![[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 03:14 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