Distrust of the government is healthy. Keep it up.
I, personally, happen to distrust the self-confessed war criminal even more than I distrust the incompetent playboy. An official who would sell out our P.O.W.s, our Hmong allies, and innocent refugees to win normalization with "former" enemies inspires me quite little. But different strokes, YMMV, all that.
In particular, I think we must express that concern to our legislatures, both state and local. "Checks and balances" is more than an idea -- it's a real safeguard. Long-term and slow acting, I fear, but then the problem is a long term one. The immediate problem is rather more near term; there ARE criminals with disproportionate power to destroy roaming freely -- what powers we can array to check and balance THAT need be deployed quickly -- AND, as you point out, provisionally. Temporarily.
I would point out to a historically minded friend that Jefferson's "War against Piracy" offers a number of useful parallels to the current situation. (A proposed international coalition effort being obstructed/betrayed by the French, just for openers...) Criminals operating from "safe harbor" might be dealt with individually -- but action against hosting nations can be more effective.
The "War on Drugs" is similarly abused. I note a former attorney general was able to deploy military equipment and personnel against a besieged criminal weapons-making ring by (falsely, it seems) alleging that the cult was also making drugs. Property is forfeit, in apparent disregard of IVth, Vth, and VIIIth amendment protections, provided only that the law enforcement officials charge the property-owner with allowing its use in support of the "Drug Trade". And, like the "War on Terror", Congress has so far provided no guidance on when the War will be considered won, nor sunset provision for the extraordinary powers awarded the executive branches to time out, expire, or obsolesce.
This is an on-going problem. It's not going to be decided this year.
distrust
I, personally, happen to distrust the self-confessed war criminal even more than I distrust the incompetent playboy. An official who would sell out our P.O.W.s, our Hmong allies, and innocent refugees to win normalization with "former" enemies inspires me quite little. But different strokes, YMMV, all that.
In particular, I think we must express that concern to our legislatures, both state and local. "Checks and balances" is more than an idea -- it's a real safeguard. Long-term and slow acting, I fear, but then the problem is a long term one. The immediate problem is rather more near term; there ARE criminals with disproportionate power to destroy roaming freely -- what powers we can array to check and balance THAT need be deployed quickly -- AND, as you point out, provisionally. Temporarily.
I would point out to a historically minded friend that Jefferson's "War against Piracy" offers a number of useful parallels to the current situation. (A proposed international coalition effort being obstructed/betrayed by the French, just for openers...) Criminals operating from "safe harbor" might be dealt with individually -- but action against hosting nations can be more effective.
The "War on Drugs" is similarly abused. I note a former attorney general was able to deploy military equipment and personnel against a besieged criminal weapons-making ring by (falsely, it seems) alleging that the cult was also making drugs. Property is forfeit, in apparent disregard of IVth, Vth, and VIIIth amendment protections, provided only that the law enforcement officials charge the property-owner with allowing its use in support of the "Drug Trade". And, like the "War on Terror", Congress has so far provided no guidance on when the War will be considered won, nor sunset provision for the extraordinary powers awarded the executive branches to time out, expire, or obsolesce.
This is an on-going problem. It's not going to be decided this year.