You think you are being clever by pointing out hypocrisy But the bigger truth is Obama and the Democrats want to treat everyone in America like a black man in a 40s small town ruled by the Klan
On Friday, June 14, 2013, Chris Gambrell wrote: > ** > > > Thursday, Jun 13, 2013 09:25 AM PST > Suddenly, white people care about privacy incursions > <http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/suddenly_white_people_care_about_privacy_incursions/> > For many, government surveillance has been a regular part of life, > especially since 9/11. So, why the outrage now? By Mohamad > Tabbaa<http://www.salon.com/writer/mohamad_tabbaa/> > > As a result of the recent revelations about National Security Agency > surveillance<http://truth-out.org/news/item/16882-a-massive-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-exposes-covert-nsa-program-collecting-calls-emails>, > a fierce debate about privacy and the powers of security services has been > raging. But in light of the fact that such an approach has long been taken > toward a segment of Americans, one might ask why it required this latest > series of developments to spur discussion. > > Mounting domestic and international pressure against the PRISM > surveillance program has forced the Obama administration to concede that > the revelations have sparked “an appropriate > debate<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/10/patriot-act-nsa-surveillance-review>.” > Concern – and in some cases, outrage — at these measures has been expressed > by general members of the > public<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113443/nsa-surveillance-poll-prism-not-popular-phone-record-collection>and > politicians<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-11/how-rand-paul-can-take-on-the-nsa.html>, > many of whom made no secret of their anger or mistrust toward > them<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/10/obama-pressured-explain-nsa-surveillance>. > Given the seriousness of the allegations, the outrage expressed at such a > situation is obviously justified; the courage of the leaker and those > taking the fight to government, commendable. > > But what, it must be asked, is driving all the outrage? > > If one follows the debate on this issue, we are told it’s simply due to > the fact that rights to privacy are being effortlessly contravened, the > rule of law is being undermined (yet again), transparency has reached an > all-new low, and that worst of all, this is all happening to innocent > people. This is true no doubt, and anger at such facts is warranted and > reasonable. But is any of this actually new? > > There appears to be a discrepancy in our anger and protest against such > measures. For years now, and well before the discovery of these leaked > documents, we have been complacently living with the public knowledge of > certain truths. Rights to privacy have been systematically and openly > violated for years, without much fuss. The rule of law has been suspended > indefinitely, in places like Guantánamo Bay, for example, with barely a > peep. Lack of transparency? We’ve gotten used to it in certain cases, it > seems. Severe violations of these and other rights targeted against > innocent people have become so normalized, that we now discuss them simply > in terms of efficiency, stripped of any considerations for legal > protections. > > Welcome to the world of the Muslim, post-Sept. 11. > > There is an elephant in the room that needs to be addressed in this > discussion, one that will no doubt cause much backlash and reap accusations > of all sorts and from the best of people, as such elephants often do. It is > difficult to raise this issue due to its sensitive nature, and particularly > at such a sensitive time – which is precisely why it is so important to do > so. > > In spite of this sensitivity, let me outline the case: The issue of > excessive surveillance is not new – the only new aspect here is that it now > encompasses a larger population; specifically, white America. It needs to > therefore be asked as to whether this is the real reason for all the > spontaneous outrage of late. > > Since the events of Sept. 11 and the proliferation of anti-terror laws > enacted around the world, Muslims have been subjected to the very > violations that are now the scene of such fierce protest globally. These > tactics of surveillance and control have been carried out with much > disclosure and in public knowledge. They have been publicized, discussed, > justified and ultimately accepted as – at the very least – “necessary > evils.” As early as 2001, then-President George W. Bush made no secret of > these draconian > powers<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/terrorism/july-dec01/bush_terrorismbill.html>when > signing the Patriot Act: “This new law that I sign today will allow > surveillance of all communications used by [suspected] terrorists, > including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.” > > This same legislation being used today to justify the PRISM surveillance > powers, which the Obama administration is now considering revising as a > result of these protests, has