One of my non-legal friends and I were talking yesterday about the state of world affairs. While the range of topics ran the gambit, the one thing that he mentioned that I had not thought of dealt with this passport requirement for Canada. His argument is that it is a precursor to a draft. His basis for this assumption is that during Vietnam, many now prominent Americans fled to Canada to avoid it. By creating a passport requirement, it virtually ensures that "the same mistake won't be made twice." He also thinks that we went into Iraq so that we would have a presence around Iran and the WMD threat and Hussein were merely secondary issues despite what was reported at the time. Since these are interesting points, I thought I would turn to whoever stumbles across this and see if there is any merit to any of these arguments, or at least spark an interesting debate.
Personally, I find these points to be both interesting and disturbing if the assumption can be accurately given. Obviously there is a rational basis for this requirement, and the threats on national security are certainly real enough. But I wonder why the media hasn't thought of this requirement on this dual purpose perspective like my friend obviously had? Feel free to post a comment and maybe someone who is actually in a position to investigate the issue further happens across the debate and does some real reporting on it. And, if the media stumbles across this blog (and if I ever get my link added to Above the Law), maybe I'll become the next David Lat, minus the tabloid elements to his blog.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Some thoughts on national issues
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Actually, I had thought the same thing myself in regarding putting a prescence near Iran. After all, we have already established a presence directly to the West of Iran (Afghanistan); and Iran's Northern neighbors are either hostile to Iran (because of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan) or Pro-American (due to the Iron Curtain falling--many ex communist countries became pro-US--see Poland, for one example).
however, I do think there was honest belief that Iraq posed a threat. After all, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Italy all believed, through their separate intelligence, that Iraq was a biological and/or threat--it's just Germany, France, and Russia opposed invasion , but they did believe it.
Certainly containing Iran was a motive, but one of many. Establishing a foot print in the mideast, taking out a genocidal dictator, hunting out believed terrorist connections, and allaying pro-business concerns all weighed on the administration.
But I wonder about another as yet unnamed issue--namely, to create a place outside America where the terrorists would flock? Think about it: if you hated America pre-Iraq invasion, you most likely wanted to bomb the US mainland. Embassy bombings just don't generate the kind of coverage a homesoil one does. But after Iraq, if you wanted a chance at scores of Americans, you could do so much closer to most terrorists homes, and still have negative effects on America.
So I think the war, on some motive level, is to do just that--create a space off of the North American continent to attract America/Western terrorists. After all, hasn't Bin Laden stated in his tapes that "Iraq" is where the Holy War begins? I think his message is playing into American hands.
Post a Comment