From CNN:
President Bush on Tuesday expressed the hope that Hezbollah – which the U.S. State Department has long regarded as a terrorist group – could enter the political mainstream in Lebanon. ‘We view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization,’ Bush said at a news conference with Jordan’s King Abdullah II… ‘First things first,’ the senior Bush administration official said. ‘Syria must get out, and Lebanon must have unfettered elections, then Hezbollah must disarm … There is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society.’
Has this guy ever read the Bill of Rights, much less the Constitution, of the country he represents?
Jay says, “So, according to Bush, there is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society … unless you’re White and vote Republican.”
Then, why give us the right to arm ourselves? Also, does a militia not have a right to exist? Where is the line defined between a bunch of people who regularly practise with their weaponry to stay sharp and freedom fightas? To clarify, I see it, but how would this stand up in a court of law?
I view the story of Israel as having several intertwined tragic issues. It’s too long to go into here in a post.
The point being, any militia anywhere is a challenge to the State and is opposed by the Government. My original post got chopped off, but the examples of 3 militias which the US destroyed were – KKK, Black Panthers and M.O.V.E.
When a militia gets to a stage where it is a physical threat to other citizens, the State has a moral responsibility to destroy it. Thus far after Lincoln, the US state has managed to keep it’s obligations. Show me one example where the US state has – internally – either encouraged militias to form, or not stopped them when it had to.
Hmm.. By sidestepping the argument about militias vs. the military you are evading the main issue.
You have to acknowledge that the whole point of creating a State apparatus is the Rule of Law and that means the monopoly of ultimate power is with the State. This scenario is true irrespective of how the Government is formed – democracy, dictatorship, Revolutionary council whatever. Right?
No Government will ever ‘sanction’ a militia which is outside the Government’s control. Which is why *all* militias are illegal. Remember, the Colonial militias in the US were *fighting* the then ‘legitimate’ State of King Whoever of England. They were proud about being seditious ! It was only after they won the War and replaced the state with their own, that they reorganized citizen-militias into a standing military.
..contd
I am not going to get into the semantics of military vs. militia and what the founding dads meant by it. Instead I am going to ask what would happen to a nation in which only the government and its henchpeople have guns. Not a good scenario.
Again, if the militia is sanctioned by a government, it’s alright, but one independently formed to protect the interests of a group of people is not? I bring your attention to the Israeli army (sanctioned thuggery) vs. the PLO, for one example.
Alright.. let’s look at this as a practical problem of establishing democracy without getting carried away by our personal opinions of Mr. Bush.
First – the difference between a military and a militia. The way I see it, a militia protects the interests of a certain subset in a country from aggression, but the military protects *everyone* in the country against *foreign* aggression, even those that hate the military. So then, a militia is nothing but an armed trade union. Right? Agree?
If this is so, then Hezbollah is quite clearly a militia. It might also fight against Israel, but it’s primary goal is to protect Shiite Muslim interests – IN A COUNTRY WITH SIGNIFICANT OTHER ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS GROUPS. It does *not* just seek to protect Shiites against unfair force from non-Shiites, but exists to establish the will of Hezbollah over all of Lebanon. (Go see their own description of their mission for proof.) In other words, it is an occupying force.
Can a democracy exist in this