Justice is relative...

There's increasing debate over corporate America and its role in driving policy decisions. This relationship has become painfully evident with the war in Iraq. And even though the Bush administration downplays its corporate affiliations to the public, their decisions are constantly scrutinized and exposed as being inextricably linked to the agenda of industry. There are some in Congress who are fighting to expose this union, but given the political climate in Washington, and given America's tendency towards issue ignorance, I believe that a dangerous precedent is being established. This precedent not only allows boardrooms to dictate policy, but it also protects their involvement and depends upon this relationship.

This letter is from the House Committee on Government Reform to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It calls into question the involvement of Halliburton and its ties to countries that sponsor terrorism. Our government is aware of the problem. How long do we wait for them to take action? You can track defense industry contracts with countries around the world. It's interesting how much money we make off our "enemies" in perfectly legitimate transactions.

Why is our government colluding with private industry when their goals and agendas should be unrelated? One provides defense and protection; the other is tasked with making money. Unfortunately, those agendas have now merged to become almost indistinguishable one from the other. Our government defends and protects the ability of corporate America to make money. Furthermore, our military will go to great lengths to defend the honor of these corporations. It's a problem that has existed for over a century, but this is happening in ours so it's taken on a matter of urgency. It's happening directly under our noses.

We seem to have entered a vicious cycle where the only winner is corporate America. Corporations court contracts with countries around the world, regardless of their political ideologies or sympathies towards the United States. Those countries then rebel using weapons provided by American companies. The United States enters into policing actions against those countries using, ironically enough, services and hardware provided by the same companies that are equipping the enemy. Who's the winner?

I heard a report on NPR the other day. It stated that private corporations are considered individuals by law. That's why they can sue for damages, claim privacy, and have their freedom of speech protected. Now wouldn't logic serve that they too can be brought up on charges of treason? Shouldn't they have to pay reparation costs to the United States if their weapons are used against us in military action? Gun makers are being sued for providing guns to gang members and Oliver North was charged for negotiating deals that involved weapons. Liberty and justice for all, huh?