already been explicitly in use against > Muslims for over a decade. The extent of surveillance used against Muslims > in that time is nothing short of disturbing. Director of Muslim Advocates, > a U.S. legal advocacy organization, Farhana Khera, sums it up > well<http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/26/opinion/khera-patriot-act> > : > > Today, the FBI can show up at your work, unannounced, to interrogate you > about an article on political events you post on Facebook, or seize > information about your phone calls, e-mails, internet activity and medical > and banking records — all without a shred of evidence that you’ve engaged > in criminal activity. > > On the 10-year anniversary of the legislation, Khera’s organization > published a > report<http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/muslimadvocates/pages/47/attachments/original/Losing_Liberty_The_State_of_Freedom_10_Years_After_the_PATRIOT_Act.pdf?1330650785>detailing > the loss of liberty Muslims faced due to the Patriot Act. The > details are unsettling. Between the years of 2001 and 2005 alone, almost > 500,000 Muslims were interviewed by the FBI, with none of these interviews > leading to information that might detect or prevent terrorist attacks, thus > suggesting unwarranted suspicion. Unsurprisingly, this means that today, > “it is difficult to find an American Muslim who has not had one of these > encounters with law enforcement, or knows someone who has.” As of the date > of the report, 2011, the FBI had an astounding 15,000 spies and informants, > mainly targeting the Muslim community, and as many as 45,000 “unofficial” > informants. The main task behind these operations is intelligence-gathering > and surveillance, of the sort now being opposed. > > The difference between these surveillance tactics used against Muslims, > and the ones causing today’s controversy, are not as great as they may > seem. The form might be slightly different, but the reality remains the > same: They both contravene fundamental rights to privacy, undermine the > rule of law in the same manner, lack the basics of transparency, and, as > seen above, do not require reasonable suspicion (the fact of being or > looking Muslim appears to be suspicion enough). Phone, email, even library > borrowing records are not simply collected, as is the fear currently, but > are then used to build a case for prosecution. The ongoing surveillance of > Muslims is thus not simply a matter of a lack of privacy, but can result in > severe curtailment of liberties, and in extreme cases, death. > > And these powers have since evolved – as was inevitable – well beyond the > simplicities of mere surveillance to include deliberate cases of FBI > entrapment, which have resulted in innocent people being sentenced to > decades in prison. In one case in 2009, four young Muslim men were > sentenced to 25 years in prison each, after the FBI created a fake terror > plot<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots>and > offered to pay them for assistance in carrying it out. In the United > Kingdom, the government has been busy revoking the citizenship status of > Muslim > Britons<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/british-terror-suspects-quietly-stripped-of-citizenship-then-killed-by-drones-8513858.html>on > national security grounds, with two such ex-citizens then killed by > drone attacks. > > And this is only what is happening on home soil, ignoring the extremities > of Guantánamo Bay, or the recent assassinations of four American > citizens<http://rt.com/usa/us-government-drone-killing-660/>by their own > government, all of which are based on the same tactics of > intelligence-gathering and spying causing this week’s anger. These > violations against Muslims, however, have not caused the same uproar as we > today witness. > > To be fair, there have been some protests, by the likes of Glenn > Greenwald, who now leads the charge against this latest case of security > services gone wild. Greenwald and certain others cannot be faulted > therefore on consistency. > > However, the intensity and popularity of these current protests are > entirely disproportional to the revelations faced when compared to their > prolonged use against Muslim and other communities. People are now outraged > at the *potential* that their private conversations are being watched. > Well, let me again welcome you to the world of a Muslim, where that fear is > not a fear but a common reality. > > Muslims do not simply *fear* that they are under surveillance; they know > it – and even when it’s not true. The psychology induced by the fear and > knowledge of being constantly watched is crippling. It produces a modality > of submission to the violence of authority and acceptance of the excesses > of state power, of the sort now being protested by many. This is no doubt > difficult for those with a privileged status to understand, but for many > minority groups it will sound all too familiar, as will the accusations of > derailing the conversation that will no doubt ensue. > > Indeed, many minority communities have long ago lost their supposed > “right” to privacy, and have