Have you ever asked, “How did torture become legal?”
After reading Frederic Bastiat’s classic ‘The Law’ I now understand the purpose of the law is not to mandate justice, but rather it is to prevent injustice (to protect your life, liberty, and property). When the Law is used to “bring justice” it does so with the only means available to the State (i.e, force, or threat of violence). For example: one day you have no health insurance, then the law is written to help you, and guess what? Now you are being forced to do that which the State says is good for you (you MUST buy insurance) under threats by IRA agents with guns of heavy fines and/or jail time. In such a way, the Law has been twisted so that it stripes you of the very thing it should protect: your life, liberty and property.
Here is the crux of the matter. Under common law (THE LAW) there is no crime if there is no victim, but under statutory codes and rules coercion is codified. In this twisted use of LAW, placing an individual under duress is no longer a crime, it is actually viewed as a means to achieve justice. Heavy fines (or taxes) can be used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way, but it does not end there. When the State replaces THE LAW with statutory codes and rules AT THAT POINT any means necessarily to gain your “voluntarily compliance” can and will be employed. This coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. Why? So that the threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion and we all know this country no longer rules out this method of coercion for enemies of the State, but how did illegal torture become lawful enhanced interrogation? How did American go from thinking torture is anathema to our values to where we are today? The answer is right before you. It is the logical consequence of turning THE LAW into some thing it should never be, namely a means of coercion. In this way, well-meaning (but misguided) liberals and progressives attempt to FORCE justice on others against their will. This is the very definition of tyranny and it always leads to out-of-control despotic government.
When torture has become legal, you know the LAW has become a tyranny. Where will it lead us? Well, to answer that, look at the current debate over whether or not the President can legally kill (i.e., assassinate) American citizens with a drone strike on US soil (thus disregarding their constitutional right to a jury trail). This is what making torture legal has lead us too. Daphne Eviatar, a senior counsel at Human Rights First, said: “It’s hard to see how authorities could not be in a position to arrest someone yet be able to kill them.” And yet this is exactly what Eric Holder claims every future President has a right to do, if the target is “engaged in combat” on U.S. soil.
The “engaged in combat” term was added in response to Rand Paul’s recent filibuster on the Senate floor. The phrase is a misleading legal term because we are also told the entire world is now considered a battlefield, thus the rules of engagement which govern a foreign battlefield can now be applied to every American. Merely being on a “battlefield” is enough to make you a combatant. In practice this could mean that reporting the news (the government doesn’t want reported) could be enough to earn you “enemy combatant” status.
In 2001, the satellite television channel, al-Jazeera, had its Kabul office targeted by US bombers. Now thanks to the NDAA and Eric Holder’s understanding of the law, this and other tools of war could be brought to bear on Americans who find themselves at odds with any future resident of the White House. Only hours after the newly signed NDAA went into effect, activist Andrew Breitbart was walking home from a bar alone and drop dead of heart attack. Ironicly, the 41 year old activist suffered his untimely death just hours before he was set to release damning video footage about Barack Obama’s college activities. Is it possible that in some twisted effort to stop sensitive information from coming out, this man become the first victim of Obama new executive privilege? While anything is possible, from a probability standpoint it is unlikely this was anything more than coincidence. However, if this was murder, ask yourself, would we never know? Perhaps more disturbing is knowing the White House could claim that such a killing was justified, that is to say, just as legal as bombing al-Jazeera office (which officially never happened).
Currently, when the CIA director arrives at the decision that an American citizen (overseas) is an enemy combatant, agents from the office of the President can either put that person on a kill list or they can opt to “disappear” that person into a CIA operated secret prison. In addition to assassination by drone strike, another product of the so-called war on terror is the program known as “extraordinary rendition.” Like enhanced interrogation, this is another term to add to our post-911 lexicon. Extraordinary rendition is the extra-judicial detention and transfer of “enemy combatants” to places like the “Bright Light” in Bucharest Romanian and various others “black sites” in Egypt, Poland and Georgia. If this implement of the battlefield were ever applied here at home, journalist will likely be the first to be disappeared. When the day comes that we see drone strikes on American soil you can be sure some “right-wing” blogger is being waterboarded at a discreet and nondescript house in Cleveland Ohio.
Many have said this is just history repeating itself, while that is true, the problem we face this time is global governance. Unlike past generations, we are faced with the prospect of a world-wide tyranny. Republic replaced kingdoms, but now a “new world order” in which individual rights are no longer protected or even recognized is coming into view. Nation states are like the fire doors on a theater or a bulkheads on a ship, when you lose your liberty in one country to can move to another….but when national sovereignty is usurped by the international LAW (and enforced by a one world government) where are you gonna run? If America is lost to globalist authoritarians, what hope is there for the future of humanity?
The LAW should prevent injustice. It has one purpose: to protect individual life, liberty, and property, but when the law is used to “bring justice” it only brings cruel and oppressive government or rule. When the law is used for force morality on people, it has become a false authority and as such it will certainly do evil in the name of good. Under international LAW we can expect one thing: planetary tyranny. Why? Because we failed to learn the lessons of history. In our pride, prejudice and hubris we thought we knew better, and so we sought to mandate justice over others. We were told we should demand government “bring justice” by any means necessary, as a result we have had our labor extorted, our wealth plundered and now we are being lead like sheep to the slaughter.
Download the audio book for free here: