Wiretaps, spying, and ‘eco-terrorism’ 4

By now, every sentient being in the country is -- or should be -- familiar with the story of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretaps, as revealed by the New York Times.

(Turns out the NYT has been sitting on the story since before the 2004 election. Thanks.)

I won't get into the details here, as they have been, and are being, covered extensively in other media outlets and blogs.

I'll just return again to a subject I've written about before. Does anyone still think that "eco-terrorism" is just a bit of rhetoric, a casual turn of phrase?

Americablog brings word that the Pentagon has been spying on campus gay groups that oppose the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy." Homo-terrorism?

The FBI has been spying on "groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief."

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.

But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

Does anyone still doubt that the current proprietors of the executive branch will spy on domestic political enemies under the guise of "protecting us from terrorism"? How many separate points of evidence are required, exactly, before it becomes politically acceptable to say that in public?

It's not paranoia if they're really watching you, and at this point, environmental activists should assume, until it is otherwise demonstrated, that they are being watched.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. birdboy Posted 1:35 pm
    20 Dec 2005

    scream!!Of course we are. We should always assume that we are being watched, just as motorcycle riders should assume that they are NOT being watched- it helps to keep you alert. But for God's sake, don't give up your activism just because Uncle Sam is watching you- in fact, it is our duty to be more active than ever, to make sure they are absolutely swamped with useless information on millions of activists. After all, we are NOT breaking any laws, it IS still a free country, and if necessary, I for one will go to jail if defending Mother Nature from greed and arrogance does become a crime. They hope to scare us away from using our voice- let's scream into the wiretap!

    a liberal in redsville

    Permalink

  2. pkbw Posted 1:35 am
    24 Dec 2005

    Re: Wiretaps, spying, and 'eco-terrorism'I am getting really sick and tired of this domestic spying story. So what?  I have much more important things to do with my time than wring my hands over the fact that government agencies are spying.  I do not have a problem with it.  I am doing nothing wrong. If they want to read my email, I really don't care.  Some people have brought up the Ben Franklin quote about those who would give up liberty for security deserving neither, but good old Ben did not have to deal with bin Laden, Zarquawi and their ilk. So I say, spy on.

    PKBW

    Permalink

  3. jdhlax Posted 4:30 pm
    26 Dec 2005

    Liberty v. SecurityUnfortunately, the majority view in this country seems to be that of pkbw, as much as it thoroughly disgusts me.
    Hey pk, guess what: you wouldn't have to deal with bin Laden et al if your country didn't destroy their societies, and your country wouldn't have done it if the people here didn't insist on consuming so much that the U.S. military is sent to fight for it, starting with oil.

    Jeff Hoffman

    Permalink

  4. Storm Dragon Posted 4:41 am
    06 Jan 2006

    Abuses of power, if unchecked, tend to get worsepkbw, you may feel that it is "no big deal" to have the government reading your e-mail, but consider this: These actions are highly questionable, from a legal viewpoint, and, if we ignore them now, worse abuses could follow.

          This administration has shown itself to be hostile towards environmental activists, (witness the recent government lawsuit against Greenpeace), and tends to regard itself as being above the law.  You feel that, having done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, but I wouldn't necesarily count on that. What if simply belonging to an environmental organization were to be regarded as supporting terrorism?

              Regarding your comments about Benjamin Franklin, here is something to consider: Methods may have changed, but terrorism and religious fanaticism are nothing new.  I consider Mr. Franklin's sentiments on liberty and security to be as valid now as they ever were

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement