Curiosity
If the “tatters” came into being through the passionate debate of concepts and philosophies that contribute to the foundation upon which a nation builds its identity (assuming a constitution is a critical component of that foundation) then we should celebrate those “tatters”. Women’s rights, the rights of minorities, language rights, a governments systems of checks and balances even the construct of civil and criminal law that a society embraces are fundamentally and intimately bound to these precepts.
If the “tatters” came into being because statements or policies once enshrined as critically important to a people are changed with a view to withdrawing or “adversely” compromising the rights of some members of that society and these modifications and changes render the principles unworkable so the “tatters” signify unsuitability or inappropriateness then there is a need for even greater consideration and debate.
It’s as unrealistic to point to religious dogma from thousands of years ago as the guiding principles suitable in an age that has outgrown the parameters addressable through some ancient concept of the world. Policies that fail to address international carrier and transport rules, technology capable of altering reproductive and genetic process that weren’t even imagined a hundred years ago, synthetic materials and industrial processes employing atomic radiation, radio and television transmission and reception, the list of changes in the world that demand a review of our fundamental principles and ideas isn’t getting shorter its getting longer…..
A constitution isn’t a static mechanism, it must remain dynamic or it will fail to address inevitable changes that evolution brings.
In this era when it is possible for a single human being, equipped with a suitcase nuclear device or a bag of weaponized anthrax, or a gang of religious fanatics who regard their deaths in the commission of an act of justifiable (in their minds) mayhem, the laws rules and ideas of a time when people fought with sticks and stones are simply inadequate.
Change is inevitable and answering the demands that change presents is or at least should be of critical importance to every man woman and child.
Consider the enthusiasm that began in the United States many years ago for calling the challenges that faced various administrations “wars”. Wars on poverty wars on drugs wars on discrimination, the use of the term “war” lent urgency and implied that a preparedness to sacrifice in the name of that purpose was justifiable and called-for. How urgent the situation was or is and who exactly was expected to be doing the sacrificing are the mechanisms that a system of codified philosophies and law help to define…or at a minimum should be available to provide workable guidelines in the effort.
Today we have a world that calls the hunt for al-Qa'ida and Osam bin Laden a war. We are complacent to call the American invasion of Iraq a “war” when we all know after the fact that there was no urgency and there was no need for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people.
A person is now according to the American administration committing an act of “terrorism” and of “war” by resisting invasion and attempting to repel the invaders who are killing generations in the name of what? Of protecting some oil companies pipeline “right of way”??? For threatening the “mother of all wars” when the saber rattling begins???
No we are calling these people and their actions “war” and “terrorism” because that is the only way that the agendas of a very few manipulators at the top of an administration can prosecute an unjust and illegal invasion and ignore international law. Families wouldn’t be prepared to send their children to die in support an idea that stated… “We have to secure our future access to fossil fuels in a land that we don’t own and have no rights to which demands aerial bombardment using high explosives and incendiaries and roving teams of armed killers.”
“We have to kill every man woman and child that resists our cruise missiles and Abrams tanks attacks as we prosecute a war on the basis of wholly inaccurate and “doctored” intelligence and if we can’t kill them all then what we have to do is make sure the world understands that these people are all terrorists and evil to legitimize our aggression.”
The changes proposed to the American system of jurisprudence as it applies to the military is the leading edge of an agenda to re-write the systems of law and protocols in pursuit of protecting those guilty of committing atrocities in the name of a counterfeit war for the purposes of acquiring personal wealth and power, the current legislative body of the government of the United States.
Changes we can all only expect to be advanced as the costs of barbarism mount and an enthusiasm for abandoning freedom in the name of security becomes the strategy for engendering support for a misguided and corrupt government.
