http://www.sierratimes.com/03/01/21/robinson.htm
To Protect WHAT? And to serve WHOM?
By Lee Robinson
Published 01. 20. 03 at 23:10 Sierra Time
Would you be willing to put the freedom of our country in the hands of your local police? If a government act of highly questionable constitutionality were suddenly perpetrated against the people of America, where do you think your local constabulary would come down? Would the opportunity to exercise extraordinary control of others in the name of Big Brother himself prove irresistible? If a coup took the form of "the fight against terrorism", would those who crush dissent (because, of course, such dissent must be inspired by "terrorists") automatically receive "Hero" status? Do those who enforce the law care whether the laws themselves are legal? After all, there will always be those who feel that true patriotism lies in following whatever orders the government issues.
As Washington gives broader and more intrusive powers to an ever-expanding panoply of secretive Federal police, we are at the point where we must choose our local law enforcement with an eye towards them protecting us from Big Brother. The time might soon come when local police could mean the difference between tyranny and freedom. If you saw the Academy Award-nominated documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement", you know that if the matter of the Branch Davidians had been handled by the local sheriff, none of those people would have been murdered. And there are things on the horizon that will make Waco look like a company picnic. Policing a free country is far too sensitive a matter to be handled by impersonal bands of paramilitary federal agents. Such groups are not accountable to the citizens. Historically, this lack of accountability to citizens has served to reinforce the paramilitary police compulsion to dominate the citizenry.
After the first World War, Germany was limited by treaty to a standing army of 100,000 (certainly not a large army by German standards). But when the Nazis secretly began to construct their war machine, they created an army of 100,000 officers, correctly assuming that soldiers could be easily acquired when the time came. The federal police network in this country already has a legal framework in place to convert its personnel into such officers, with local law enforcement personnel to be recruited as the necessary soldiers.
Of course, I would like to believe that most rank and file police would never allow themselves to be used as tools of oppression. They are citizens of America first, police officers second. I have certainly known a number of fine officers who epitomized the image of the police as servants and protectors. But bad laws attract bad law enforcers, and the garbage that has been coming out of Washington and various state capitals the last few decades is about as bad as it can get in any nation that intends to remain free. Historically, such bad laws attract those enforcers who have strange reactions to putting on a uniform.
The so-called "Wars on Drugs" and "War on Terrorism" have normalized the concept of police taking a great interest in our personal lives, including our financial transactions, our communications, our methods of travel, even what we read. Forfeiture laws permit the government to "legally" steal the property of those who disobey their rules, and lets it share the loot with any local police who assist in the plunder. Will the government soon be splitting up the property of "terrorist sympathizers"?
As laws and their enforcement become increasingly intrusive, citizens lose respect for all involved. Seatbelt and helmet laws have done wonders for turning police from theoretical guardians into real-world pests. Now the police are used to treating adults like children, "because that's the law." Worse, the "adults" in question are getting used to such outrageous behavior. Worse yet, our children are becoming used to seeing their parents treated this way. Kids growing up today see all around them that the State is the supreme head of the family, and they learn that we may only make those choices that the government thinks acceptable. If we make other choices, they see that the police will force us to comply "for our own good". People used to following orders "for their own good" soon find that they must keep following orders, for their own good.
I think now may be a good time to find out who among this country's one million cops are our friends, and who are our enemies. That is not the sort of question you want to leave unanswered until it's suddenly too late. Talk to those officers you see at the donut shop. Nothing confrontational, just some friendly conversation about the blessings of living in a free country and what we can all do to preserve those blessings. If you really like living on the edge, then ask some officer who is harassing a citizen for not "buckling up" (or for not having their child in a government approved restraining device that is facing the right way, or maybe even for spanking an unruly kid) just what it is they believe will be the ultimate result of their actions. But be careful! And always try to keep children and household pets out of the line of fire.
'To protect and to serve' is a fine phrase but it can mean vastly different things to different people. It is only a tiny baby step from "because that's the law" to "I'm only following orders." There are folks out there with badges and guns and immunity from prosecution who are willing to believe that ultimately they must serve Big Brother and protect him from us. And I would just like to know who they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Robinson lives on a farm in Tennessee where he raises exotic poultry. He enjoys target shooting and making life difficult for tyrants.
© 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
To Protect WHAT? And to serve WHOM?
By Lee Robinson
Published 01. 20. 03 at 23:10 Sierra Time
Would you be willing to put the freedom of our country in the hands of your local police? If a government act of highly questionable constitutionality were suddenly perpetrated against the people of America, where do you think your local constabulary would come down? Would the opportunity to exercise extraordinary control of others in the name of Big Brother himself prove irresistible? If a coup took the form of "the fight against terrorism", would those who crush dissent (because, of course, such dissent must be inspired by "terrorists") automatically receive "Hero" status? Do those who enforce the law care whether the laws themselves are legal? After all, there will always be those who feel that true patriotism lies in following whatever orders the government issues.
As Washington gives broader and more intrusive powers to an ever-expanding panoply of secretive Federal police, we are at the point where we must choose our local law enforcement with an eye towards them protecting us from Big Brother. The time might soon come when local police could mean the difference between tyranny and freedom. If you saw the Academy Award-nominated documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement", you know that if the matter of the Branch Davidians had been handled by the local sheriff, none of those people would have been murdered. And there are things on the horizon that will make Waco look like a company picnic. Policing a free country is far too sensitive a matter to be handled by impersonal bands of paramilitary federal agents. Such groups are not accountable to the citizens. Historically, this lack of accountability to citizens has served to reinforce the paramilitary police compulsion to dominate the citizenry.
After the first World War, Germany was limited by treaty to a standing army of 100,000 (certainly not a large army by German standards). But when the Nazis secretly began to construct their war machine, they created an army of 100,000 officers, correctly assuming that soldiers could be easily acquired when the time came. The federal police network in this country already has a legal framework in place to convert its personnel into such officers, with local law enforcement personnel to be recruited as the necessary soldiers.
Of course, I would like to believe that most rank and file police would never allow themselves to be used as tools of oppression. They are citizens of America first, police officers second. I have certainly known a number of fine officers who epitomized the image of the police as servants and protectors. But bad laws attract bad law enforcers, and the garbage that has been coming out of Washington and various state capitals the last few decades is about as bad as it can get in any nation that intends to remain free. Historically, such bad laws attract those enforcers who have strange reactions to putting on a uniform.
The so-called "Wars on Drugs" and "War on Terrorism" have normalized the concept of police taking a great interest in our personal lives, including our financial transactions, our communications, our methods of travel, even what we read. Forfeiture laws permit the government to "legally" steal the property of those who disobey their rules, and lets it share the loot with any local police who assist in the plunder. Will the government soon be splitting up the property of "terrorist sympathizers"?
As laws and their enforcement become increasingly intrusive, citizens lose respect for all involved. Seatbelt and helmet laws have done wonders for turning police from theoretical guardians into real-world pests. Now the police are used to treating adults like children, "because that's the law." Worse, the "adults" in question are getting used to such outrageous behavior. Worse yet, our children are becoming used to seeing their parents treated this way. Kids growing up today see all around them that the State is the supreme head of the family, and they learn that we may only make those choices that the government thinks acceptable. If we make other choices, they see that the police will force us to comply "for our own good". People used to following orders "for their own good" soon find that they must keep following orders, for their own good.
I think now may be a good time to find out who among this country's one million cops are our friends, and who are our enemies. That is not the sort of question you want to leave unanswered until it's suddenly too late. Talk to those officers you see at the donut shop. Nothing confrontational, just some friendly conversation about the blessings of living in a free country and what we can all do to preserve those blessings. If you really like living on the edge, then ask some officer who is harassing a citizen for not "buckling up" (or for not having their child in a government approved restraining device that is facing the right way, or maybe even for spanking an unruly kid) just what it is they believe will be the ultimate result of their actions. But be careful! And always try to keep children and household pets out of the line of fire.
'To protect and to serve' is a fine phrase but it can mean vastly different things to different people. It is only a tiny baby step from "because that's the law" to "I'm only following orders." There are folks out there with badges and guns and immunity from prosecution who are willing to believe that ultimately they must serve Big Brother and protect him from us. And I would just like to know who they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Robinson lives on a farm in Tennessee where he raises exotic poultry. He enjoys target shooting and making life difficult for tyrants.
© 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
