Forum  

Without Amnesty & Without Animosity

One thing about criminal behavior; there is no statute of limitation for waging an illegal war

By Roberto Rodriguez
Published on LatinoLA: May 6, 2007


Without Amnesty & Without Animosity


"Without Amnesty & Without Animosity."

When I heard the president utter those words, I said to myself, ""Yes!!!"

Apparently, I had not been paying attention too closely because when he gave his rehearsed punchline, I thought he had been giving a sober assessment of how to approach the issue of lawbreakers within his own administration of how to treat them: fairly, but firmly.

"Yes," I had said, "That's how Impeachment has to proceed."

Instead, it turns out he was speaking about the hardest working sector of the economy. On the issue of immigration, his cute phrase makes about as much sense as his "Mission Accomplished" banner of four years ago.

Truthfully, if anyone needs amnesty, it's the career criminals within his own administration, not people working double time to feed their families. And in regards to animosity, he is the one who has made it socially acceptable to blame all the nation's problems on those whose sole crime is to be working in a country that begs for their labor, exploits them, and refuses to treat them as full human beings (this can be accomplished through a simple accord).

Again, I thought he had been talking about Impeachment as its case has already been made in regards to the waging of an illegal war against a nation that has never posed a threat to the United StatesǪ a war that has caused the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis and close to 3,500 U.S. military personnel. Arguably, his entire War Cabinet could also be subjected to such proceedings, as well as many members of Congress that continue to green-light this criminal war. And yet, is it possible to also impeach the journalists and pundits that functioned as stenographers or cheerleaders for the administration's falsehoods, and the media outlets that heavily censored dissenting views?

One thing about criminal behavior; there is no statute of limitation for waging an illegal war. The war does not become legal or moral simply because Congress refuses to properly investigate. Virtually everything about the war is illegal; from how it was sold, to how it has been conducted (in disregard to the Geneva Conventions), to how the administration has waged a war on the rights and privacy of its own citizens. In fact, the administration's current smearing of his opponents with a brush of disloyalty and even treason itself arguably constitutes an impeachable offense. Yet the mainstream media
continues to facilitate the war by failing to question the administration's current propositions, that:

Failure to support the president's war funding means failure to support the troops.
Failure to support the troop surge is to hand victory to the enemy.
A call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops is a call for defeat and surrender.
Disagreement with the president is an act of disloyalty and brings aid and comfort to the enemy.
Disagreement with the president is to go against the commanders on the ground.
The troops cannot leave until their mission has been accomplished.
The president's detractors are simply tax & spend liberals who have no interest in protecting the homeland.

The mainstream media could respond in this manner:

Supporting the troops has nothing to do with where they are stationed; bringing them home is a sign of support.
Failure in Iraq corresponds falls squarely on the shoulders of the president's failed policies.
Similarly, defeat and surrender correspond to the administration, not to those who call for the war's end.
Disagreement is not a sign of disloyalty; it is a Constitutional duty.
The commanders on the ground take orders from civilians, not the
other way around. Also, the ones who disagree with this president have all been purged.
The mission, whatever it may be, is not sanctioned or supported by the United Nations nor the vast majority of Americans.
The war is the biggest tax upon Americans in a generation.


Tens of thousands continue to die in an immoral war; and the President, Congress and the media would rather get tough on lawbreakers? Yes. Let's begin with the ones that attacked the immigrant rights' marchers in Los Angeles and the ones waging that war in Iraq: Without amnesty and without animosity.

(c) Column of the Americas 2007





   print this










OUR CONTENT SECTIONS


Arts & Entertainment Comunidad Forum People El Editor's Blog


Careers Expresate Hollywood Tecnologa RSS Feeds