Mouse Teaches Semantical History
The brave people of the 13 colonies rebelled against their king because they felt they were being denied certain liberties to which they, as Englishmen, felt they were entitled. They did not rebel because the king was destroying their property and threatening their lives. (The Boston Massacre comes as close as any pre-revolution event to something like 9/11, but that seems to have been a put-up job in which Sam Adams took advantage of a situation to provoke an actionable cause.) No, the patriots rebelled for political reasons.
Now one may wonder why King George III would have denied his colonial subjects their rights. Why would he levy taxes upon them when they had no voice in the English Parliament by which they might have argued for or against the taxes? Well, George III thought it only proper that the colonials shoulder some of the costs associated with administering the colonies, especially those costs the king had incurred in defending the colonials in the French & Indian War. The colonists, not necessarily opposed to the idea of repaying their king, felt it would be proper for the taxes to be levied by their own provincial governments. The king, by his arbitrary action, was depriving the colonials of what they saw as their just rights, so they went to war. That is, they put their lives on the line for their rights.
And make no mistake. If the patriots had lost the war, all of the Founding Fathers would have been executed as traitors. Franklin, Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and all the rest would now be remembered in English history as something less than scum, and Benedict Arnold would be revered as a true and loyal soldier.
During the war that followed, some of the colonials – for reasons that now appear to have been purely monetary – sided with the king. They organized themselves into guerilla bands, murdered their defenseless neighbors, and pillaged their homes. If we take it on face value that the king approved of these acts, then the king and his supporters should properly be called terrorists.
But this raises a question. Let us imagine that the king, instead of inciting these criminals to action, had somehow restrained them, had in fact managed to fight the war by the Queensbury rules, army against army. Would it nevertheless still be legitimate to think of the king as a terrorist? Does active suppression of the rights of the people constitute terror?
One of the dictionary definitions of “terror” runs like this: “violence or threats of violence used as a means of intimidation or coercion.” This suggests that the king, because he was quite capable of instilling fear as a way of intimidating and coercing the colonials to surrender their implied rights, was guilty of terrorism. The very presence of his armies and, in fact, the nature of government itself, clearly indicates that when the king chose, illegally, to impose his will upon the people, he expected that the “threat of violence” would be sufficient to assure that he would succeed.
Of course, the case for the revolutionaries rests upon a fine point of the law. Nothing in the British constitution dealt with the rights of colonials. It was merely the fact that most of the patriots were of English origin that led them to believe they were entitled to the rights of Englishmen. Like I say, a sticky point, one that, in truth, is still debated by historians.
But it seems that if we apply the same logic to the situation in America at the present time, the “sticky point” loses it gumminess and becomes an easily defensible position. The Constitution of the United States of America is quite clear about the rights of the American people, and two centuries of common law have defined those rights so perfectly that any “king” who might choose to use the powers of the American government to impose his will illegally upon the American people could unequivocally be recognized as a terrorist.
In other words, if this logic holds, then the current occupant of the White House is a terrorist.
Now one may wonder why King George III would have denied his colonial subjects their rights. Why would he levy taxes upon them when they had no voice in the English Parliament by which they might have argued for or against the taxes? Well, George III thought it only proper that the colonials shoulder some of the costs associated with administering the colonies, especially those costs the king had incurred in defending the colonials in the French & Indian War. The colonists, not necessarily opposed to the idea of repaying their king, felt it would be proper for the taxes to be levied by their own provincial governments. The king, by his arbitrary action, was depriving the colonials of what they saw as their just rights, so they went to war. That is, they put their lives on the line for their rights.
And make no mistake. If the patriots had lost the war, all of the Founding Fathers would have been executed as traitors. Franklin, Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and all the rest would now be remembered in English history as something less than scum, and Benedict Arnold would be revered as a true and loyal soldier.
During the war that followed, some of the colonials – for reasons that now appear to have been purely monetary – sided with the king. They organized themselves into guerilla bands, murdered their defenseless neighbors, and pillaged their homes. If we take it on face value that the king approved of these acts, then the king and his supporters should properly be called terrorists.
But this raises a question. Let us imagine that the king, instead of inciting these criminals to action, had somehow restrained them, had in fact managed to fight the war by the Queensbury rules, army against army. Would it nevertheless still be legitimate to think of the king as a terrorist? Does active suppression of the rights of the people constitute terror?
One of the dictionary definitions of “terror” runs like this: “violence or threats of violence used as a means of intimidation or coercion.” This suggests that the king, because he was quite capable of instilling fear as a way of intimidating and coercing the colonials to surrender their implied rights, was guilty of terrorism. The very presence of his armies and, in fact, the nature of government itself, clearly indicates that when the king chose, illegally, to impose his will upon the people, he expected that the “threat of violence” would be sufficient to assure that he would succeed.
Of course, the case for the revolutionaries rests upon a fine point of the law. Nothing in the British constitution dealt with the rights of colonials. It was merely the fact that most of the patriots were of English origin that led them to believe they were entitled to the rights of Englishmen. Like I say, a sticky point, one that, in truth, is still debated by historians.
But it seems that if we apply the same logic to the situation in America at the present time, the “sticky point” loses it gumminess and becomes an easily defensible position. The Constitution of the United States of America is quite clear about the rights of the American people, and two centuries of common law have defined those rights so perfectly that any “king” who might choose to use the powers of the American government to impose his will illegally upon the American people could unequivocally be recognized as a terrorist.
In other words, if this logic holds, then the current occupant of the White House is a terrorist.
posted by Benedict S. at 10:40 AM
3 Comments:
Illegalities and amoralities.
The use of terror against a military enemy is an accepted tactic and has been throughout the ages, and no one considers it immoral, just part of the horrors of warfare. It is terror against an innocent civilian population that we civilized people have problems with. Not too many qualms rise up in us when civilians are killed that harbor our enemy; they are fair game, willing paticipants in the war.
Too, terror has been brought into prominence as means to sway public sentiment for approving measures of doubtful moral base used by governments to justify attacking a movement rather than a clearly identified uniformed adversary. Since they can't be referred to as the 'Reds' or the 'Greens' or the 'Yellows', label
them 'terrorists', and they automatically become despicable; they become the enemy.
The Mouse considers the acts of the President of the U.S. as terroristic because of the circumvention of the legal restraints imposed on him by law, failure to tell the America people the truth about the reasons to go to war against Iraq, and imposing his will (or trying to) on the American people. More than one president has sinned in that respect, so with regards to President Bush's actions, in my opinion, don't rise to the level to categorize him as a terrorist. However, many of the things he does and says are scary, which is not the same thing.
Don't worry Mouse, in Gitmo you will not find yourself. Bush's detractors have said much worse things, and they still walk around free. Mice that roar are generally paid little attention.
Thanks Oaf. My children were somewhat concerned about a possible trip to Guantanamo Bay, but I assured them that I have good lawyers and that the most I would be likely to suffer would be rendition to an Egyptian torture chamber.
Still, your logic is a trifle shaky. If other presidents have done the same sorts of things the current occupant is doing, that doesn't let him off the hook. It puts them on.
Post a Comment
<< Home