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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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