Are you angry? Not nearly angry enough...

[jducoeur]

Fascinating. I commend to you this article, pointing out a major expansion of FBI powers that was essentially buried by the administration in its news management. While it's pretty clear from subsequent discussion that this isn't exactly a wholesale sneak enactment of Patriot II, it's also clear that the Bush administration is doing everything in its power to erode civil rights very, very quietly.

Frankly, I'm not even as bothered by the legislation itself (heinous though it is) as by how it was managed -- signing it on the day Saddam was captured was surely intentional, to bury the story as effectively as possible. A rational man faces up to the critics of his ideas, admits their points, and then does the right thing. This sort of sneakery is the path of a coward who has neither the desire nor ability to deal with the other side, but just wants to ram his decisions through.

The scary part is that, while I'm not quite willing to state outright that the Bush administration is intentionally attempting to create a police state, they are definitely doing exactly what someone trying to set up a police state would do. The creation of a general atmosphere of fear; the use of that excuse to erode civil liberties; the careful use of demogoguery to silence critics -- it's pretty textbook. And the media are letting him get away with it to a degree that can only be called shameful.

It's easy to fly off the handle here, and I'm trying not to do so. But it's important to recognize that, by the time things go over the edge, it's much too late to do anything about it. I'd prefer that we not have to go through a complete rerun of the 1950's before the country wakes up once again to the fact that civil liberties are there for a reason...

Comments

[keshwyn]

I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right. I've been pretty irritated with Dubya and stuff, but I hadn't gotten quite that far in my logic.

If you substitute Terrorist for Communist...

Irrationality

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Not to mention some of the things are nonsensical. A wire article I read yesterday <http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/mga7h8h0tod.html> spoke about FBI suggesting that people with almanacs are suspicious, because the data in them could be used for planning attacks. I feel like I'm living in an SF-dystopia story. How much more money can I send to the ACLU, hmm....

Re: Irrationality

[jducoeur]

Yaas. Normally I only send any given charity money once a year, but I have to agree that this may be a good time to make an exception. This is getting to be one of those times that I care a lot more about the ACLU.

Although I have to say, the almanac story makes me think that it's time for carefully-planned attacks of humor. I mean, this is *so* outrageously idiotic that I honestly thought that the article must be in the Onion until I saw that it was actually from the NY Times.

The crux of the problem in this country right now is the pervasive atmosphere of fear, which the administration is happily worsening. The only good way to counter fear, I've found, is with humor. The question is, what is the most effective way to make all of this look appropriately foolish, when they really *are* being so preposterously extreme?

[meranthi.livejournal.com]

And how far is it from firemen = putting out fires to firemen = setting fires....
*shudder*

[antoniseb.livejournal.com]

I added a note to the thread you referenced. Essentially, I said that this was unavoidable, but that we need to have greater accountability from those that have access to information.

Thanks for pointing this out.

BTW, did you know that the greatest scandal in the history of commodities trading broke on the day that JFK was assassinated?

[jducoeur]

I don't grant the inevitability of the erosion of civil rights. Some loss of privacy is probably inevitable in the super-connected age, but not nearly this much, IMO. But I concur that accountability is a key problem -- the most egregious part of the new law is the fact that it guts the FBI's accountability, which wasn't strong enough to begin with.

did you know that the greatest scandal in the history of commodities trading broke on the day that JFK was assassinated?

No, although I'm not wholly astonished. Most of these tactics aren't new -- what's frightening is the methodical way in which they are being used. It seems to actually breed a sort of "tactic fatigue", where people don't notice or mind it as much when these slimy tactics are being used every day. What is needed right now is a reawakening of appropriate outrage at the lows that the political process has fallen to...

I have a funny view of this

[zachkessin.livejournal.com]

First of all this worries me. On one hand the USA does have a raising security threat, but I don't think this is an effective way to combat it. In part a large part of the USA does not want to admit that ethnic/national origin or religion has anything to do with threat level. And in truth If I was a security person in the USA looking at me (assuming I was there) I *SHOULD* set off red flags all over the place. 1) I look middle eastern (Swarthy with a beard etc). 2) I have 3 passports (USA, UK, Israel) and so on.

