Just suppose that one day one of those nearest and dearest to you—it could be a son, a father, a daughter, a cousin, a wife, a lover—was wiped out in a senseless terrorist incident. Just gone. No chance to say goodbye, to exchange a last loving farewell. Just gone, never to be seen again.

There is, inevitably, some controversy about the motivation behind the World Trade Center destruction, and even some about the true identity of those responsible. Whatever the truth, thousands upon thousands of people had to come to terms with that terrible truth either on that day or later, when all hope was lost or remains were identified. Who among us who blessedly has not experienced such grievous loss could fail to feel sympathy for those left behind to mourn the victims.

The “war against terrorism” pretends to keep us safe from such catastrophe, though in reality we all know at the back of our minds that no matter to what extent we manage to control risk there is no way to completely remove it. The probability of suffering harm at the hands of terrorists is miniscule, and they are called “terrorists” precisely because they are afforded mindshare far above their actual threat level. We are scared of flying, but more people die on the roads per passenger mile traveled by far. We are scared of terrorists, but 40-80,000 a year die of medical error and people walk happily through the hospital doors.

It's bad enough that “the enemy” isn't easily identifiable (an essential part of the national security game: tell the people “they” are threatening “us” and the people will respond by giving you carte blanche to persecute anyone you damned well please). it appears the American people will do anything rather than hold the government they voted in responsible for upholding the Constitution and the rights established by long tradition and hallowed process.

Now imagine a world in which Iran, or Turkey, or some far away nation which, if you are American there is a good possibility you would have no idea how to find on a globe (and if you do, please don't be offended, I applaud you and wish that more of your countrymen would acquire some elementary knowledge of global geography) is at war with Canada. God knows why that would ever happen, but it's the kind of crazy shit that we have to “defend” ourselves against, apparently. Of course America's favorite method of defense is offense, so better not look at us sideways or we will wind our military-industrial complex up and let loose the dogs of war. Iraq and Afghanistan both know how that story ends.

But just suppose that Iran, say, had a fully-developed nuclear arsenal* (if only there had been someone to bully the United States about nuclear technology research in 1944/5 the way the Western world is bullying Iran) and was at war with Canada. Suppose further (despite the geographical improbability: a certain suspension of disbelief is required here) that a friendly adjoining power had offered the use of their air bases to allow Iran to fly drones over Canada.

Of course the natural tendency of all red-blooded Americans would be to try and help the Canadians in any way they could. The US government, being the chickenshit bunch of lying crooked self-serving criminals that it usually appears to be (and so much for “change we can believe in,” by the way), would doubtless advise its citizenry not to take matters into their own hands for fear that retaliation might come their way.

Despite this sensible advice it is likely that at least a few bunches of hotheads, either spoiling for a fight or out of an outraged patriotism and the simple wish to help their fellow men, might offer aid to people across the border that they had been accustomed to daily dealings with for several hundred years (the thing about national boundaries is the way they demonstrate so readily that there are human beings on either side—whatever their differences, their shared humanity overwhelms them).

So here’s a last suppose. Suppose that Iran decided that the hotheads should be discouraged by sending drones across the US border from Canada. Suppose they had taken the time to list people by name that the drone operators were allowed to attack if they could satisfy the case officer that there was a sufficiently high probability they would be killed. Suppose that “collateral damage” (which as we all now know thanks to the Viet Nam War—that well-known attempt to prop up Western democracy by ignoring all its principles, which is kind of America's bag in foreign affairs—actually means more sons and daughters and uncles and wives and babies of entirely innocent people) was acceptable to Iran, and that more people had been killed as a result than died in the World Trade Center attack.

Now replace "Canada" with Pakistan and "Iran" with "the United States" and you have a pretty good idea why more people hate America every day. Please stop doing this to your fellow human beings.

The US government has for decades been running scared that its crimes will be exposed. Hopefully with the help of patriots like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden we are ushering in an age of openness, where there will be nowhere for the petty bureaucrats to hide their outrageous offenses against humanity. But you, as an American, have a part to play. You have to stand hard, and tell your government at every opportunity that democracy cannot be defended by subverting or ignoring its principles.

I don't love America for the country is is today. I love it for the country it was, and could be again. Please help.

* Dear NSA: please note that I have no knowledge on any practical matters concerning nuclear weapons, and the only reason I included this footnote was to say that if I get any grief at all about this piece then fuck you. Fortunately I am an insignificant little nobody, so you needn't be troubled. But if you tell my girlfriend about that email I sent last Thursday to the cute blond I met in that bar there WILL be trouble, right?