An Metet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >> >> On Saturday, December 21, 2002, at 10:07 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> >> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/1217/1 >> >> Policing Bioterror Research >> >> One of science's hottest fields is now becoming one of its most heavily >> regulated, too. The U.S. government last week unveiled sweeping new >> bioterror research regulations that will require 20,000 scientists at >> nearly 1000 laboratories to beef up security--or face hefty fines and jail >> sentences. The interim rules, due to go into effect early next year, could >> also force scientists to get prior approval for a growing list of >> sensitive experiments. >> >> And where in the United States Constitution is there provision >> for controlling which experiments may be done, for what research >> articles may be published, for what thoughts may be thought? > >I regret to inform you that henceforth, the Constitution and >derivative laws will be used only in a public relations sense as >a symbol of the legitimacy of the government, rather than as a >written delineation of the firm limitations on the powers of >government. > >Previously, the United States Government claimed a monopoly on >intimidation and violence within its borders, and it >occasionally added other locales such as Latin America, >Southeast Asia, etc. > >Currently, it is extending that claim of monopoly world wide, >and it is adding to its proscribed list any "precursors" that >could aid, support, fund, hide, protect or otherwise further any >power to intimidate and apply violence other than that of the >United States and its surrogates, most notably the UK. > >The precursors will include privacy, in any form, particularly >encryption (unless its use is deemed a worthwhile flag for >focused surveillance); associations with others, such as any >loyal following or set of like-minded independent people that >might be led in some direction not of Washington's choosing; >information about the actions and plans of government, since >that enables interference and could damage public acquiescence >to necessary national security measures; financial resources, >other than those that pass through verified identity >gatekeepers; knowledge of the law, and the process of capturing, >obtaining intelligence through torture, and imprisoning people, >as that gives a balance of power and a sympathetic public forum >to targets; and so on. > >Intersections of those precursors, such as privacy and financial >resources, or information and private associations, will be >particularly attacked. > >Not even a massive database on Americans designed by a former >disgraced National Security Advisor who was convicted of 5 >felonies involving shipping shoulder fired missiles to Iran, >lying to Congress, funding US-supported terrorism in Nicaragua >that was prohibited by law, seems to earn any concern from the >sheep. Not even the selected suspension of Habeas Corpus draws a >crowd in opposition. > >It is quite interesting to see how the evisceration of the Bill >of Rights is essentially accepted unopposed. No marches in the >streets, no demonstrations, no uproar from the liberal media, no >effective political opposition as the Democrats and Republicans >are competing only in which can be most draconian, as they >practiced in setting the imprisonment penalties in the "war on >drugs". > >The frog is being boiled by upping the thermostat a degree at a >time, and it is just happily basking in the warming waters, >trusting its attendant to protect its interests, in the name of >National Security. > >Lest one blame this president or his party, consider that there >is no daylight between the parties on these measures. > >The only debate we hear among our politicians is whether or not >to preemptively do a Pearl Harbor on Iraq with or without a UN >stamp of acquiescence. A war must be fought to provide a clearer >reason for and distraction from the rise of fascism. If the >people can be rewarded with cheaper gas at the pump as a bonus, >then the highly-favorable body bag count of an imminently- >videoable war from 40,000 feet and cheaper energy will ensure a >continuing grant of carte blanc to the government. > >Have you heard Gore or Kerry or Edwards or Daschle or Gebhardt >or others bemoan the designation of Americans as "enemy >combatants"? Have the Democrats opposed the "USA Patriot Act"? >Have the minority members of intelligence commitees demanded >information on how powers of grabbing bookseller and library >records is being used? No. This competition is one between free >people and government-in-lockstep, and almost all of the people >accept the ever-warming impositions of government out of custom, >accepting the terrorism fear-mongering and long practice, >further advanced by a gross ignorance of history. > >We are witnessing the rise of a fascist state unlike any other >in history, in that this fascist state is the world's sole >superpower, positioned by technology, wealth, and military might >to prevent the rise of any competing superpower. > >And domestically, as penalties for various behaviors are >increased, and those behaviors penalized are multiplied >exponentially, it becomes a simple matter to build a model of >optimization: Choose between confessing to a plea bargain (in >spite of your innocence) that will make you a felon, but which >will allow you to remain outside the walls of a prison under >close supervision and harsh restrictions or spend a half million >dollars (or accept the public defender's efforts) over a couple >of years in legal processes in which your opponent has unlimited >staff, information resources, funding and power to reward its >collaborators, during which you are jailed, facing a 20% chance >that you will be convicted in spite of your innocence and then >face a judge with the power to incarcerate you until the day you >die in prison. > >At some point, are you going to love Big Brother? > This is the impending Singularity, the numan anthill, technology is only the tool of the slaveowners.
BTW, I think I read somewhere that when the water gets too hot the frog just leaves. It was in print, it must be true. m
