![]() |
By Liza Persson (about the author) Page 3 of 9 page(s)
All this had to be done with utmost secrecy. Not so much because the men with the plan feared the US public. With the compliance of the majority of the representatives and senators it was very unlikely that anyone would ever make it an enough heated issue to generate any significant amount of public attention and emotion. It was simply not something suitable to make a run for office on. It was also not the kind of stuff that would make the corporate media interested. It would require expensive and extensive research and writing to make much sense and even then it would not be the stuff of selling headlines.
Furthermore, the abstract and legal nature at the center of this coup, made it inherently beyond most people’s frame of interest and understanding even if some driven elected representative had decided to make a go for it.
Instead, the people needed to keep in the dark was individuals working within the executive branch and its’ agencies who did not have the political and ideological perceptions that would make them agree well with what was underway and had the capacity to put the pieces together.
This fear was well founded. These people turned out to be the ones that would blow the whistle, leak information, and drop hints.
However, that would not happen for some time.
No matter how many gradual changes were made, however, it was with 9/11 that the prefect storm occurred.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
Regardless of constitutional interpretation and opinion about the relationship between the branches of the US government, it is clear that when the nation is at war, the executive power has more free reins than at any other time. Foreign policy is primarily the domain of the executive branch, and during military aggression and defense against external forces foreign policy has a tendency to take precedence over other areas of national governing. It becomes hard to challenge any requests or decisions that can be motivated by the defense of the nation, especially when there is a clear and stated intention to view all such challenges – and any questioning – as unpatriotic and as siding with the enemy.
It is almost par of the course to find that during war, things that would otherwise be hard to view as part of the defense of the nation, are claimed by the executive branch – and its’ congressional supporters - as things related to foreign policy and necessary to win the war.
As the primary recipient of information and intelligence regarding what happens around the world, and about the own military’s activities abroad, the executive branch become hard to challenge. By claiming that it is acting upon information only it has access to, those heading the executive branch can ask people to take their word that what they claim they have to do is vital to the survival of the nation.
Whether the hijacked planes, and the death and damage they were utilized for, were the result of insider omission or commission on the side of the US government – one thing is certain.
9/11 became the name of a tidal wave that would provide the force needed for the people in the White House and Congress who had worked to carve out more room for presidential supremacy. The haste and emotional fervor, and the war time powers of the president, would make it possible to move more aggressively than what had been possible before. Claiming that national security was at stake, legislation could be rushed through without even what little challenging a minority opposition could have mustered
Walls set by law and conventions were deconstructed to facilitate more unity among agencies within the executive branch, not in itself necessarily a bad thing and certainly understandable in light of what seemed to be the massive failures in intelligence sharing and communication leading up to the 9/11.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 28 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |