end its bloody -- and likely failed -- offensive. The horrific rocket attacks by Hezbollah have not slowed since the Israeli invasion, and there is no indication that Israel will be capable of eliminating Hezbollah. To the contrary, as long as Hezbollah resists and Israel continues to rain destruction on innocents, Hezbollah will grow stronger politically at the expense of the Lebanese government.

President Bush should adopt Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's 7-point plan for ending the conflict, which is as follows:

1. An undertaking to release the Lebanese and Israeli prisoners and detainees through the ICRC.
2. The withdrawal of the Israeli army behind the Blue Line, and the return of the displaced to their villages.
3. A commitment from the Security Council to place the Shebaa Farms area and the Kfarshouba Hills under UN jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled. While in UN custody, the area will be accessible to Lebanese property owners there. Further, Israel surrenders all remaining landmine maps in South Lebanon to the UN.
4. The Lebanese government extends its authority over its territory through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons or authority other than that of the Lebanese state as stipulated in the Taef national reconciliation document.
5. The UN international force, operating in South Lebanon]], is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, as needed, in order to undertake urgent humanitarian and relief work and guarantee stability and security in the south so that those who fled their homes can return.
6. The UN, in cooperation with the relevant parties, undertakes the necessary measures to once again put into effect the Armistice Agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in 1949, and to insure adherence to the provisions of that agreement, as well as to explore possible amendments to or development of said provisions, as necessary.
7. The international community commits to support Lebanon on all levels, and to assist it in facing the tremendous burden resulting from the human, social and economic tragedy which has afflicted the country, especially in the areas of relief, reconstruction and rebuilding of the national economy.

If the U.S. government continues along its current path of unquestioning support for Israel, the likely result will be the political empowerment of Hezbollah as violence continues and the clearly biased American "truce" is rejected.

National Guard or Praetorian Guard?

In yet another striking example of Republicans' limitless thirst for power, a provision has been included in a defense authorization bill (which has already passed in the House) granting the president authority to take over the National Guard in case of "natural disasters or national security threats." If the bill is passed, it would undermine a 200-year-old tradition of decentralized control over the National Guard, in which state governors control their state Guards. The Washington Post article can be found here.

This power grab is even more disturbing as it could open a loophole for use of military troops within the United States against American citizens. Long-standing traditions, as well as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, bar the use of military forces within the borders of the United States, as law enforcement agents or otherwise. Though this ban has been violated by the government in the past, it has served to discourage the militarization of the U.S. The National Guard, however, has always been considered a notable exception to this rule. If President Bush were to gain power over the National Guard, it would amount to the establishment of a praetorian guard of sorts, giving Bush the power to deploy military units anywhere in the U.S. at his whim.

In a nation where many police forces are already being steadily transformed into jack-booted paramilitary organizations who have effectively declared war on American citizens (more here), this centralization of domestic military power in the hands of the power-hungry president is beyond dangerous. President Bush has, since 9/11, made for himself a presidency of virtually unlimited power, complete with secret spy programs of dubious legality, top-secret prison systems for "disappearing" unlucky individuals, claims to the right to detain American citizens indefinitely without recourse to courts, and numerous other infringements on constitutional limitations and individual liberties. Anyone who has remained willfully blind to this emerging threat to liberty should recognize now, as Bush seeks to mold the National Guard into yet another instrument of absolute executive power, the great danger posed by the president's growing tyranny, which has been tacitly (and at times explicitly) sanctioned by an increasingly powerless legislative branch. Too many freedoms have already been surrendered by the American people in support of destructive, oppressive power. Those who value freedom as a reality -- rather than a cheap, Orwellian rhetorical device as used by Bush -- have the responsibility to reassert their fundamental rights in face of this growing threat.