I’ve never been much for that term, “What’s a little insert some item here amongst friends?” It always reminded me of a car salesman or something like that. They tell you that of course your buddies and this thing that they want from you, in the case of salesmen, money should easily be parted with. The FBI apparently feels the same way about our freedoms. Take the Patriot Act, which is basically an extension of laws we already have in order to broaden the scope of investigative powers, and how that just doesn’t seem to be enough. The FBI, back in 2007 admitted to abusing the Patriot Act to obtain information in a blanket manner.
I know that a lot of people called the Patriot Act (interesting name) the beginning of a slippery slope. I happened to agree at the time. Now, I think we’re getting to see why everyone was disturbed by responses to the Patriot Act like, “If you have nothing to hide it won’t effect you.” That’s obviously false. The FBI actually puts the figure of terrorists to be in the neighborhood of 1 in 300 people. Interesting, I’m not sure if I should be proud or if I should be concerned. I mean, weren’t the American forefathers terrorists? I’m sure they were looked at with just as much contempt and fear.
I’m very concerned about the report that was published though. The FBI has sought records for information it isn’t even allowed to have under the law. I don’t remember reading about it in the news, so one must wonder how much the FBI has asked for and gotten illegally (I guess I should say, in an unauthorized manner) and we do not know about?
The letters that the FBI uses to accomplish these goals are apparently vital or integral to the war on terrorism; however, they are grossly misused. I know that no one wants to be the victim of a terrorist plot, but I am not feeling a sense of urgency so great that proper ethics and procedures can’t be followed.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, one would think that in their haste to fix mistakes that were made prior, they would proceed to follow the law a little bit better. Well that didn’t happen. In fact, the FBI lied about the situations in which they were asking for information that didn’t need to be gathered in the first place. Even after reform was made, the FBI continued to violate the law according to a report that at the time of the article would be released Thursday (the 20th I believe). In an attempt to cover up the transgressions, the FBI sought retroactive subpoenas that bent the truth just a little bit. Interesting times, interesting times.
I’d be interested to know how much data they’ve actually captured and what type of information it contained, considering there was also a report that at least one ISP gave the FBI more information than they even asked for lol. How’s that for having your privacy violated? The FBI called it a miscommunication, but given their track record, was the ISP told to cover it up to keep backlash off of the FBI or was it really just an honest mistake? Maybe I need to buy a tinfoil hat. ^_^
Hey Prata,
We probably agree more than you would expect on this particular topic. While I don’t think the Patriot Act is the boogeyman that a lot of people seem to, I think everyone needs to be concerned when any organization in charge of enforcing the law exceeds their boundaries. Representatives of the government are shielded from liability in taking action to a great extent that the normal population are not, and I fully agree that following correct and lawful procedures should be a requirement for that type of shield.
As to the subject of whether the American forefathers were terrorists, I would challenge you to name some specifics. I assume that you are talking about the American Revolution. There was an acknowledged state of war with Britain at the time. To the best of my knowledge, it was not the policy of the Colonial army to target non-combatants, torture or execute prisoners, or use the indigenous personnel as human shields. I can’t claim that there were not individual incidents where such things did not occur, but my sense from what I’ve read is that they largely conducted their campaign within the accepted standards of decency for the day. I certainly don’t recall any of them strapping kegs of dynamite to mentally deficient women and walking them toward a group of Englishmen…
[Translate]
Sup Gary! What’s the haps my man?
I agree with you. The Patriot Act isn’t the end all be all of losing our privacy, it just doesn’t make it much better I don’t suppose. We agree on stuff, sweet!
Concerning the forefathers as terrorists, I find it interesting you mentioned it. The term terrorist actually has changed through history a little and today it means something a little different than what it meant prior. Generally speaking terrorism is defined as:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I think that pretty much sums up what the Colonial people were doing. They were not looked at in the same light by the British as they were/are by us. Would we call them terrorists? No, probably not..and I wasn’t really serious about that…but…to the British were they terrorists? I think possibly they were viewed that way. Today terrorism has a more emotionally charged and slightly different meaning and we label as you mentioned actions such as self-conflagration and torturing and executing prisoners as terrorism. As a side note, we are torturing people (at least a couple cases have admitted to this), does the fact that we haven’t killed them make it less than terrorism? Eh..who knows…I don’t think it much matters in this discussion..but it’s an interesting idea I think.
According to Howard Zinn, “..Washington had to send generals down south to use violence against young people to force them into military service. Soldiers in the revolutionary army mutinied against Washington, against officers, because there was class conflict in the army, just as there had been class conflict all through the colonies before the Revolutionary War. Well, anybody who knows the military, anybody who’s been in the military, knows that the military is a class society. There are the privates, and there are the officers. And in the Revolutionary War, the privates were not getting shoes, and they were not getting clothes and not getting food, and they were not getting paid. And the officers were living high in resplendence. And so, they mutinied, thousands of them….”
So, were they terrorists by our standards today? No…and I probably shouldn’t have said..but it’s not entirely untrue either. There was some terrorist activities going on..but with different standards. The Boston Tea party for instance would have been considered a terrorist act. Arson would have been considered a terrorist attack and there was at least one man hanged for it, John Aitkin.
I believe the Tamil Tigers are considered a terrorist group for some of the reasons you mentioned and among those there was forced enlisting into their conflict. Interestingly, the Tamils spend 30 years in peaceful demonstrations and were abused for it…no one cared until they started retaliating by doing unto others as was done unto them.
Some would argue that the only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that a freedom fighter is on your side and a terrorist isn’t….but I’m not really making that distinction..I’m just sayin’.
Interesting thread..that is kind of not related to the Revolutionary War, but is related to terrorism: http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2002-January/008060.html
[Translate]
I totally forgot to mention this…just so that I’m being fair..the British were rather known for some foul behavior. Especially when it came to the treatment of prisoners….it may as well have been torture, considering the conditions they were kept in.
Linkage to something that addresses close to what we’re going on about. Basically, it’s a matter of perspective.: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html
This basically states that as I said earlier, the British would have viewed this as terrorism (because this is their colony); however, from the Colonial aspect…not terrorism at all.
[Translate]
We also make a mistake if we try to judge past actions by today’s standards (or at least today’s Western standards). What we refer to as torture today was accepted discipline in military service at that time. (Keel hauling, lashings, etc.)
In your discussion of the revolution and terrorism, there was a key word that you mention in the definition: unlawful. A lot of the British civilians back in England may well have considered them as their equivalent of terrorists because they did not recognize the Continental government as “lawful.” The Continental army did. To their minds, they were soldiers, not terrorists. They had a body of government that they recognized, rules for treatment of prisoners and engagement. I believe that you will find most of the engagements of the revolution took place away from areas populated by civilians. The British at least recognized the continental government enough to try to negotiate for peace. They also had a clearly defined goal and worked in an understandable fashion toward that goal while minimizing damage to innocents. These are characteristics lacking in actions of the terrorist organizations. The revolutionaries did their best to be soldiers. I’m sure they failed at times, but failures of conduct were the exception, not the primary method of action.
[Translate]
That’s true..and I’m not condemning or attempting to cast them in a bad light.
That’s exactly what I was shooting for, not to be mean or insulting just perspective for those individuals involved at the time. Although I believe (I’d have to go and read up on this…as I don’t remember and I may be making stuff up lol) that in the south during the war that it was much more savage. The North had nice battlefields and the south was more of a community sort of effort…as the population was almost 50/50 for support on either side.
I understand it to be that the rules of engagement weren’t quite as distinct and a lot of retaliatory action was taken that was even at that time brutal. I know I read this somewhere but I’d have to find that book or web page again. This may outline some of what I’m talking about with regards to the southern war method. Which was a two way street..not just Britain or just the freedom fighters.
[Translate]