September 11th, 2007at 11:46am Posted by Eli
The final paragraph of Ari Melber’s excellent essay on how BushCo. used 9/11 to overmphasize “security” at the expense of liberty:
In an asymmetric battle with terrorists, our enemies are not seeking a traditional military victory, like occupying American cities. Instead, they aim to erode our power abroad, terrorize our society at home, advance Islamism and destroy the American way of life. No US government would ever accede to those objectives. But suppose, as a thought experiment, that Americans could prevent all terrorist attacks by converting to Islam, as Osama bin Laden urges in his new video. Would we willingly trade our faith and freedom for security? Of course not. Now suppose that Bush’s extremist advisers are right, and we could actually end terrorism by aborting the rule of law. Would we trade our laws and freedom for security? After touting Muslim conversion in his new video, Bin Laden’s other stated goal was to “do away with the American democratic system of government,” as ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reported. If we let our leaders pursue security by destroying the democratic rule of law in this country, then yes, the terrorists will already have won.
Bin Laden doesn’t need to destroy America; the Republican Party is doing it for him.
I also want to emphasize that the Bush administration has not, in fact, traded liberty for security. They have traded our liberty for their power. Security was never an objective; merely a rationale.