The suppression of Constitutional Rights by the authorities in Boston represents government overreach at its worst. Beginning with the “stay-in-door” restrictions that were imposed upon millions of residents to the failure to read the bombing suspect his Miranda rights, multiple organizations have shown their willingness to trample on the principles this country was founded on whenever it suits them. Now there is even talk of holding Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an “enemy combatant,” which could result in his imprisonment for years without trial. However grievous his crime, this teenager is still a U.S. citizen and is entitled to the same due process as any other American. While this government power grab is troubling it is more frightening that the public is so willing to accept it. To acquiesce to authoritarianism is to surrender not just Dzhokhar’s rights but everyone’s rights as well. If the government is not challenged on this issue then the next time an act of terrorism occurs we may find ourselves in a foreign land of militarism and martial law.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the explosion of the fertilizer plant in the town of West, Texas reveals what happens when the government neglects its responsibility to ensure to the safety of the people. I will come back to how the situation in Boston was an assurance of public safety in name only, but now the issue is how the lack of government oversight led to the deaths of 14 people and injuries of nearly 200 others. The fertilizer plant that violently shattered a small town was a ticking time bomb that failed to report to the Department of Homeland Security that it held approximately 270 tons of ammonium nitrate. Over half a million pounds of the same explosive substance that was used in the Oklahoma City bombing, yet the DHS was completely unaware of the situation. At the same time, the EPA was notified that the plant was storing ammonium nitrate when the company filed a risk management plan. This interdepartmental communication breakdown is inexcusable, but even more galling is the fact that the company’s risk management plan blatantly whitewashed the danger it posed to the surrounding area. They reported that the worst case scenario would have been a short term leak of ammonia gas that would not pose a serious health risk to anyone. In addition, they incredulously stated that there was no risk of fire or explosion at the plant.
Texas state agencies were similarly deficient. State environmental regulators found no reason for concern after several inspections of the plant between 2002 and 2007. Nevermind the fact that the company was operating without the required air permit; the sheer amount of anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate being stored in a single location should have triggered multiple alarm bells. Furthermore, the plant was built in 1962, so why were residential areas allowed to crop up so close to such a dangerous facility? One reason is that Texas has no statewide zoning laws, instead leaving such building restrictions up to local government bodies. But if local governments are unaware of any potential danger due to the failure of state and federal agencies to do their job, why would they feel the need to prohibit the building of apartments, schools, and nursing homes within the blast radius of a fertilizer plant?
It is likely that the tragedy in West will lead to at least some policy changes and increased safety measures surrounding chemical manufacturing and storage, but it unfortunate that it took such a terrible event to do so. The people’s rights to life and liberty demand that the government act to protect them from industries that have grown accustomed to little government oversight.
This leads back to the actions of the police and FBI in Boston. Under the guise of “ensuring public safety,” they temporarily robbed the people of their freedom. To most this was simply an inconvenience, but it was also a time of great fear. Law enforcement officials created an atmosphere of terror that allowed them to impose upon the people without the worry of facing any public opposition. A scared populace had no objections as a city was brought to its knees by a single, injured teenager. The government continued with its ruse as it prattled on about how resilient and tough the people of Boston are. But the public was nothing of the sort because they simply cowered in their homes instead of asking why the agencies meant to protect them were now preying on their fears. Again, what will happen next time? What will we allow the government to take from us when a lone madman or group of terrorists commits the next atrocity? When martial law is declared, how long will we accept it?
What parts of the Constitution are we willing to throw away simply because the government intimidates us into submission?
No comments:
Post a Comment