Today’s New York Times reports that the Bush administration was considering the use of the US military in US soil against suspected Al Qaida operatives.
I’m always surprised of how little attention has been given to the ideological framework behind the Bush presidency, and in particular to its theoretical and practical similarities with the so-called “Doctrine of national security”. The latter was taught at the US Army’s School of the Americas in Panama throughout the 60’s and 70’s, and formed the theoretical underpinnings behind the military dictatorships in the Latin American region. It’s a relatively complex doctrine which includes the concept that those seen as enemies by the military (the true guardians of the state), which include those who support, sympathize or are even indifferent to the named enemy, are not protected by the rule of law, and can and should be eliminated. The doctrine calls for the use of the military to fight “terrorism” (by any means necessary) within national borders. The doctrine also calls for the tacit derogation of all human and constitutional rights, and the use of forced disappearances (AKA renditions), torture and extra-judicial executions.
For anyone who grew up under a military dictatorship in America, it’s impossible to not see the parallels between those governments and the Bush administration.
Category: Opinions (Page 7 of 11)
We saw this briefcase, which look like the kind that pilots use to carry documents, just sitting around in the airport near one of the luggage carousels. There was nobody around it, and it indeed went unclaimed for the half an hour or so we were there. Meanwhile dozens of people, including airport personnel, walked by it. Everybody ignored it, nobody reported it. Why not?
Well, in our case because we did not think for a minute that the briefcase would contain a bomb, but feared that if we reported it, the airport security people would over-react, treat it as a national emergency and shut down the airport. Not really what we are looking for after a long flight at 10 PM at night.
As far as airport security goes (and the same can be said about national security) this is a classic “the boy that cried wolf” problem. Airport security is based on paranoia, but people who are not mentally ill can only be paranoid for so long. After a while all the false alarms add up into a general disbelief on actual danger – or at least a disbelief that something can be done to prevent that danger. Anyone who has half a brain knows that we are not appreciatively safer by taking off our shoes, putting our liquids in 3-oz containers and not taking clippers as we go through security. Assuming that terrorists are not stupid – and the fact that we assume they are speaks volumes about our views of foreigners -, they can figure out a way to make it through the well known airport security masures, if they chose to cause another air disaster. The measures that exists do nothing but inconvenience regular travelers. And we don’t want to be inconvenienced any more. Thus the lack of interest in reporting unaccompanied luggage.
For us, not reporting it was clearly the right decision. We felt sorry for the pilot that lost his briefcase, but knew that at that point he wouldn’t get it back anyway. In Paris, years ago, we saw a piece of unaccompanied luggage blown up. At least they didn’t close the airport to do it.
Every few days I get a letter from a person (usually a man, though sometimes a woman) telling me about the human rights violations they are experiencing. Sometimes is the government broadcasting thoughts into their minds, where they’d installed a microchip, sometimes it’s being poisoned, sometimes it’s being persecuted by government officials. There are many other variations, stories that don’t even make internal sense. I also get them on the mail, sometimes from foreign countries. My friend Thierry, an Argentine psychologists, explained to me that in their reality, what they are experiencing are clear human rights violations and the logical place to go to is a human rights organization. I expect groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch get these complaints by the thousands.
Once in a great while, the story I get is plausible, and then I treat it seriously. Otherwise, I just delete or archive the letters, knowing that there is nothing I could say that would help the situation. Indeed, some of these people are aware of their mental problems, having been in and out of hospitals for years.
What I hadn’t considered until recently, is that these individuals could pose a danger, to me, perhaps, or to others. The letter of the gunman who killed 13 peple in Binghamton a couple of days ago, sounds very much like the e-mails and letters I get.
I have to admit that I have never given too much thought to the issue of mental illness and forced treatment. My instincts go against it but… a some quick online research shows that there seems to be a relationship between schizophrenia and violence, and the deeper the psychosis, the greater likelihood of violence. And if you think about it, it makes sense, if you are being persecuted, at some point you need to defend yourself. And to the point that psychosis makes you irritable, it’ll make you more likely to react badly to others. But a mere potential of violence should not be a reason to incarcerate or hospitalize someone. But…
Shouldn’t a person who suffers of psychosis at least be given the opportunity to make a rational decision about whether to medicate themselves? And can they possibly make that decision if they are not medicated?
Below, there is the letter from the gunman, and a letter I’ve received.
Raúl Alfonsín died a few hours ago. The day when he became President of Argentina, December 10th, 1983, was also the day in which, very much coincidently, I left Argentina for good. I was fourteen.
My memories of Alfonsín are inexact, colored by memory, distance and age. I remember his hand gesture, present in all his posters, his happy face. My family backed De la Rúa in the primaries, my opinion was of course, colored by that. I’m glad, however, that Alfonsin won.
I think he was a good man. I think he did mean to bring truth and justice to Argentina. Perhaps he wasn’t as strong a President or a man as was needed for that. Or perhaps he was too ambitious. But in all, I think he did the right thing. I mourn his death.
Recent Comments