Prisoners of Bullshit

I don't know if the truth really makes people free, but we are now seeing conclusive proof that bullshit makes you a prisoner.

Almost immediately after 9/11/01, you heard the media constantly talking about the 'dilemma' the Bush administration was facing: Do we choose to preserve our civil liberties, or do we choose security? It was always presented as a zero-sum game: for every ounce of security you gain, you have to give up an ounce of civil liberty. And in the wake of 9/11, everyone was so scared that when it was put to them that way, they all said, "Security! Security! Fuck liberty, what good is that when you're jumping out of a 100-story building? Give me security, cause I don't want death!"

It was a bullshit choice. It was bullshit for these reasons:

1) Giving up your civil liberties does not get you security.

It gets you a stronger state with greater powers of surveillance and control. How the state uses that power is then up to the people running that state. You will have no way to affect that because you, remember, gave up your civil liberties so your state could have these powers. So if you don't happen to agree with the way your state is using its power, and you complain about it, the state can now find out, and if the state wants to put you in prison for it, it can do that. It won't always, necessarily; only if it decides you're dangerous. But most people won't want to take the risk, so if you do feel like the state is abusing its power, and you want to complain, well, you'll be complaining alone.

2) A police state does not protect its citizens. It protects itself.

Have you noticed these days that whenever something happens that lets the American people in on some of the shit the Bush administration is pulling, he and Cheney and Condi Rice start talking about how nobody should have revealed this information because it only helps "the enemy?" Do you ever wonder what it means that their minds now appear to equate "informing the American public" with "helping the enemy"?

Ever wonder whether maybe, in their minds, informed Americans ARE the enemy?

Sure, the Bush administration will protect itself against foreign threats to the best of its ability. It will also protect itself against domestic threats, and that includes anyone who wants to remove them from power--or even restrict their power. Which includes you and me.

3) Freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right to privacy, the freedom to travel, and the right to due process ARE security.

If Katrina taught us anything, it is that this government is too corrupt/incompetent/self-serving to actually help its citizens in the event of an emergency. Why? Because since 9/11/01 it has not been held accountable for anything. It has not been challenged in the press, it has not been significantly impeded by an active opposition (until recently), it has not been forced to justify itself in anything approaching a convincing manner. For a government to function--for it to actually protect its PEOPLE, as opposed to itself--it has to be accountable to the people. That means we need a free press, not the self-censoring intimidated oh-no-please-don't-take-my-precious-access-from-me bunch of captive stenographers and fabulists that have been running things for the past four years. It means we need an active opposition capable of blocking attempts at overreaching. And it means that the American people need to know what the fuck is going on, because you cannot question that which you do not know about.

For the state to work FOR US, we need a certain amount of transparency. We have none. This administration never willingly reveals the truth about what it's doing and they have gone to great lengths to stop other people from trying. We also need the ability to talk to each other, to come together and protest, to exchange ideas in private without constantly looking over our shoulders to see if Big Brother is watching. These things are not exploitable vulnerabilities. They are the lines of defense. The Bush administration has, with the assent of the shit-scared post-9/11 media and public, disabled them all.

I knew the "liberty or security" dilemma was bullshit when they were first proposing it. Apparently I was in the minority. And apparently, this administration still thinks that people are going to buy this bullshit, because that's how they're justifying their secret, illegal, unconstitutional, presidential-executive-order spying operation. We need to destroy your liberty in order to save it. Or, not to save it, but to at least save your hide from the terrorists who will SURELY blow you up if you don't let us listen in on your phone call to your Uncle Mort in Hamburg.

BULLSHIT.

The 9/11 commission proved that this administration is too incompetent to make the most of the information it already has. What the hell are they going to do with more? Not protect us. That does not appear to be at the top of their agenda.

Oh, but come on, really, does it matter? Unless you're actively plotting the overthrow of the state, it shouldn't matter if they spy on you--

BULLSHIT.

The purpose of surveillance is not to prevent crime. The purpose of surveillance is twofold: 1) To create evidence that can be used to prosecute a targeted individual. 2) To encourage your citizens to modify their behavior because they know they are being watched.

Once you are identified as a target by a police state, ANYTHING can be used as evidence against you. "In the conversation recorded on December 30, 2005, suspect clearly requested a fresh shipment of anthrax (code name: "Bavarian chocolate") from his suppliers in Hamburg (code name: "Uncle Mort")." You can produce Uncle Mort in court if you want, but nobody will care, because you are a suspected terrorist, and therefore you by definition are attempting to kill them. In fact, as a suspected terrorist, you probably won't be able to produce Uncle Mort in court. Uncle Mort probably won't know where you are. You'll be in Guantanamo, in front of a special tribunal, and the judge will be saying, "You really expect me to hold this person? What's your evidence?" and the FBI or NSA or CIA lawyer will be saying, "Under executive order #2451, we don't need evidence."

Oh, but we're only committing people to Guantanamo without due process and torturing them there if they're non-citizens. Surely that doesn't matter to us free-born Americans--

BULLSHIT.

A police state will use its power on anyone that threatens it. Anyone. And by "threat" I don't mean "threat of violent overthrow," I mean, "threat to their absolute power."

But we're in a time of war! Surely once the war is over--

BULLSHIT. This war will never be over. The "War on Terror" cannot be won. Terror is not an army, it is a strategy and it will be with us as long as the nation-state is with us. The "War on Terror" is designed to last forever. Because that way, Bush's special 'war powers' will also last forever.

It is about time we went after the lie at the heart of all the crap that has happened in this country since 9/11/01. LIBERTY IS SECURITY. Anyone who says that the one destroys the other is handing you a line of BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!

:argh:

The Plaid Adder

Bravo!

And recommended.

"BULLSHIT. This war will never be over."

Sometimes we can only bare witness. Thanks for the priviledge.

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

After all, if NOT FOR NAYSAYERS, we'd be defeating the outside enemy, so ERGO, first one must destroy the political opposition.

If we can't lose unless we leave, like cheney says, then everyone who wants to leave must be silenced.

It's Vietname all over again, not only in the quagmire and illegal aspect, but the set up to blame the peaceniks for "losing" the war.

It's a win-win for cons. They have their war and the ability to make American rally around the "war president", and an issue that will fester for years after the war is lost. If they can accuse Kerry, who actually killed VC up close and personal, of being a traitor and getting huge mileage out of it, what chance to the rest of us have?

And then, just because the elections are close, the security of the nation will require reining those in tight too.

Yes, yes, yes.

:toast:

:kick: & r'd

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

but they definitely won't have either.

The basic problem is that after 9/11 everyone assumed that the Enemy was overseas and that our own government would protect us from them, so just put Our Own Government on steroids and we'll be safe. They forgot about how your own government is not necessarily always your friend.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder

I think whenever I get into it with a neoconner I'll just have one of these handy give it to them and walk away.

Bravo Plaid Adder! Bravo!

IMPEACH THEM ALL!!!


(and then we can talk indictments and incarceration...maybe world court tribunal...)

n/t

Thanks for the GREAT post. This false dichotomy has finally had a stake driven through its heart.

Now pass on that message -- LIBERTY IS SECURITY -- on T-shirts, bumper stickers, sig lines, call-ins, billboards...

...and that's saying a lot, because you've written some great pieces before. Recommended.

:kick:

Why is it that people do not see that giving up our freedom will not make us safer.

You hit the nail on the head with this statement: The 9/11 commission proved that this administration is too incompetent to make the most of the information it already has. What the hell are they going to do with more?