![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zana16You 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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!