Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on state-of-fear http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic state-of-fear Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb Let the fear begin Mon, 09 Dec 2002 10:54:16 +0000 I accidentally deleted the item where I got <A href="http://www.2600.com/news/display/display.shtml?id=1441">this</A>, it probably wouldn't be too hard to find it again.  The summary is below but the details are not important, what is important is that the state of fear in the US is now beginning.  It will be impossible to establish beyond reasonable doubt the details of this or the incidents that are to come. <UL> <LI>An amateur photographer named Mike Maginnis was arrested on Tuesday in his home city of Denver - for simply taking pictures of buildings in an area where Vice President Cheney was residing.</LI> <LI>Maginnis, who says he always carried his camera wherever he went, snapped about 30 pictures of the hotel and the surrounding area - which included Denver police, Army rangers, and rooftop snipers.</LI> <LI>As he was putting his camera away, Maginnis found himself confronted by a Denver police officer who demanded that he hand over his film and camera.</LI> <LI>After being brought to the District 1 police station on Decatur Street, Maginnis was made to wait alone in an interrogation room.</LI> <LI>The agent told Maginnis that his "suspicious activities" made him a threat to national security, and that he would be charged as a terrorist under the USA-PATRIOT act.</LI> <LI>The Secret Service agent tried to make Maginnis admit that he was taking the photographs to analyze weaknesses in the Vice President's security entourage and "cause terror and mayhem."</LI> <LI>Rather than contacting a lawyer, he called the Denver Post and asked for the news desk.</LI> <LI>This was immediately overheard by the desk sergeant, who hung up the phone and placed Maginnis in a holding cell.</LI> <LI>He received no copy of an arrest report, and no receipt for his confiscated possessions.</LI> <LI>He was told that he would probably not get his camera back, as it was being held as evidence.</LI> <LI>Maginnis's lawyer contacted the Denver Police Department for an explanation of the day's events, but the police denied ever having Maginnis - or anyone matching his description - in custody.</LI> <LI>The new police powers introduced by the USA-PATRIOT act, in the name of fighting terrorism, have been frightening in their apparent potential for abuse.</LI> <LI>It suggests that a wide range of activities which might be considered "suspicious" could be suddenly labeled a prelude to terrorism, and be grounds for arrest.</LI></UL> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000971.html Bringing the workings of government out into the open Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:49:23 +0000 I've been disturbed by recent reports concerning the Bush administrations use of the tools of military intelligence against U.S. citizens, seemingly in violation of the constitution of that country. I'm not so much disturbed for Americans who seem not to care about the rising threat of a police state in their country as I am for what it says about what actions are permissable for the leaders of a modern, democratic, state in the name of security and how this can be overseen. I accept that I am in a minority: I am one of those people who are prepared to trade security for liberty. I am also one of those people who would prefer their government to stop interfering in the affairs of others. I am one of those people who believe that a more aggressive persuit of the latter policy would make the former more palatable. That I am in a minority of such believers makes me sad, especially since the majority don't actually seem to enjoy the state of paranoia that they will upon themselves. I recently wrote to my MP Siobhan McDonagh about the Blair governments involvement in extraordinary renditions. Unlike my previous inquiry about the DVLA selling my details, Siobhan seemed reticient to address the murkier side of her parties activities in government and I received no reply. I am not surprised. Still I am naive enough to believe that it should still be a matter of shame for an MP to put party loyalty ahead of conscience. Shame on you Siobhan. I believe my government is more than slightly involved in this, despite their denials. For those who think that a British government wouldn't stoop to this I hold up as precedent the actions of a previous government in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1669544,00.html">running the Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre</a>:<blockquote>Ministers were anxious that nobody should learn that CSDIC was running a number of similar prisons in Germany. There was also what the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Frank Pakenham, later to become Lord Longford, described as "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps". The army, meanwhile, said it was determined the Soviets should not discover "how we apprehended and treated their agents", not least because some would-be defectors might have second thoughts.Finally, there was the inevitable fall-out for Attlee's Labour government. As Hector McNeill, foreign minister, pointed out in a memo to Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary: "I doubt if I can put too strongly the parliamentary consequences of publicity. Whenever we have any allegations to make about the political police methods in Eastern European states it will be enough to call out in the House 'Bad Nenndorf', and no reply is left to us."</blockquote>Blairs government has allied itself with the Bush administration in so many areas, am I to believe that the use of torture is the exception? Torture, incarceration without right of trial, a neverending war on terror, increased use of military methods against civilians: this all leads in one direction. I don't like it. But what control do I have? I can vote for another government but I am reminded that I don't remember giving Blair's original government a mandate to invade other countries. It seems that voting for governments is a poor mechanism of control. And what about oversight? If, for the sake of argument, I agreed that a state should have the right to do some of these things, how should they be overseen? The current deny everything approach is unsatisfactory to me. Is there anywhere a proper debate about what should be permissable for the modern state? How about whether the modern state still has a right to exist? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00003120.html