In his book Spook Country, William Gibson uses an unlikely character to give us the following truth:
"A nation consists of its laws. A nation does not consist of its situation at a given time. If an individual's morals are situational, that individual is without morals. If a nation's laws are situational, that nation has no laws, and soon isn't a nation. Are you really so scared of terrorists that you'll dismantle the structures that made America what it is? If you are, you let the terroist win. Because that is exactly, specifically, his goal, his only goal: to frighten you into surrendering the rule of law. That's why they call him 'terrorist.' He uses terrifying threats to induce you to degrade your own society." (italics mine)
Ah yes, the Rule of Law. The glue by which the pieces of civilization are held together. When that unifying force is tampered with (and in today's case, ignored), the structure falls apart.
"...the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to dictatorship and to anarchy." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
So if we see someone "evincing a design" to diminish the rule of law, can we not conclude that there is a good chance they or the people they represent are interested in one of these two things, dictatorship or anarchy?
Let me know what you think.
1 comment:
Good observations. I've often wanted to ask one of the neocon blow-hards, "You think the terrorists come here because we're free and prosperous. So is that why you're trying to destroy our freedom and prosperity? To make them go away?"
Post a Comment