BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

(discussion): Is Anybody Paying Attention To This?

  
 
Frances Farmer
22:22 / 25.10.01
"Kennedy's Justice Department would arrest mobsters for "spitting on the sidewalk" if it would help the battle against organized crime, Ashcroft said, vowing to use the same tactics in the war on terrorism."

From here: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/25/inv.investigation.ashcroft.reut/index.html

That right there is the most frightening and literal example I've heard yet. This new anti-terrorism bill strikes me as dangerous.

Is there equivelent legislation happening in the UK right now? Are you folks concerned? Somebody, talk to me... How long 'till it's illegal to protest at all?
 
 
The Damned Yankee
22:49 / 25.10.01
With Ashcroft in charge of the Justice Dept., not fucking long at all. This guy makes J. Edgar Hoover look like George Carlin.
 
 
YNH
00:27 / 26.10.01
quote: "I will issue directives requiring law enforcement to make use of new powers in intelligence gathering, criminal procedure and immigration violations," said Ashcroft, the country's top law enforcement official.

At least it's not making it through with the "indefinite detention" clause. What really makes this an octagon shaped pill is that the US offers very little to its citizens: health care, housing, education...

quote: Ashcroft said he will direct investigators to pursue aggressively terrorists on the Internet.

Which, to begin with, will include Google searches for keywords?

[ 26-10-2001: Message edited by: [Your Name Here] ]
 
 
king_of_terror
00:30 / 26.10.01
well you didnt even vote for this Bush guy did you? the courts screwed you all. So its no surprise that this is happening. The Fall Of A Superpower. free coverage (except on CNN)
 
 
Frances Farmer
02:30 / 26.10.01
That's spurious. Nobody knows if Bush won the election, and right now, by popular opinion, nobody gives a fuck. I do, mind you, but most don't.

"The Fall Of A Superpower" -- My, aren't we feeling dramatic tonight?

So, um, do you have anything to contribute the conversation?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
05:40 / 26.10.01
They're looking to push through a whole load of shit in the UK... will get some examples tonight at work hopefully.
AND... they're effectively decriminalising dope. It'll keep us all quiet, eh?
Or am I just looking for something to whinge about?
 
 
Naked Flame
05:40 / 26.10.01
run for your lives! the web-hounds are on to us!

I'll also do some digging. Must post to peaceinourtime... been lazy/working too hard to blog. (insert sympathy here.)
 
 
No star here laces
05:40 / 26.10.01
The odd thing about the UK is that the really dangerous legislation got passed before sep 11th in order to deal specifically with anti-capitalists.

This was that the definition of 'terrorist' was broadened to include property damage, and that incitement to property damage was made into a political crime. Thus effectively if one wore a t-shirt urging people to 'Smash Starbucks' that would not only be a crime, but would be a terrorist offence.

Similarly, if one did smash a McDonalds window, under this legislation the penalty would be far more serious if it was done to make a political point than if it was done because you were a drunken idiot.

This was accompanied by all the expected liberal hand-wringing, but has seen a noticable lack of implementation. Basically the government seem to have cold feet about using it in any situation that could backfire on them.

I really don't think our civil liberties are in any real serious danger of being curtailed, however. There is a very real difference between democracies and authoritarian regimes when it comes down to controlling the populace, and it simply doesn't make good sense for democratic governments to behave in this way.

Our (western) society operates as a 'society of control' not a 'society of discipline'. By which I mean that the social order is not maintained through force and coercion - we don't need to be made to work and use banks by armed overseers with cattle prods - we do these things anyway. ORder is maintained largely consensually, and to the extent that an elite 'control' the populace, they do so by manipulating our wants and desires so that we behave in an acceptable manner.

If a government were to resort to actual coercion and total suppression of dissent they surrender this process of 'control' and revert to 'discipline' which is far less stable and efficient. A democratic government will always seek to make people not want to protest, rather than preventing them from doing so, if at all possible.

