Sascha D. Freudenheim on Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:07:06 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> The Missing Pieces of the Bush Plan for Preemptive Action

The question must be asked: Does President Bush's proposed argument in 
favor of preemptive action by the U.S. go far enough?

Courtesy of the author and posted with permission.
"Preemptive Powers"
By A.D. Freudenheim, 22 September 2002
Posted on:

The Bush administration has recently outlined a rationale for preemptive 
action by the United States against Iraq, in order to protect the health 
and welfare of Americans; indeed, the structure of the Bush 
Administration's new national security plan is such that it formalizes 
preemptive action as a key part of the American strategy for continued 
success in world affairs.  Yet as with most things enacted or undertaken 
by this administration, it does not go far enough in its intended aims.  
Therefore, I would like to make some suggestions as to how preemptive 
action could be applied in other areas to help clean up the U.S.A. - and 
the world, too.

First of all, there is no bigger scourge in our society than crime, 
whether it is drug related crime, petty thievery, or stunning acts of 
violence.  We also know, statistically, that poor people are more likely 
to commit crimes, and yet the Bush people have done  little to address 
this problem or to propose an effective solution.  The Bush 
administration could easily preempt the problem of poverty-related 
criminality by putting every public housing project in the U.S. under a 
total lockdown and placing all inhabitants under house arrest.  Even 
with the expense of bringing in food for those inside, the costs would 
be significantly less than the $200 billion we are likely to spend on a 
war with Iraq - and the benefits for those of us living here would 
surely be tremendous.

Of course, as the last 18 months have shown so clearly, we are also 
faced with a tremendous problem of criminality among the nation's 
business leaders; criminal behavior is not limited to the poor.  Whether 
we are considering the outright illegalities of which many Enron, Tyco, 
and WorldCom executives stand accused, or the legally- and 
ethically-problematic manipulations of the market by stock analysts and 
their biggest investors, the problem could be easily addressed through 
preemptive action.  President Bush should sign an Executive Order 
authorizing the arrest of: every "C-class" employee of every 
publicly-traded company in the U.S., with a particular attention to 
those whose stocks are traded on the NASDAQ or which have had IPOs in 
the last 10 years; the leadership of the major accounting firms, since 
we surely have not heard the last of their misdeeds; and probably, any 
individual broker with more than $1 million in assets under his or her 
management, to preempt the possibility of them giving compromised advice.

On the environment, the Bushies' record is (surprisingly) a little 
better.  Already, the President has suggested that preemptive logging 
could help eliminate the nasty forest fires that have been plaguing our 
nation.  No trees = no forest fires, Q.E.D!  By the same token, however, 
the administration is not doing enough to protect our clean air and 
clean water - perhaps the two most important substances for sustaining 
our lives and our liberty.  To paraphrase from a popular song, How can I 
be proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free, if I'm 
having trouble breathing and Tom Lehrer's famous song "Pollution" 
( is also ringing in my 
ears?  The administration must act, now, by banning any single-occupancy 
vehicle from the road, to drastically cut harmful automobile emissions; 
they must also preemptively nationalize any manufacturing facility that 
sits by a body of water, where polluting could take place; and they must 
preemptively stop all farmers from using artificial fertilizers or 
animal feed, to prevent the run-off from these farms that is spoiling 
too much of the water that lies below ground.

Last, but not least, there are a few other preemptive actions needed to 
resolve troublesome foreign policy problems.  To eliminate the problem 
of drugs, the Bush administration should nuke any non-urban area in the 
following countries: Mexico, Colombia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Laos, 
Cambodia, Thailand, Viet Nam, Myanmar, and Jamaica.  (We do not need to 
worry about China, the smart bastards - they automatically execute 
anyone caught smuggling drugs.)  This would pro-actively remove the 
world's primary suppliers of marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and serve 
as a marvelous warning of the dangers of drug-growing for any other 
nation presently contemplating its prospects in this area.  Likewise, 
the U.S. should also nuke The Netherlands, where much drug use is either 
completely legal or too highly tolerated, and consider nuking Great 
Britain as well, given their recent decision to consider legalizing 
marijuana use.

Once Mr. Bush and his team are finished with all of that, they can turn 
their attention back to the pot growers in Humboldt County, California.  
I hear that not only are those folks growing weed by the bushel, but 
they vote Democrat as well.  Certainly sounds like a cause for 
preemptive action if ever there was one.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: