![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
You want to know why this pisses me off?
"Former Justice Department official Jamie S. Gorelick said the new FBI guidelines on their own do not raise
alarms. But she cited the recent disclosure that undercover Maryland State Police agents spied on death penalty opponents and antiwar groups in 2005 and 2006 to emphasize that the policies would require close oversight.... German, an FBI agent for 16 years, said easing established limits on intelligence-gathering would lead to abuses against peaceful political dissenters. In addition to the Maryland case, he pointed to reports in the past six years that undercover New York police officers infiltrated protest groups before the 2004 Republican National Convention; that California state agents eavesdropped on peace, animal rights and labor activists; and that Denver police spied on Amnesty International and others before being discovered."
It's because the only reason I wasn't at those anti-death penalty meetings was because I didn't know about them. Quaker groups have had their phones tapped--again--in the belief that all that religious turn-the-other-cheek, violence-hurts-the-perpetrators-as-much-as-the-victims that Quakers spout is just a smokescreen for our underlying desire to violently overthrow Western civilization and give it to the the godless baby-eating Arabs.
I'm not a good Quaker (or a good Buddhist, or a good Christian, or a good pagan, or any of the other religions I might try on for size), but I am a good citizen. I don't want to overthrow the government. No, I don't. I want the government to reform, yes. I wouldn't shed many tears if half of DC died peacefully of a heart attack in their sleep--but I would cry if my fair city were desecrated by violence, even--especially--if my dream President took office as a result. (My dream President, btw? Jed Bartlet. It figures that I can't even get somebody close to the dream in real life; it only exists in fiction. Person I most admire on Capitol Hill? Maybe Barbara Boxer. Dunno if she'd make a good President, though.)
[ADDENDUM: Rereading this, I'm realizing that it didn't really come through that I meant this as hyperbole. I would in fact be quite distraught if half of DC died in their sleep. Also, I don't think it would actually change anything.]
If the fact that I've decided, for my own peace of mind, that I don't want the son of a bitch who murdered and raped my sister to be fried at state expense because that kind of violence feels too much like engaging in murder myself, makes me a suspected threat to national security? Then no wonder the next words out of my mouth are "Fuck national security." I may not mean them, but the temptation is there. What the fuck is up with national security when they're investigating pacifists for being terrorists? What's next? Is vegetarianism so subversive? Is the fact that I boycott Walmart and Circuit City really cause for state concern?
Yeah, yeah. If I were a good pacifist, I wouldn't get this angry. But I do. Sure, my beliefs make me a little "out there". I don't expect the government to smilingly say, "Oh, you don't like what we're doing? Have a medal and a cookie for speaking out! And we'll stop right away!" I do expect them, however, to go after the real bad guys and not investigate those of us who are just different.
"Former Justice Department official Jamie S. Gorelick said the new FBI guidelines on their own do not raise
alarms. But she cited the recent disclosure that undercover Maryland State Police agents spied on death penalty opponents and antiwar groups in 2005 and 2006 to emphasize that the policies would require close oversight.... German, an FBI agent for 16 years, said easing established limits on intelligence-gathering would lead to abuses against peaceful political dissenters. In addition to the Maryland case, he pointed to reports in the past six years that undercover New York police officers infiltrated protest groups before the 2004 Republican National Convention; that California state agents eavesdropped on peace, animal rights and labor activists; and that Denver police spied on Amnesty International and others before being discovered."
It's because the only reason I wasn't at those anti-death penalty meetings was because I didn't know about them. Quaker groups have had their phones tapped--again--in the belief that all that religious turn-the-other-cheek, violence-hurts-the-perpetrators-as-much-as-the-victims that Quakers spout is just a smokescreen for our underlying desire to violently overthrow Western civilization and give it to the the godless baby-eating Arabs.
I'm not a good Quaker (or a good Buddhist, or a good Christian, or a good pagan, or any of the other religions I might try on for size), but I am a good citizen. I don't want to overthrow the government. No, I don't. I want the government to reform, yes. I wouldn't shed many tears if half of DC died peacefully of a heart attack in their sleep--but I would cry if my fair city were desecrated by violence, even--especially--if my dream President took office as a result. (My dream President, btw? Jed Bartlet. It figures that I can't even get somebody close to the dream in real life; it only exists in fiction. Person I most admire on Capitol Hill? Maybe Barbara Boxer. Dunno if she'd make a good President, though.)
