Governments use the threats of defending against outside forces (such as terrorists) to pass laws and regulations that are oppressive and the public willingly goes along with them thinking that this will never affect them. But the real goal of governments is to have those laws available to use against its own citizens if they need to. A perfect example of this is the law permitting the government to detain indefinitely without trial any person they merely suspect, without evidence, to be a terrorist. This is an extraordinary power to give the government but people did so because they thought it would only be used against ‘the other’, such as foreigners.
But in the wake of the protests against the TSA’s porno scanners and groping methods, the TSA now says that anyone refusing to submit to either of these two intrusive procedures can be detained indefinitely and questioned until the government decides to release them.
The TSA procedures are not governed by law but are internal polices of the Department of Homeland Security, which has become like the infamous ‘secret police’ in authoritarian countries, given almost unlimited powers to harass its own citizens in the name of national security.
The ACLU has provided information on your rights and what you can do under the law. But it is limited. Only widespread protests and outrage can roll back the national security state.
As a martial artist and skilled knife fighter, I am always asked about what I think of the TSA and the constant increased, in my opinion, intrusions into our privacy. The latest scanners really raise the awareness of the public to the governments excuse to further decrease our freedom.
We live in a democratic society. It is what we allow to occur that becomes real. Is this what we want? Let’s all speak up and make a difference here. I personally think they’ve gone too far. Don’t you?
Hello,
As you said, and I totally agree, it’s all a matter of giving authorities more “legitimate” ways to get into people privacy in the name of security.
All this matters reduce security and confidence in what we can expect for our safety; Something that will be totally unacceptable for example for a “normal” Muslim is to let his wife be seen undressed, in any way, and I think anyone who cares about his wife won’t accept such things: who guarantees that all this won’t be made public for example and one can find it in youtube or such sites?
As Martial Arts Pat said : we are what we accept to be.
with kind regards,
there obviously needs to be a limit. Its only natural that the more you let things like these pass, the more confidence the gov will have to finding ways to reduce civil freedom.
I think the war on terrorism has become the new Cold War. How long before we have anothe HUAC on terrorist sympathizers?
Power and freedom has too often been unwittingly yielded to the government under the guise that ‘it would only be used against ‘the other’, such as foreigners.’
It’s only a matter of time before our general mistreatment of immigrants (both legal and illegal immigrants) comes back to bite us.
I am a U.S. immigration lawyer and perhaps a bit biased but I think we need consider how our immigration laws can one day lead to similar laws and regulations directed against American citizens.
In fact that day is already here, isn’t it?