[ 26-10-2001: Message edited by: Tyrone Mushylaces ]
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:40 / 26.10.01
I'm opening a sweepstake on how long it takes before somebody quotes "Discipline and Punish" in response to the post above. Any takers?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
10:48 / 26.10.01
The most ironic thing about this is that pre Sept-11, Bush was ready to push an initiative through Congress that relaxed immigration standards and penalties for illegals from Mexico (I don't recall specifics), and the democratic controlled senate was going to broaden that for ALL immigrants.

Now the justice department is using the immigration violation bogeyman to hold people for as long as they want until they decide what to do with them.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
12:17 / 26.10.01
quote:Originally posted by king_of_terror:
well you didnt even vote for this Bush guy did you? the courts screwed you all. So its no surprise that this is happening. The Fall Of A Superpower. free coverage (except on CNN)

Uh...no. And he wasn't even fucking ELECTED!!!!

Grrr. grr. grr.

Of course, whether W "won" or not, I may never know..

(From the Chicago Reader 10/19/01)

quote: Muzzles All Around
The good news is that America's mightiest newspapers say they think we can handle the truth. The bad news is that they're going to take their time giving it to us.
Last January the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and the other Tribune Publishing newspapers, the Associated Press, and several other news organizations formed a consortium to examine Florida's 180,000 uncounted presidential ballots and try to determine for the record whether George Bush or Al Gore carried the state.

To do the scut work, the consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago, which by the end of May had collected the raw data and by September had organized the data into a form that could be turned over to the media. Under their agreement, NORC would give the consortium two weeks after receiving the data to study the numbers and publish its conclusions. At that point NORC would be free to make the research public, which it intended to do by posting it on-line.

But the research is still sitting in Hyde Park because, at least for the moment, the consortium doesn't want it. "September 11 trumped everything," said NORC spokesperson Julie Antelman this week. "We were told [the media] didn't back away from it--it's a big story for them--but after September 11 they didn't have the resources to do the analysis or report it in the way they feel it necessary to do."

The members of the consortium haven't demonstrated much of a sense of obligation to report on the story they dropped. But Canada's Globe and Mail ran a long article last week that raised the obvious question--"whether the country's biggest media conglomerates are suppressing news that potentially could tarnish the image of Mr. Bush in the midst of the President's war on terrorism." The Globe located a "media ethics specialist" to declare, "I am so chilled by what is going on."



(scroll down to "Muzzles All Around" to read the rest - unless you give a shit about the Chicago Tribune's redesign, which I barely do myself)
 
 
Cherry Bomb
12:31 / 26.10.01
quote:Originally posted by [Your Name Here]:


At least it's not making it through with the "indefinite detention" clause.

[ 26-10-2001: Message edited by: [Your Name Here] ]

Yes, but it IS making it through with:

-easily obtained permission to search your email and where you've been on the Internet

-this will be done sans warrant: all the feds need to say is they have "probable cause" to believe you're involved in a crime of some sorts

-wiretap warrants, all ready issued in secret, that allow the feds the ability to tap ANY phone the suspect uses (rather than just one phone #). These warrants will now never have to be made public.

-foreigners suspected of terrorism may be detained for up to seven days before criminal charges must be filed

-the secretary of state has broad lattitude in classifying groups as terrorist organizations

-authorities can carry out searches of property without informing the property owner!!!!!

Why? because investigators believe informing the suspect would "compromise the investigation." (Well NO FUCKING SHIT, Sherlock!)

So y'know, there are some disadvantages to this bill that I'm seeing.

Oh, I almost forgot: you, friend, can find out more about the bill
here, but unfortunately the textbox that had the list of what the bill covers came from this article, and I see that the text box is missing from the online edition.

[ 26-10-2001: Message edited by: Cherry Bomb ]
 
 
mondo a-go-go
13:39 / 26.10.01
i thought this was pretty interesting...
 
 
YNH
15:41 / 26.10.01
What really gets my goat, other than the "sneak and peak" clause is this one:

quote:* Another provision breaks down the barrier that separates foreign intelligence gathering from domestic criminal investigations aimed at terrorists. FBI agents and other federal investigators would be able to share information developed by grand juries and obtained from ordinary criminal wiretaps with foreign intelligence and counterintelligence specialists.

I sure will miss that innocent until proven guilty thing. Not that, detention for seven days without cause has anything to do with that either.
 
  
Add Your Reply