[ADDENDUM: Rereading this, I'm realizing that it didn't really come through that I meant this as hyperbole. I would in fact be quite distraught if half of DC died in their sleep. Also, I don't think it would actually change anything.]
If the fact that I've decided, for my own peace of mind, that I don't want the son of a bitch who murdered and raped my sister to be fried at state expense because that kind of violence feels too much like engaging in murder myself, makes me a suspected threat to national security? Then no wonder the next words out of my mouth are "Fuck national security." I may not mean them, but the temptation is there. What the fuck is up with national security when they're investigating pacifists for being terrorists? What's next? Is vegetarianism so subversive? Is the fact that I boycott Walmart and Circuit City really cause for state concern?
Yeah, yeah. If I were a good pacifist, I wouldn't get this angry. But I do. Sure, my beliefs make me a little "out there". I don't expect the government to smilingly say, "Oh, you don't like what we're doing? Have a medal and a cookie for speaking out! And we'll stop right away!" I do expect them, however, to go after the real bad guys and not investigate those of us who are just different.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-25 05:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-26 08:25 pm (UTC)I have no words.
I respectfully disagree
Date: 2008-08-25 07:43 pm (UTC)Any large group has the ability to disguise their motives and cause real damage. That potential threat and liability is worth further investigation. It is completely an American concept that just because I've done nothing wrong, I therefore should not be tested as such. Whereas, I feel that testing is only reaffirmation and those that aren't doing anything wrong should feel secure. Now this is not to say that our government doesn't botch things up, say hold innocent people, but the premise of not being testing without doing something wrong is to me.
Side note: Do protests really sway opinion? This is a genuine question and I mean it earnestly. While I know that protests have had an effect historically, I feel like many protests or parades or marches are largely ignored by the general population today. As you said, it is most commonly done by people who have beliefs that are a little "out there." Not that these gatherings are wrong but they do arouse suspicions because of the potential for terrorism. While I admire you for standing up for your people (however you define that), it is just as likely (and happening across the US today) where terrorists fake a persona to fit into a group and can still commit whatever act they are planning or even con an American into marrying them for citizen status. Perhaps it would be worthy to note that the groups being investigated may have had other information that made them governmental targets besides just wanting to gather and protest and you may never have suspected the person(s) for whom the investigation is oriented. Just a thought.
Why are you angry if, in fact, Quakers (to continue the example you used above) aren't doing anything wrong? Do you want the government to ASSUME that you aren't? Better yet, do you think that the Muslim religion isn't about pacifism as well? It is only the extreme minority likened to the Christian portion that are members of the KKK (I know you've heard all this before) and to claim that just because they are Quaker or Muslim means that they obviously aren't out to "get us" is foolish and headstrong.
It is more dangerous to allow such a liability without an investigation than to investigate people who aren't doing anything wrong. I liken it to checking on kids at summer camp with a flashlight. If you hear a noise (which could be threatening or not) and you turn on your flashlight to check out the noise while all the kids are supposed to be in bed, then the good kids will be in bed and the bad kids won't be. Or the good kids will be helping the kid who just had a nightmare. Or the bad kids will be smoking up or something.
In our age of pretend "colorblindness" it is only appropriate that everyone doing something reasonably suspicious be examined. Be assured, we are also "hunting" the bad guys on bigger higher stronger threats as well. But are you not at all reassured that they aren't letting the little threats through as well? God forbid, they hunt the big powerful men while the unorganized factions of a terrorist group realize this and thus work in small political protest ways to effect the change they are seeking.
I do not believe that you are suspicious because you don't want your sister's rapist murderer to die, but to act on those beliefs in a way that creates a liability and potential threat absolutely is. That is just a fact. Nothing can be a better cover than to hide in a crowd, not only for gunfire, but also to kill you all. What makes a better frightening news headline than a bunch of pacifists killed? To me, that makes the terrorists more scary and I believe that a majority of Americans would agree, right up there will killing school kids.
