From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 02:23:02 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Charles writes
>
>
>>>What I have learned:
>>>
>>>(i) Any measure such as the Patriot Act can cut both
>>> ways, and one must always imagine how one would
>>> feel if the opposite party were in power
>>>(ii) It's not probable that the likes of Sean Penn (who
>>> is not half as bad as Jane Fonda was), or any others
>>> will be persecuted by the U.S. government for their
>>> political beliefs. I could be wrong.
>>>
>>
>>The argument was [is?] that people will only be persecuted
>>for their beliefs when it is advantageous for the government
>>to do so.
>
>
> Any huge system, like a government, will always do what is
> advantageous for it to do. Right now, for example, in almost
> any Western country to arrest people for speaking their views
> is practically unthinkable (not only because of the political
> consequences, but, like other entitles, governments are
> creatures of habit too).
>
Until now if our particular government wanted to do such things
it at least did not have the law its side. Today the gloves are
off. Bill of Rights? Constitution? Forget them. And no,
neither was designed to be set aside during even a real war,
much less the self-declared intention to do harm whenever the
current administration pleases.
>
>>The guiding principle of both parties seems to be to ensure
>>that everyone can be proven to be a dangerous criminal
>>whenever they so choose.
>
>
> I think it's fair to say that this is their tendency,
> but hardly their "guiding principle". I would suppose
> that there are many people in the Bush administration,
> just as there were many in the Clinton administration,
> whose view of their political adversaries is so jaundiced
> that they would be quite happy if events moved in a
> direction that allowed them to merely arrest their
> opponents. However, even the most rabid of them understand
> that it's still practically unthinkable.
>
It is worse than that. Laws are on the books to prosecute any
of us at any time with or without such formalities as an actual
arrest, due process and all of that. All your assets can be
seized and you can be disappeared without any formal proceedings
indefinitely. Any of us can have our property seized, all of
it, at any time by law. Any of us can have all aspects of our
lives tracked and monitored, all of our communication and
relationships fully scrutinized and without so much as a court
order. It is not a matter of what party will use this. It is a
matter of We the People now officially having the status of
utterly disenfranchised serfs. Actually, worse than serfs.
Serfs weren't taxed for more than 10% of their income. Every
bit of freedom we have is being formally disavowed and we sit
and argue with whether or not anyone will actually abuse us now
that we are nearly utterly disenfranchised and disarmed. This
country was not built on trusting to the good intentions of the
politicians!
> Now some people on this list will instantly retort "OH YEAH?
> IT'S BECOMING MORE THINKABLE WITH EACH PASSING MOMENT!".
> But perhaps progress can be made by imagining in the most
> realistic manner just what events could transpire that would
> give these people the opportunity to begin rounding up
> their opponents.
>
Thinkable? Why on earth would any sane person waste their time
on what is "thinkable". According to the tools we have allowed
into government hands all of us are now formally and not just
cladestinely at risk from our supposed "public servants".
> (1) The country becomes palpably involved in a life-or-
> death struggle. E.g., Japanese troops in 1942 finally
> conquer Denver, with Dallas-Fort Worth soon to fall.
> Or an evil third-world terrorist group succeeds in
> smuggling in so many atomic bombs that they begin
> going off one every two days.
>
> In either of these scenarios, most Western governments,
> at least those with any backbone such as the U.S., would
> crack down on any---repeat, any---effort that appeared
> in the slightest way to hinder the war effort.
>
You claim this is good or what this country purports to be
about? This country has zero right to do any such cracking down
on those who oppose any or all of its policies and actions.
> (2) Polarization evolves to many, many times the level
> it's ever been in the U.S. For example, the anti-Bush
> crowd becomes so vehement in their denunciations of
> the "illegal cowboy who seized control of the Presidency"
> that they rebel; or, vice-versa (since I *do* understand
> what bias is, unlike some people), the right-wing, up to
> and including a majority of the people, becomes so rabid
> that they literally see peace demonstrators and liberals
> as enemy apparatchiks working against the interests of the
> U.S. to the degree that they are as big a threat as
> literal terrorists.
>
I am not anti-Bush or anti-American. I am pro-freedom. The
government is amassing enough power, hell, it has amassed it and
is now boldly declaring its willingness to use it, to utterly
suppress any and all contrary designs and intentions of the
people. It is not just about this or that group with contrary
views. It is about the end of freedom in our time if we do not
wake up and quickly. Even now it may be too late.
> At present, I see almost zero chance of scenarios like these
> developing.
>
So you feel all safe and secure? Poor innocent lamb!
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 02:24:15 MST