That Knock in the Night

On the public record Roger Stone is a colorful and even somewhat flamboyant person who has spent his adult life as a lobbyist and political operator.  One gets the impression that he is at least a little shady, though it is hard to tell how much of that is due to prejudiced and slanted reporting, since he has worked mainly with Republicans and against Democrats.  I have no idea if he is guilty of real crimes,  insignificant technical violations amplified by Mueller’s  team of Democrats for political reasons,  or nothing at all.  I do know that he is a sixty  six years old public figure, has a permanent address that is not a bunker or fortified compound, and shows no evidence of being either Bonnie or Clyde, let alone John Dillinger.

Yet when the Mueller gang decided it arrest him, they did not have a couple of people knock on his door at a reasonable hour and serve him with a warrant or arrest him while he was out in public.   Instead an armed squadron of enforcers in tactical gear stormed his house around dawn one morning and carted him off in chains while a crew from CNN filmed the whole thing. It is hard to think of a purpose in that except intimidation – intimidation of Stone, of Trump’s other associates, of people who may support Trump, of anyone who might think of crossing  the establishment or “deep state” in Washington.

One should be careful about likening  things happening here  to the tactics of the Gestapo or the KGB, but sometimes and to some degree, the shoe fits. This is one of those times. That should worry and infuriate Americans of liberal sentiments, regardless of their politics or what they think of Trump, Stone, or anyone in the present administration. That knock on the door in the middle of the night  and a cowered populace’s terror of it are things  out of the dark days of Europe in the 20^th Century.  We don’t want a return to the practice or a reappearance of the fear here.  Americans need to make  their refusal to  allow it plain to those in the government who want to try it. 

An Imaginary Interview

It is generally agreed that if a country has a secret political police organization,  its citizens should be careful of it. Many people in this country believe that the FBI recently has become America’s  secret political police. (Some others, remembering things such as Ruby Ridge and COINTELPRO, might disagree with the “recently”, but it does seem to be new for the FBI to be taking a side obviously with one of the major political parties against the other.)   It is interesting to imagine how a hypothetical person holding both this belief  and opinions contrary to those favored by the political establishment might behave  in an interview with the FBI.  The FBI is hampered by not yet being allowed to use the techniques of interrogation or powers of arbitrary imprisonment available to officials in really progressive countries.  It is left instead to rely on things such as perjury traps – tricking a person into making a false statement or what can be called a false statement to FBI agents – to make someone cooperative and/or liable for criminal punishment.  We can call our imaginary interviewee John Doe and make him a conservative or a supporter of Trump or something else that would be unpopular and listen to the start of his interview.

Agent #1:  Your name is John Doe?

Doe: The people who tell me they are my parents call me by that name. Additionally I have seen a copy of what purports to be my birth certificate with that name on it.

Agent #2: And what is your date of birth.

Doe:  Both the people claiming to be my parents and the document said to be a copy of my birth certificate give the date of May 5, 1985. I cannot say from  memory if that is correct since I would have been an infant at the time of my birth and unable to read a newspaper or calendar. 

Things might then go downhill from there. Some would accuse Mr. Doe of being paranoid. Others might see him as being only prudent under present circumstances for those who noticeably have the wrong political opinions  or associates.  There could be something to both opinions. As the saying goes, just because someone is  paranoid, it doesn’t mean  no one is out to get him.  As another saying goes, when a once trusted  person or organization loses someone’s trust, it is hard to get it back.

A Holiday Thought Experiment

Tomorrow is a legal holiday in the United States with banks, stock exchanges, most offices of governments, and many schools closed. Everyone paying attention knows the holiday is in honor of Martin Luther King, and that is the legal designation of the holiday. However let us imagine that some people decide not to recognize that, preferring to speak   only of the “mid-January holidays” and making a point of it. Suppose further that most people in the traditional media and   timorous corporate executives go along with them and make that  term  their standard.

The stated reasons for the change would be concerns for sensitivity and inclusion.   Those pushing it would point out that there are other holidays in January  that some people celebrate such as Confederate Heroes Day and Elvis’s birthday. They would say they are worried that  people who do not celebrate MLK Day  might be made to feel “marginalized” by others mentioning of it. They would either indignantly reject claims they were antagonistic to MLK Day or laugh them  off as paranoid fretting by their political opponents.

Most people would not buy it. Instead they would assume that what they were seeing was prejudiced hostility, willful and hypocritical ignorance, or both. And they would be right to do so.

Now consider how people, mainly on the left, treat the legal holiday of Christmas  and the customs,  events, and shopping tied to it and ask whether similar conclusions are appropriate. I believe they are, and that  the leftists and their spokespeople in the traditional media have a problem with Christmas.  I do not agree with conservatives that it is based on hostility to Christianity, though that may be motivation for some people. Easter gets left  pretty much alone, and it is a far more Christian holiday than Christmas.  As I have written earlier, I think it is the merry rather than the Christmas that so many leftists cannot stand. Happy, self-sufficient people who are feeling benevolent and having a good time on their own with no supervision from authorities are not the sort of potential subjects would be masters want or need.

States of Emergency

Trump made news in the last few days by threatening to declare a national emergency to allow him to have his wall built along the Mexican border without appropriations for it from congress.  Some said he lacked the authority to do it, though he probably  does.  The National Emergencies Act is pretty clear.

To me the more important question is why we have such a law on the books. It make sense to have laws authorizing  a president to take otherwise prohibited actions in response to specific threats or sets of threats. Examples might  include some powers that would be needed after  a powerful sneak attack (nuclear or otherwise) on the United States, the authority to enforce quarantines during dangerous epidemics,   and the power  to requisition uncontracted civilian aircraft to move forces quickly  to actual or potential foreign battlefields.  However it makes no sense to give a president wide and dangerous powers,  including declaring martial law and seizing property,  in whatever he or she chooses to call a national emergency. (Emergencies can be cancelled by the congress, but a president who  has  either  the support of the house or enough votes to block action in the  senate is home free for at least a year.)  The congress should fix that but probably won’t.