Thanks for letting me respond. I do hope you are well (if you remember who I am at all). Second floor Talbot rules.
Re: I respectfully disagree
Date: 2008-08-27 02:59 am (UTC)You say "It is completely an American concept", and that is, perhaps, the crux. It is an American concept, very much bound up in the early history of the colonies. A lot of my ancestors came over because they were being persecuted for their beliefs. Which isn't to say that there was no persecution once they got here; a lot of Quakers were put to death. William Penn founded Pennsylvania as, essentially, a hippie Quaker commune where anyone could be afforded "freedom of conscience." Because such a large proportion of the colonies were founded by religious dissidents, when it came time to encode the new order in the Constitution, it was the very first right enumerated.
Perhaps I'm sensitive to it because it's bound up with "my people". McCarthyism hit "my people" as well, and my grandparents were ostracized for being suspected communists. They were not communists, they were only suspected, and it made their lives hell, it lost them jobs, it gained them FBI files that, one hopes, were closed when they died recently after eighty years of making the world a better place through doing relief work abroad and in the states.
I guess I don't think that "different" should necessarily be "suspicious". And I don't trust the government to use any "discretion" we grant it wisely.
About protests: I'm not sure if they're effective anymore. I think it really depends on how media-savvy the organizers are. Just because there's a protest doesn't mean the media, and thus anyone else, will show up to cover it and give a damn. God knows how many Free Tibet rallies go on in this city that are completely ignored... Tiannemen Square-style debacles, that's effective, but nobody wants effective at that cost.
Re: I respectfully disagree
Date: 2008-08-27 03:10 pm (UTC)I don't believe that being under surveillance is any form of suffering or mistreatment, though I do see it as the second definition of Merriam-Webster as it definitely is annoying. But I question to what degree it is systematic or persistent or agree that surveillance is meant to injure, grieve or afflict based on a belief.
I do understand and am not taking lightly that you see these actions as based upon a misguided notion that those holding even peaceful beliefs and wanting to, how to say, pursue them actively, must then be suspicious. I agree with you that would be abhorrent. However, I have, perhaps misguided, more faith my government that they are not persecuting people based on their beliefs. I am not saying that recent issues like Guantanamo Bay are not without their problems, but I highly doubt of the few hundred prisoners we have there that the majority of them were only held for being Muslim or anti-American. I do believe that most of them were active powerful dissenters and whether I like to embrace this idea or not, we are at war.
I believe it is also possible that persecution may be individually and locally performed by easily confused members of authority on a small scale because it is certainly not without reason possible in areas of the United States.
I believe, however, that the limited number of groups investigated in the article could have had highly suspicious individuals hidden among their ranks and thus warranted closer scrutiny. It is the nature of politically active groups of this sort to attract these individuals, they do hide well and can innocently suggest a course of action where none but themselves know the true weight or significance. I know that for my protection and the protection of all Americans, the government does have secrets. For instance, perhaps in the building next to your harmless demonstration, the young perhaps foolish daughter of a foreign Ambassador is visiting. Perhaps these coincidences occur with more regularity than any of you know and, I hope you would agree, are a cause for concern.
(Part One of Two) ;D
Re: I respectfully disagree
Date: 2008-08-27 03:11 pm (UTC)You said an excellent point that I would like to mention now, namely "freedom of conscience" or otherwise interpreted by many to be freedom of thought. I believe that every innocent member of that politically active group retains a clean conscience and should not fear any injurious action of the government based solely on their religious and political beliefs. I think that even suspicious members of those groups have retained their freedom of conscience and thought.
I completely give you basis for your apprehension and anger because, while I perhaps foolishly cling to this belief, even relative history (and yourself) has shown that this is not a perfect system and most likely never will be. I cannot expect perfection from the government, for the government is run by humans and erring is an integral part of humanity; that is say I do understand why you do, particularly on this point.
