[Assam] Armed Revolution is an Outdated Concept

[kamal deka]

>>>> If America has to stop its food stamps and  its medicaid for some reason or other, you cannot vouchsafe that there would not be armed rebellion there<<<<

In the US, the debate that emerged after the aborted New York bombing
attempt led Senator Lieberman to suggest revoking citizenship of US
citizens involved in acts of terrorism. Of course, the proposal has
evoked mixed responses, but Lieberman has actually brought the
legislation to the floor of the house in the form of the ‘Terrorist
Expatriation Act.” Even as a majority of the US press described the
suggestion as an overkill, the point that Lieberman unapologetically
made, in his own words, was that “If you have joined an enemy of the
United States in attacking the United States to try to kill Americans,
I think you sacrifice your rights of citizenship.”

At one point, Lieberman argued that “During World War II, this law
would have applied to an American citizen who voluntarily joined the
German or Japanese armies to fight against our troops in Europe or the
Pacific. I believe it would have been evident to all that an American
citizen who took up arms against the US during World War II had no
interest in being a citizen of our country any longer, and should not
be,” and added that the “unconventional” war today against enemies,
like foreign terrorist organisations such as Al-Quaeda and the Taliban
that were committed to attack the US, needed similar responses.

Hillary Clinton echoed this when she made the point that “Clearly,
United States citizenship is a privilege. It is not a right.” Of
course, the unsaid focus in all this has been more on naturalized
(Asian, Arab) Americans rather than the US-born, but the very fact
that this discussion has been happening is intriguing in the ‘land of
the free’. Those committed to war against a State cannot, and should
not, expect the rights and privileges and protection that the State
promises its citizens, even if often in theory.
KJD














On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 6:47 AM, uttam borthakur
<uttamborthakur at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> >From BC to AD: armed revolutions, sucessful or failed, have been taking place in different ways and fro different reasons.
>
> In India, in Afghanistan, in China, in Russia, in Latin America, in Europe, the middle-east.... everywhere, it has never really stopped. If America has to stop its food stamps and  its medicaid for some reason or other, you cannot vouchsafe that there would not be armed rebellion there as well in that land where guns are aplenty and where there are not so infrequent episodes of gruesome proportions where individuals gun down school students  for no rhyme nor reason. There is sufficient fissile material there; and though it is not very probable right now; but who can say? For that, who did know that a coup would shape up in Moscow in the last part of twentieth century; and the whole communist edifice would crumble  within weeks from the onslaught of a drunken freak, the friend of the civilized west, which does not believe in carving up Iraq into zones to rob its oil to keep its own citizens in good humour so that armed revolts do not occur in
>  its citadel.
>
> Self-preservation is a basic instinct. None wants to be a part of such a dangerous thing that threatens one's own life. Yet, such things are always happening;  that it is happening is why a person like Kamath is proclaiming its obsolescence.
>
> I find it funny though; how can an obsolete thing rake up such a debate?
>
> I had heard no body kicks a dead dog!
>
> May be, things have changed and this saying is not in vogue these days; and my ignorance may be because I am an anachronistic joke.
>
>
> Is there a peaceful revolt in Thailand? If so, why is its regime using arms to smoke out rebels? Funny!
>
>
> Uttam Kumar Borthakur
>
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>