A phenomenon of recent decades is the government's labeling of non-military social conditions as "national security threats" in order to mobilize resources and energies. "Wars" have been launched against crime, poverty, pornography drugs, and the energy shortage. Presumably a "war" on firearms will be next.

But these "wars" make no rational sense. Social and economic problems are not enemy armed forces. Consequently they cannot be "defeated" by a militaristic approach. This truism has been evidenced by the failure of the government to provide a modicum of public security despite massive law enforcement efforts in pursuit of the "war" on crime. Similar wars to enforce drug prohibition, end poverty and create an energy-independent America have all failed.

The real advantage to these "wars" is that, because they are by nature unwinable, they give an excuse for the government to maintain a virtual "State of emergency" during which violations of Constitutional rights are viewed as necessary

For example, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 that launched the most recent "war on drugs" restricts the First Amendment right to petition government by discouraging calls for legalization of drugs. The Act also overturns certain Second Amendment guarantees of firearms ownership, and mandates drug testing--a direct violation of 4th and 5th amendment rights to be secure in one's person and avoid self-incrimination.

Another government practice in recent years has been asset forfeiture, which allows agencies to confiscate private property and bank accounts through civil procedures, thereby circumventing Constitutional safeguards against illegal seizure of property Asset forfeiture, a way for police forces to overcome budget restraints, has opened the way for redefining all sorts of traditionally criminal or immoral activities like prostitution as "threats to the national security"

The root problem with asset forfeiture is that it is really a license to loot, and looting invariably destroys the discipline and efficiency of any organization.

These new "wars" raise some thorny legal issues that have thus far been left unaddressed. If the United States is actually at "war" with crime, then all members of law enforcement are conceivably subject to the various Geneva and Hague conventions on the laws of land warfare. This interpretation would mean that police officers who have confiscated property illegally or killed innocent citizens in the course of law enforcement operations would be considered war criminals.

By generally accepted practice, the political and law enforcement leaders who have generated the policies in the first place could also be held accountable in an international court for illegal actions by their subordinates.

For example, in October 1992, a drug enforcement task force killed a citizen in Ventura, California, in the course of an illegal government raid. A subsequent investigation discovered that the task force lacked sufficient probable cause for the operation. The task force's alleged intent was to find contraband that could be used as grounds to seize the victim's considerable properties under asset forfeiture laws. No contraband was found, but the victim was shot to death by police.

The most serious casualty when the state declares its own people "the enemy" is the government's own legitimacy The rise of "death squad" behavior is another indicator of governmental disintegration. Proclaiming a state of "war" is more an act of desperation than an intelligent national strategy.

It should come as no surprise when people conclude that they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties and that they may oppose the unlawful violence of those claiming to be in authority.