Perhaps is seemingly becoming my word of the day. Perhaps the future will show that much like McCarthyism, we have persecuted individuals today for their beliefs without any other reasonable basis. I would like, for the present and future, to hope that is not the case. I would at least like to believe that the government is focused more now on individuals than large groups based on a common belief. Perhaps I feel like calling this time a McCarthyism would be too extreme (though I cannot know for I did not live then). I have several Muslim friends with me at school whose families have gotten Visas and continue to maintain their jobs and it seems as if there isn't a largely held Anti-Muslim sentiment currently.
Back to previous point, however, I do believe that surveillance does not remove any freedom of conscience or thought. By its very nature this freedom does not constitute action based on those beliefs. Yet, if anything, the ability to think for one's self alongside the freedom of speech (expression) is central to some of the best aspects of being an American and in the United States of America.
However, these are isolated events and have not been reflected in employment status, suffering or being ostracized for those highly suspicious individuals or the entire group at large. That is important to note. While there are several suspicious individuals, and may have been importuned for a brief portion of their lives (like having the FBI come for a chat), they are capable to go about their lives without further involvement AND are able to tell anyone about how stupid horrible and downright wrong it was of the FBI to think they were doing something wrong in the first place--even if they were doing something wrong.
The idea that the government is testing and watching every member of politically active groups is absurd to me. I do understand your point that without doing anything wrong, individuals holding their personal beliefs were tested and were the worse for it. Yet, I think I would prefer the government to keep me under surveillance and discover I wasn't doing anything wrong without any injurious effects on the entirety of my life; than to have such a terror-stricken social atmosphere where to be suspected by others not necessarily in the government would be to suffer. To achieve that aim, it is necessary to trust the government in its actions so that the masses do not fear. I am not saying that governmental action is not without review.
I am not on the side of the fence to give up my rights as a citizen for a superficial feeling of security. I do however think that and desperately hope that the government is doing everything it can to protect me from those people out to hurt me.
Re: I respectfully disagree
Date: 2008-08-27 03:13 pm (UTC)Hope you are well!
Re: I respectfully disagree
Date: 2008-08-27 03:14 pm (UTC)I don't believe that that is the basis of what I am calling an American concept. To use the word persecution is not a matter to take lightly. By definition persecution is the active, systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group or individual (Wikipedia) or 1: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief2: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities): pester (Merriam-Webster).
I don't believe that being under surveillance is any form of suffering or mistreatment, though I do see it as the second definition of Merriam-Webster as it definitely is annoying. But I question to what degree it is systematic or persistent or agree that surveillance is meant to injure, grieve or afflict based on a belief.
I do understand and am not taking lightly that you see these actions as based upon a misguided notion that those holding even peaceful beliefs and wanting to, how to say, pursue them actively, must then be suspicious. I agree with you that would be abhorrent. However, I have, perhaps misguided, more faith my government that they are not persecuting people based on their beliefs. I am not saying that recent issues like Guantanamo Bay are not without their problems, but I highly doubt of the few hundred prisoners we have there that the majority of them were only held for being Muslim or anti-American. I do believe that most of them were active powerful dissenters and whether I like to embrace this idea or not, we are at war.
I believe it is also possible that persecution may be individually and locally performed by easily confused members of authority on a small scale because it is certainly not without reason possible in areas of the United States.
I believe, however, that the limited number of groups investigated in the article could have had highly suspicious individuals hidden among their ranks and thus warranted closer scrutiny. It is the nature of politically active groups of this sort to attract these individuals, they do hide well and can innocently suggest a course of action where none but themselves know the true weight or significance. I know that for my protection and the protection of all Americans, the government does have secrets. For instance, perhaps in the building next to your harmless demonstration, the young perhaps foolish daughter of a foreign Ambassador is visiting. Perhaps these coincidences occur with more regularity than any of you know and, I hope you would agree, are a cause for concern.
(Part One of Two) ;D
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-25 10:15 pm (UTC)Thankfully, we seem to be at the end of their era (let's hope anyway).
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-25 11:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-26 12:07 am (UTC)I should add, I have immense respect for Barbara Boxer (she single-handedly managed to get my good friend Maria Garcia US citizenship after Maria had been passed over for ridiculous reasons for five years). She truly cares about her constituents. Unfortunately, Barbara told California Democrats a long time ago she has no interest in the Presidency or Vice Presidency.