National security and public safety

Words construct our reality, legitimizing or limiting power.

The term "national security" does not originally originate from Mexican legislation or constitutional doctrine. It is a term that was first used by Mexico's neighboring country, in connection with the "war" it waged against drug trafficking and organizations of the so-called political left in various Latin American countries.

This term is an expression intended to legitimize the use of public power to "supposedly" respond to a threat to national security. In this regard, hardly anyone in their right mind could object to it.

However, the trick (of the con artists) is precisely to hide anything in the hat (the term national security) and then pull out whatever they want to get the public to applaud them. In other words, anything could be justified under the pretext of national security.

In the Middle Ages, all atrocities were justified in the name of the Crusades. Infidels (who might have held different religious beliefs, even though they had never posed any risk or threat) were burned at the stake or murdered.

During the era of absolutism, so-called republicans or liberals were condemned, and those who championed what later became known as the Enlightenment were arrested, as their ideas jeopardized state security.

Likewise, the abuses were also justified under the accusation of being "enemies of the revolution," and even those who had previously initiated the change in the legal-political regime that we have to this day were beheaded under that same accusation.

Under the swastika and under the guise of state security, attempts were made to justify humanity's worst atrocities, including the Holocaust. Something similar happened in the Russian Revolution, where, once again, thousands of people were accused of being enemies of the revolution and the full use of state power was justified.

Until just a few years ago, the threat of communism justified any action by the State to investigate, prosecute, and punish anyone the State considered a communist, obviously without complying with the essential rules of judicial procedure that emerged after the French Revolution in 1789.

Until a few years ago, actions carried out by the "national security" agencies of the neighboring country to the north could only be carried out outside their own country, since constitutional guarantees must be fully complied with within their own territory.

It wasn't until there was an attack on its own territory, supposedly taking advantage of all the flaws and shortcomings of its intelligence services, that a regulation was issued to combat "terrorism" (whatever that means) that attempts to justify violating the constitutional rights of anyone on American soil.

These days, a legal reform is being submitted to the Congress of the Union (dominated by the ruling coalition, even with a political overrepresentation of more than two-thirds of its members, despite not obtaining a vote in that number) for approval. This will give the Ministry of National Defense operational control of national security and, through the National Guard, public safety.

Obviously, the essential question about the criteria for distinguishing between the handling of an issue such as public security and national security is superfluous, since both issues will be resolved, addressed, and managed by the same Ministry of National Defense.

Crossing the boundaries of the democratic rule of law is a common practice in regimes that base their actions on national security doctrine, since any situation can pose a risk and escalate into a threat to national security.

It was the judges who could have been the dam that stopped abuses and established the jurisdictional controls of a constitutional democracy, not only democratic in terms of the majority, but also in terms of the substance of the rights that give legitimacy to a State.

From now on, who will establish the boundaries between so-called national security and public safety?