..as long as you you say you are sorry and that you did it to ‘protect America.’ McCain is backing swerving around telecom immunity in an obvious play for their support. Would the average American be held responsible for breaking the law? Of course.
And of course, as Bush supporters would argue, it’s unreasonable for the citizens of America to be at all concerned with even potential government over-reaching with it’s police powers. Because after all, if the government claims that everything it does is in the interest of securing our nation, then we take them at their word. I can’t help but wonder if it were Bill Clinton instead of George Bush, would the GOP and right wing make these same arguments rationalizing expanded executive power, an expanding police state and essentially allowing the President and an elite group of insiders to create policies, ignore federal laws and pretty much do whatever they damn well pleased, so long as he claimed it was in America’s best interest? Of course not.
Throughout history, how many governments abused power under the guise of patriotism (or nationalism) and security?
Stumble It!
4 responses so far ↓
1 tehehehe // May 28, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“The fact that we’re even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection with terrorism is really troubling,” said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace. “There’s no property damage or physical injury caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we’d take issue with that.”
There are two types of activities that justice departments can take in dealing with terrorism. One is to investigate acts of terrorism that have occurred, with the intent of aprehending those who committed violence against individuals or property. This response is sometimes effective in capturing perpetrators, but does little to protect the public except as a possible deterrent to future acts of terrorism.
The second path to dealing with terrorism is to investigate groups who have supported terrorist activities or who advocate terrorist activities. For instance, there is know connection between Greenpeace and the underground terrorist group the “Animal Liberation Front”. Likewise, there is a connection between the group PETA and the “Earth Liberation Front”. These connections are much like the connections between the “Students for a Democratic Society” (SDS) and the “Weather Underground”. In these examples, some of the members of the “non-violent” group were also members of the underground more violent factions. The violent members were secretive and operated as independent cells much like Al Qaeda operated in its early years. They recruited, planned and implemented violence and sought out like-minded individuals in the “open” group. The terrorist elements in the Irish Republican Army are the prototypes for this type of activity.
Investigating groups which are “open” can help to identify the more radical, hidden elements contained within the larger protest organizations. The goal, of course, is to “preempt” violent acts of terrorism.
“Overreaching” would be when the government actively tried to suppress the activities of the “protest” group while trying to identify the embedded violent elements. None of the information uncovered indicates that the investigative agencies did anything to restrict or interfere with legitimate protest activities.
If the public wants to be protected secure, it is essential that justice agencies engage in investigations seeking to preempt planned acts of violence. That is the ultimate objective ensuring that citizens are “secure within their homes and personal papers.” It is this effort to protect our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that investigative agencies are trying to ensure.
When government actually exceeds it authority or abuses its authority, then it must be reigned in. So far, there is no evidence that the government has abused the authority it has been given to investigate potential terrorist activity. Citizens are not denied due process or habeas corpus. They are not incarcerated without access to legal counsel. They are not imprisoned without access to a judicial proceding designed to protect their rights and determine if there is “probable cause”.
There is room for disagreement. What some “progressives” might deem is a threat to civil liberties is considered by others to be simply wise policy. But merely investigating a groups activities actually does them no harm, which is the basis for civil action On both sides of this issue, “diligence” should be the watchword. The “progressives” should be diligent that the government does not abuse its authority, and the government should be diligent in investigating potential threats in order to protect the citizenry. I think we can all agree that merely investigating violence after it has happened without trying to preempt such activity would be woefully deficient in ensuring our security.
2 Administrator // May 28, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Yeah, vegans are a big potential threat to security, as are quakers.
3 tehehehe // May 29, 2008 at 8:44 am
Possibly you were unaware that Quakers are often advocates for Muslims with shady connections?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/27269_The_Definition_of_Useful_Idiots
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/17966_Moonbats_Frothing_Over_Quaker_Death_Parties
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/17971_We_Got_Mail!
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/14846_Outrage_of_the_Day
Quakers have a long and revered history as a religious group that promotes pacifism. They have many charities. They were instrumental is turning popular opinion against the practice of slavery in the U.S. They do good works. But they are also the religious community that used to burn and drown witches, which suggests that sometimes they can err in their implementation of their pacific policies and beliefs.
Is their ardent support of Muslims and Muslims groups another example of their respect for man creating an opportunity for the rest of society to be victimized? Only an investigation would be able to anser that question.
4 Administrator // Jun 1, 2008 at 2:43 pm
We could take that to it’s logical (or illogical) conclusion and then justify characterizing huge swaths of groups as a ‘danger’ to security based on the actions or beliefs of some.
Do you really think that Quakers as a group need to be investigated as a threat to the US? I’d personally like to see the government spend more time focusing on securing our ports and ensuring that investigative data bases are in synch so that the likes of Mohammed Atta don’t fall through the cracks and get on an airplane. I think Vegans and Quakers are a distraction and that the governments interest in them is more related to their vocal opposition to war- something the govt takes personally.
And you seem to be suggesting in your last paragraph that support of Muslims equals support for terrorism? If one financially supports a Muslim terror group, well that’s different, but I don’t like when people conflate the two as a general rule.
I think when it comes to security, we spend a lot of time tilting at ideological windmills, and that really endangers us all.
Leave a Comment