About This Blog
I can't even come up with the proper adjectives to describe the following video clip....
Let's say that for national security reasons the president of the United States sits down with trucking industry representatives and seeks their consent and co-operation on a new top secret security program involving the transportation of Afghan heroin throughout the country. The plan's goal is said to be catching Afghani and Pakistani "terrorists" trafficking in heroin grown and processed in Afghanistan, then marketed inside the U.S., the proceeds going to fund extremist acts against America. In order to catch these threats to national security, the president's plan includes a willingness by the trucking industry to allow their trailers to be loaded with heroin each day, transported across state lines and unloaded wherever the president requests.
Let's further say that this program is accepted by many in the trucking industry, rejected by some, but subsequently implemented by the president. After operating this secret program for four or five years, America's heroin addiction problem skyrockets causing a huge societal problem with enormous costs. When the public, through a whistleblower, finds out that this national security program actually exists and was approved and implemented by the president, there is outrage. The president and his supporters, under increased criticism, subsequently pressure the Congress to legalize his heroin program and grant the entire trucking industry total and unequivocable immunity from prosecution or civil liability for their co-operation with such obviously illegal activities.
Wouldn't Kit Bond's and Jay Rockefeller's arguments from the video also apply equally to my hypothetical situation here? Furthermore, is there ANY scenario involving ANY presidentially ordered crime or conspiracy, no matter what criminality it included, if justified by the magic words, "national security" or "state secrets", that would go too far? Is there any crime of any kind, if carried out on the orders of the president for national security reasons, that those carrying them out should be held accountable?
I anxiously await your answers.