On destroying America by digging up Marilyn Monroe

Today's there's yet more evidence that the U.S. War Against Something Terrorism has caused security personnel to misplace their common sense.

Leigh Van Bryan and his friend, Emily Bunting, flew into Los Angeles from Ireland for a holiday. A few days earlier, Mr. Van Bryan had tweeted:

"Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America."

He had also tweeted that he was going to be in LA for three weeks annoying people and "diggin' Marilyn Monroe up."

Somehow Mr. Van Bryan's messages made their way into the hands of the Department of Homeland Security who weren't too amused. Whether it was his saying he was going to destroy America or dig up the body of Marilyn Monroe isn't clear. But, what was painfully clear over the course of five hours of interrogation was that someone didn't find his humor very funny.

After the interview, Homeland Security reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. 

"Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy America." 

The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses our borders every day". 

It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the United States is a welcoming nation."

Okay, I get the anti-terrorism hysteria - after all that's apparently part of the government jobs program. So long as there's a threat of terrorism los federales need to keep plenty of security personnel on the payroll. And it's probably just as well because I think the last thing we need is a bunch of unemployed "scoper and gropers" wandering around the streets of this country.

But let's get real. First, does anyone really think that an Irish bartender was intending to blow up something in America? Second, why does Homeland Security give a flying fuck about Marilyn Monroe's bones? Is her coffin hiding evidence of her affairs with John and Bobby?

There's a lot of information out there on the internet and I'm certain that some of it can provide leads to some folks who are up to no good. But you've got to have context. You've got to use a little common sense. Mr. Van Bryan was coming stateside for a holiday, not to conduct a terrorist operation. The grocery clerks at Homeland Security were too caught up in their own self-importance to understand that.

I've said it before, and no doubt I'll say it again, the world is no more dangerous today than it was on September 10, 2001 - unless we're talking about the exercise of our right to be left alone by the government.

Not jumping high enough

And why would a group of U.S. Marines urinate on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters? For the same reason cops beat people who don't jump high enough.

Because they can.

Maybe you think it's okay because the dead were Taliban soldiers. Terrorists even.

But that makes as little sense as saying it's okay for the police to beat up a person arrested on suspicion of murder or rape or driving while intoxicated.

Were there just a few bad apples in the squad? Was it a lack of supervision or adequate training? Was it the very culture of war?

I don't know. But the same questions apply whenever we see footage of police brutality. I don't mind telling y'all that I think it has more to do with the culture of the organization than it does with a couple of cops (or soldiers) acting like thugs.

Of course you could say that it doesn't matter anyway because they were dead. Just remember that it cuts both ways. What would be your gut reaction if you saw video of someone else desecrating the bodies of dead American youth sacrificed for the greater good of American politicians and U.S. corporations?

Happy Birthday, Guantanamo

Where were you ten years ago? What were you doing? Who were you hanging out with? What changes in your life have you seen over the last ten years? Who's died? Who's been born?

Think back to January 2002.

That's when President Bush opened Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as a prison for detainees in the War Against Something Terror. That's when he decided to hold those detainees indefinitely without charges, without bail, without trial.

That's when President Bush said fuck the Constitution. And that's when our representatives and senators in Washington forgot all about that oath everyone took to uphold the laws of the United States.

Sure, it's a dangerous world out there. We all know that. But it's been a dangerous fucking world ever since man first decided to walk upright and venture out of caves.

It was a dangerous world long before 9/11. A good deal of that danger we brought about ourselves by meddling in the affairs of other countries.

Just how safer do you feel knowing that your government has been holding people in prison for a decade without ever bringing them to court? Without ever presenting the evidence it claims to hold against them?

Constantly changing security alerts. Scope and grope at the airport. War in Afghanistan. Feeling safer yet?

So, happy birthday, Guantanamo.

First they came for the (alleged) terrorists...

On Tuesday the U.S. Senate had the opportunity to put the rule of law ahead of fear-mongering and politics -- and failed spectacularly.

By a vote of 61-37 the Senate defeated an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would remove three troubling provisions that have raised the spectre of a presidential veto. The bill, if passed, would allow the U.S. to hold those suspected of involvement with terrorism - including US citizens - indefinitely without charge. In other words, forget about that American concept of innocent unless proven guilty; if los federales suspect you're involved in terrorism, you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

The bill would also require civilian law enforcement to turn over anyone suspected of terrorist activities into military custody. The bill would also place further restrictions on the transfer of detainees at Guantanamo who were cleared of all charges.

Holding a suspect indefinitely without bringing charges makes a complete mockery out of our criminal (in)justice  system. Without being informed of the specific charges against him, an inmate can't muster a legal defense and his right to a speedy trial is taken away. The very notion of indefinite detention should make us all shudder - but it won't. After all, who's going to raise a stink about someone accused of plotting to blow up a building? He's not a person, he's a terrorist. He has no rights.

But once you've demonized one group of defendants, it makes it easier to demonize the next group. And who will that be? And who will stand up to challenge the state then?

Liberty is a funny creature. We all have the right to be left alone by our government. But, at the same time, that means we can't be protected from every possible threat out there. It's a trade-off we make. The more freedom and liberty you have, the less security you get. And vice versa.

What's more important to you?

When we allow the government to take away our rights - no matter how tangentially - we are allowing the fox into the hen house. There will always be a rationale. C'mon, these are really, really bad people.

It's happened to the Fourth Amendment. Where once we were protected against unreasonable search and seizure, today it's little more than a piece of paper. In the name of security and efficiency we have allowed one of our most important freedoms to be whittled away to nothing.

Today it's suspected terrorists. Who will it be tomorrow?