A SPECTER IS HAUNTING THE WORLD -- THE SPECTER OF FEAR
This story from AP stinks on a couple levels, so I'll take one at a time. The first bit simply shows me that our U.K. allies -- allies in a struggle against illiberal fanaticism -- are as nutso with fear & power as we are:
Shameless & disgusting.
And, moving to part two of the Stinkfest covered in the AP piece, we cross the pond back to the Land of the Free & The Home of the Fearful. Now many of you undoubtedly recall Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, telling us last Friday that the aborted London terror plot "has the hallmarks of an al-Qaida-type plot," based on "the complexity, the sophistication, the international dimension and the number of people involved."
Perhaps it sounded like the standard boiler-plate we've been fed for so long you barely noticed it. Hey, I join you there, even though I realize this bullshit probably does the job scaring & alarming many folks. Anyway, seems that in the midst of this massive British terror investigation, they've been cooperating with intelligence agents in Pakistan. And here's the article's distillation of what two of those fellas told the press:
I know who I believe. You?
A [British] district judge ruled Wednesday that British investigators have until next week to investigate the suspects arrested in an alleged plot to blow up as many as 10 trans-Atlantic jetliners, saying they could be kept in custody without charge . . . The judicial order was the first major test of a new terrorism law that lets suspects be held for as long as 28 days without charge so investigators can solidify their cases . . . Previously, police were able to detain people suspected of terrorism offenses for 14 days only. But the new legislation, which became law earlier this year, also created new offenses, including preparing a terrorist act, giving or receiving terrorist training, and selling or spreading terrorist publications . . . Home Secretary John Reid, Britain's chief law-and-order official, acknowledged that some of the suspects would likely not be charged with major criminal offenses, but said there was mounting evidence of a "substantial nature" to back the allegations.(Emphases added). I don't know much about British law, but general concepts of "Due Process" & "The Rule of Law" developed out of the same Anglo-American common law traditions. However one wishes to label, rationalize or explain these developments, they're the same thing we're fooling around with in the States: bastardizing notions of justice & fair play out of deference to fear, demoguery, and politics. Individuals likely never to be "charged with major criminal defenses" are being "kept in custody without charge" so that "new legislation, which became law earlier this year" can allow "investigators [to] solidify their cases" and help Blair & Reid look tough in the eyes of the population they've scared shitless with constant pronouncements of danger & doom.
Shameless & disgusting.
And, moving to part two of the Stinkfest covered in the AP piece, we cross the pond back to the Land of the Free & The Home of the Fearful. Now many of you undoubtedly recall Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, telling us last Friday that the aborted London terror plot "has the hallmarks of an al-Qaida-type plot," based on "the complexity, the sophistication, the international dimension and the number of people involved."
Perhaps it sounded like the standard boiler-plate we've been fed for so long you barely noticed it. Hey, I join you there, even though I realize this bullshit probably does the job scaring & alarming many folks. Anyway, seems that in the midst of this massive British terror investigation, they've been cooperating with intelligence agents in Pakistan. And here's the article's distillation of what two of those fellas told the press:
The would-be bombers wanted to carry out an al-Qaida-style attack to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 strikes, but were too "inexperienced" to carry out the plot . . . if the terror cell members arrested in Pakistan and Britain had appropriate weapons and explosives training, they could have emulated massive attacks like those five years ago in New York and Washington as well as the July 7, 2005, London bombings. [But] the detainees in Britain and Pakistan had not attended terror-training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan and had relied on information gleaned from text books on how to make bombs.(Emphasis added). Now, I'll admit these two agents spoke only on condition of anonymity, a device to gather news information I'm not a fan of. And it is only two guys. But we know Chertoff's in spin mode, because that's pretty much what his job is. The two intelligence agents may be lying as well, but that doesn't seem to be a job requirement.
I know who I believe. You?
5 Comments:
The British government has had an Entire Year to solidify their cases.
Now they've made arrests and confiscated turckloads of private property.
And still they can't make their case.
What's another 20 days gonna prove?
The textbooks were probably provided by local colleges. I had some when I attended classes in college chemistry. they are required reading when you're taking Chemistry 101, 102, 201, 202...
I imagine the interrogation went like this...
Q: Do you know how to make a bomb.
A: Yes sire I do.
Q: Where did you learn to do this?
A: In my college chemistry class, sir.
I think that if we're going to make the world completely safe, we need to ban science altogether and quit using technology...
I thought W was already doing that.
Mike,
No answers, just more questions. While I totally reject the notion that the current US administration has (at least to date) perpetrated an actual terror event, I don’t think I am on the lunatic fringe to suggest that this administration and those in the shadow government of think-tanks that do so much of it’s thinking, have and continue to use the public’s fear of those event for maximum political advantage; and that one of their primary goals for which that political advantage is and will be used, is to encourage the citizenry to trade away its individual liberties for the illusion of safety (that would be those liberties involving privacy, speech, assembly and petition, not those protecting the right to evade taxation of unearned income.) A good example would be Dick and Dubya’s comments on Ned Lamont last week when, it is now clear, they knew the big British terrorism bust was imminent. Hey, it’s an ill wind indeed that blows no good.
What I want to know is: What is the payoff? I mean 65% of Americans are ready to give “national security” a free pass as it is. When we Americans (who I learned this week can identify two of Snow White’s Seven Dwarves at a rate of 75% and two of our current Supreme Court justices at a rate of 25%) give up the right to even think about dissent, what is it that these Ivy League PNACers want to do?
WFTA-
It's pretty complicated. Honestly, I'm not sure.
But one literary passage has long haunted me, because I suspected it rang of great human truth. I'll do my best to paraphrase:
Near the end of 1984, after O'Brien has tortured Winston to within inches of his life, he makes Winston stare at himself in a mirror.
Seeing a rotten, decrepit picture of his lost humanity, Winston all-but starts to weep, pleading with O'Brien to tell him, "Why? Why have you done this to me?"
"Because we can," O'Brien answered. "When you think of a picture of the world, Winston, think of a boot smashing a human face."
Again, with all apologies to however badly I butchered the most famous work of one of my all-time favorite authors, that's my answer to your query:
Because They Can. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice. They're bullies. They're all rich & incredibly powerful, yet they always want more. More wealth, more power, more smashed faces beneath their boots.
Just one man's opinion.
You forgot Karl Rove.
I think Shrub is just a petty assclown who couldn't find oil in Texas.
Rumsfeld and Cheney are the ones truly in power.
One thing I read about hear in Naptown is that the fed is cutting back dastrically on money for local police. The have cut back 86% of the funding for the COPS Program.
I guess fighting them over there will keep us from facing IEDs on our highways and insurgents in our malls and workplaces.
We really do not need that money for our major cities to adequately man their police forces.
Post a Comment
<< Home