That's the question exactly, isn't it? The surveillance inches closer and closer to our private lives, and criminality exists where no one would have considered it possible before. See this article from ZNet (scroll down toward the end of it to read the rest of this section):
"House Democrats Pass New Terrorism Prevention Law"
..."The bill's language hides its true intent as "violent radicalization" and "homegrown terrorism" are whatever the administration says they are....
Along with other repressive laws enacted post-9/11, HR 1955 may be used against any individual or group with unpopular views - those that differ from established state policies even when they're illegal as are many under George Bush. Prosecutors henceforth will be able to target anti-war protesters, believers in Islam, web editors, internet bloggers and radio and TV show hosts and commentators with views the bill calls "terrorist-related propaganda."
Freedom of speech and assembly during post-9/11 is astonishingly free and protected, given a) the scale of the attacks on 9/11; b) the nature of the threats that have been successfully foiled since then (and ones not foiled (7/7, 3/11, etc.)); and c) the unappeasable ideological enmity behind those attacks and threats (i.e., Islamofascism).
Negotiating the extent of government oversight in some civilian affairs is one thing. Reflexive invocations of imminent totalitarianism is ridiculous.
In the Iliad, she is described as the loveliest of the daughters of Priam (King of Troy), and gifted with prophecy. The god Apollo loved her, but she spurned him. As a punishment, he decreed that no one would ever believe her. So when she told her fellow Trojans that the Greeks were hiding inside the wooden horse...well, you know what happened.
Emphasis on the 'yet'. Funny, but too close to the truth.
I have to say I am scared what can still happen before the election.
Posted by: Kaycie | November 12, 2007 at 10:17 AM
... but for how much longer?
Posted by: Udge | November 12, 2007 at 06:05 PM
That's the question exactly, isn't it? The surveillance inches closer and closer to our private lives, and criminality exists where no one would have considered it possible before. See this article from ZNet (scroll down toward the end of it to read the rest of this section):
"House Democrats Pass New Terrorism Prevention Law"
..."The bill's language hides its true intent as "violent radicalization" and "homegrown terrorism" are whatever the administration says they are....
Along with other repressive laws enacted post-9/11, HR 1955 may be used against any individual or group with unpopular views - those that differ from established state policies even when they're illegal as are many under George Bush. Prosecutors henceforth will be able to target anti-war protesters, believers in Islam, web editors, internet bloggers and radio and TV show hosts and commentators with views the bill calls "terrorist-related propaganda."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=14192
Posted by: beth | November 12, 2007 at 07:00 PM
Freedom of speech and assembly during post-9/11 is astonishingly free and protected, given a) the scale of the attacks on 9/11; b) the nature of the threats that have been successfully foiled since then (and ones not foiled (7/7, 3/11, etc.)); and c) the unappeasable ideological enmity behind those attacks and threats (i.e., Islamofascism).
Negotiating the extent of government oversight in some civilian affairs is one thing. Reflexive invocations of imminent totalitarianism is ridiculous.
Posted by: Jeremayakovka | November 18, 2007 at 10:47 AM