Terrorist and Pedophiles
Declan forwards:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20966.html Think tank urges face-scanning of the masses
Chief among these are the detection of terrorists and pedophiles, as we said. No matter that these sick individuals comprise a mere fraction of a fraction of normal human beings.
No matter that detecting them requires the most outrageous government intrusions into the natural comings and goings of millions of innocent people.
Of course this is nonsense. Regarding terrorists. Our government conveniently defines a "terrorist" as any sub-national group that breaks the law in order to influence opinion. Note under such a definition, no recognized government can commit a terrorist act, even if it firebombs nuns and orphans holding kittens. Our government has suggested such defining characteristics of "terrorists" as a knowlege of the Constitution, and self-identification as a "patriot," It's pretty clear whom our government considers to be the terrorists, and it ain't fereigners. Regarding pedophiles. It's a rare disorder, there are only a few tens of thousands of them on the planet, and most of them, like most other people, conform their sexual behavior to society's expectations. Of course, to get called a pedophile these days, all one has to do is to criticize the Sex Abuse Agenda, and neurotic women will line up for blocks to spew forth detailed scenarios on all the kids you've molested, crafted entirely from their Child Sex Hysteric imaginations. As the clued know, most sexual assaults on children are crimes of opportunity, and have nothing to do with pedophiles. It would make pretty much zero change in the safety of children to jail all pedophiles. Since most of the loons on the far right pushing the anti-Porn and Sex Abuse Agendas have an attitute towards childrens' rights which is summarized by the statement - "Children don't have any rights" - one might argue on the other hand that the lives of children could be improved immensely by jailing the Abuse Hysteria Whackos. Don't suppose we'll be seeing the Rand Corporation recommending that anytime soon.
Of course, no appeal to Fascism and Kafkaesque control would be complete without reference to the safety of innocent children. Rand does not let us down: "many parents would most likely feel safer knowing their children's elementary school had a facial recognition system to ensure that convicted child molesters were not granted access to school grounds."
Of course, statistics easily show that the most dangerous place for a child is at home, at the mercy of his parents, with no witnesses present. One has to seriously wonder if the fondness of parents for pedophile scapegoating has a lot to do with the wish to divert child-protection resources onto a form of abuse that is largely fictional. After all, we don't see these parents out demonstrating when kids are kicked with combat boots and forced to ingest mud at boot camp.
It's all very popular, but immensely dangerous, thinking. Preserving personal liberty requires that we all accept a bit of chaos, a bit of hooliganism, a bit of risk. Yes, you or I might possibly get our heads bashed in by brain-dead hooligans, or get blown up by terrorist bombers, and our little lambs might get exploited by sexual sickos if we don't keep a close eye on them. But probably not.
Leaders rarely have to fear freedom and democracy, because all they have to do to get their absolute power back is rock the boat a little, and the Sheeple will run begging to give up their rights. "Please, give us face recognition so our homes will not be blown up, and our children will not be diddled by weirdos. Where do we sign up?"
Surely, the suffocating, risk-free environments our governments are trying so desperately to sell us to extend their powers of observation and control are far more grotesque and soul-destroying than anything a terrorist or a pedophile might ever hope to produce. .
One might think so, but such critical thought requires the idiots to turn their brain cell on for a few hours each day. Too much work, when they can just sit in front of the tube, and be told what to think by John Walsh and friends. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:
Regarding terrorists. Our government conveniently defines a "terrorist" as any sub-national group that breaks the law in order to influence opinion.
Note under such a definition, no recognized government can commit a terrorist act, even if it firebombs nuns and orphans holding kittens.
Close, but not quite. It does not require the breaking of law, only actions which are in some way "offensive". -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
J.A. Terranson wrote:
Regarding terrorists. Our government conveniently defines a "terrorist" as any sub-national group that breaks the law in order to influence opinion.
Note under such a definition, no recognized government can commit a terrorist act, even if it firebombs nuns and orphans holding kittens.
Close, but not quite. It does not require the breaking of law, only actions which are in some way "offensive".
From Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) comes the favorite definition of the US State Department...
"The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant(1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." The footnote expands "noncombatant" to include any element of the military that is not actually engaged in formal hostilities against you at the time you attack it. So under the State Department's definition, unless official war is currently being waged around the target, all attacks on US Servicemen, and US military bases and assets, are "terrorist" attacks. Nothing Israel does to the Palestinians is "terrorist", but everything the Palestinians do in response is "terrorist," of course. According to the state department, "noncombatants" can actually be property, as opposed to people, so taking a few whacks at an oil pipeline with a baseball bat is "terrorism" too. Unless you're a government, of course. Premeditated violence by persons in no official position of authority is generally unlawful, as far as I know. Perhaps you could think up an exception, but I'm not aware of any. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
participants (2)
-
Eric Cordian
-
measl@mfn.org