I've been in Israel for 4 months now and I'm getting used to security here. I take it as normal to have my backpack searched and walk threw a metal detector to go into the mall. I have the border police stop me walking about Jerusalem and demand that I show ID on a regular basis. And seeing 18 year olds walking around with M-16's and cell phones.

Re: I have a funny view of this

[jducoeur]

Fair point, although I have to point out that you don't actually seem to be all that much safer for it all, in practice. Indeed, I have to suspect that the atmosphere of fear and distrust is just worsening the cultural gap that's making the country unsafe in the first place.

Sometimes, it's very hard to accept that the world is Just Plain Dangerous. But sometimes accepting that is a necessary first step towards making it less so...

Re: I have a funny view of this

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

On one hand the USA does have a raising security threat, but I don't think this is an effective way to combat it.

What makes you think that it's meant to be?

Some of what's happening now is probably still fallout from the fall of the Soviet Union. Those who make their livings from war and fear were all terribly worried about what to do without a permanent Big Threat. In my more cynical moments, I believe that they're doing their best to encourage terrorism, in order to fill that role.

Road to Hell paved with good intentions

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

I suspect some parallels between Homeland Security and other interactions I've had with the Government.

I used to work responding for my company to government Requests for Quotes (for X-terminals, should anyone be curious.) This meant reading through a lot of words and answering questions, all of which was, at base, intended to make us answer the questions "Does this really work like you say it does? Does this fit what we need? and Are we getting a reasonable price for it?"

But I'd have to send back some 30-100 pages of paperwork, minimum. Good intentions (to be sure the government wasn't getting screwed on the small scale) had enlarged into a cancer. Did it prevent the government from being screwed? I doubt it; a company intent on that could do so if it wanted. It just made it a lot harder for an earnest government person to get the computer s/he needed, and likewise for us, to get that computer to them.

I doubt it would have gotten that stupid if there were someone with real authority overlooking the process. But AFAIK, the overlookers were well-intentioned and yet without authority to do a real revision of the process.

So if you take that process and attitude, and add fear, and even more damaging, the need to look like you're taking the fear seriously and not just diddling around, you can get the stupid situtations which we've heard about. All from good intentions. And you remember where good intentions can lead.

Addendum

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

... meant to say that the good intentions idea probably applies to the bulk of the people in Homeland Security who are just following orders, etc. The *leaders* are a different matter altogether.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

To paraphrase a thoroughly appropriate movie character: "A person is smart. People are stupid and panicky, and you know it."

While the Shrub would have us believe otherwise, the Federal Government is run by people. Thus, I too am not quite willing to ascribe to malice what can otherwise be explained by mere human stupidity.

Mind you, stupidity or maliciousless leads to the same voting patterns...

[jducoeur]

Mind you, stupidity or maliciousless leads to the same voting patterns...

True. And worse -- just because the people who are currently in office have good intentions (granting that perhaps they do) doesn't mean that those who come after them will be the same.

Indeed, that seems to usually be how these things work: the people who erode civil rights have only the best of reasons to do so, but they lay the groundwork for later tyrants. (And lesser scumbags -- even if we don't wind up with a genuine monster as president, it's all but certain that the FBI's new lack of accountability will lead to many small abuses down the road. Unchecked power always leads to abuse, sooner or later...)

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

"What most people don't seem to realize is that every time you pass new laws crimes, you make more people criminals." - Arlo Guthrie

[baron-elric.livejournal.com]

What you're describing is one of those sequences that you'd find in a thriller about the subversion of a government to establish a police state. Of course, we saw a similar story, torn from the pages of a bad thriller, describing the theft of an election so that a totalitarian government could be established. But, gosh, the same people are involved in both these stories! And they're set only three years apart! And in this country!

If they were making any effort at all to not make it look like pages from bad novels I might be less upset, but they make no such effort. The whole administration is busy pointing and saying "be afraid of the big head, ignore the man behind the curtain" (or a close equivalent). You can visualize all these people sitting around in the Oval Office saying "Bwa-Ha-Ha." If they had mustaches they'd twirl them, no doubt about it.

This is why I'm actively supporting a political campaign for the first time in my life. I'm working for Dean, but I'd like to encourage anyone who gives a damn about the country to get out and work to make sure that there is no credible way for the Shrub to pretend that he can or will win in November. Backing the ACLU is also good. Sitting back and wringing hands just won't cut it in 2004.