lived with the daunting specter of excessive > surveillance<http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways>and > over-policing<http://racerelations.about.com/od/thelegalsystem/a/Latinos-On-The-Receiving-End-Of-Racial-Profiling-And-Police-Brutality.htm>for > a prolonged period. The extreme over-representation > of people of color in prison systems and crime statistics is clear > testament to this inconvenient fact. > > One must ask then: On what basis is this outrage being justified now if > this has been a common occurrence for numerous other communities? > > This is not a case of trying to capitalize on a popular movement in order > to highlight a particular cause. As mentioned, the fight against the > pervasive powers of security services is a commendable one, and one that > ought to be supported. Rather, this is about acknowledging the underlying, > unwitting racism fueling such causes and thereby suppressing the causes of > those less-privileged. It is about recognizing our present reality, which > many activists, such as Martin Luther King Jr., realized long ago: namely, > that the cause of justice may only proceed when white interests are being > threatened. > > The outrage in this case appears to be less about the fact that rights are > being trampled, and more to do with the fact that “normal” people are now > also subject to their trampling. This suggests an acceptance of the > suspicious nature of Muslims and other minority groups, but outrage at the > fact that innocent “average Americans” could suffer the same fate. Perhaps > it’s time we remember that, in the face of government power, we are all as > secure as our most oppressed. It’s only a matter of time. > > <http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/suddenly_white_people_care_about_privacy_incursions/> > <http://www.salon.com/writer/mohamad_tabbaa/> Mohamad Tabbaa is a PhD > Candidate in Criminology & Law at The University of Melbourne. > > All you have to do is see how many of any given race or group are in > federal prisons. If your black, American Indian, foreign born or speak out > for any cause whatsoever, you are spied on, profiled and eventually charged > with a crime even if you do not do anything except speak out or join a > protest. Now they have the capability to profile and charge anyone, even > those who do nothing to deserve the attention. Welcome to 1984. > > __._,_.___ > Reply via web > post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Fair_Forum/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyODIwamU4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzODU3OTYzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTI5MTc1NQRtc2dJZAM4ODU3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzNzEyNDg2NTc-?act=reply&messageNum=88575> > Reply > to sender <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]?subject\x3dRe%3A%20Fwd%3A%20Suddenly%2C%20white%20people%20care%20about%20privacy%20incursions');> > Reply > to group <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]?subject\x3dRe%3A%20Fwd%3A%20Suddenly%2C%20white%20people%20care%20about%20privacy%20incursions');> > Start > a New > Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Fair_Forum/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNWJsZGI2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzODU3OTYzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTI5MTc1NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNzEyNDg2NTc-> > Messages > in this > topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Fair_Forum/message/88575;_ylc=X3oDMTM3N2o0amxmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzODU3OTYzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTI5MTc1NQRtc2dJZAM4ODU3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNzEyNDg2NTcEdHBjSWQDODg1NzU->(1) > Recent Activity: > > > Visit Your > Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Fair_Forum;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOHVlMDBkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzODU3OTYzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTI5MTc1NQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzNzEyNDg2NTc-> > .....the forum for free & fair debate, Everyone welcome. Hate Obama's > health care plan, tell us! > [image: Yahoo! > Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYWRsczFuBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIzODU3OTYzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTI5MTc1NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM3MTI0ODY1Nw--> > Switch to: Text-Only <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]?subject\x3dChange+Delivery+Format:+Traditional');>, > Daily Digest <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]?subject\x3dEmail+Delivery:+Digest');>• > Unsubscribe <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]?subject\x3dUnsubscribe');> • Terms > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> • Send us Feedback > <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', > '[email protected]?subject\x3dFeedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1');> > . > > __,_._,___ > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
