What about freedom to express dissent? Movements organized to protest something happen frequently. But, other examples show a pattern of the government punishing or harassing dissenters directly challenging some institution of power:
The state executing a Preemptive violation of persons and groups' civil liberties further reduces the space available for exercising our freedom to express dissent:
http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html
https://archive.org/details/fbi_mlk_file
The latter hyperlink if accessed allows your downloading the FBI dossier on that subversive communist, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. This dossier consists of 17,000 pages. I possess no skills to serve as an FBI spokesman, but wasn't 17,000 pages slightly excessive?
The FBI must have agreed to some extent because they sent to King during his lifetime a letter wherein they summarized their judgement of his character culled from the voluminous 17,000 page dossier:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance
Regardless of any King's "misdeeds," no amount of infidelity justifies the FBI's voyeuristic surveillance of his life. The technological means used to to create this excessive surveillance seem primitive compared to the NSA's current digital panopticon recording our movements and communications. I text therefore I am, but how free am I?
Another example of freedom is the power vested in government officials or journalists to expose state corruption. Does this freedom exist in the U.S.? I will ignore the obvious example of the exiled Edward Snowden here. But, other persons' examples cast strong doubt on this particular kind of freedom:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/01/18/685452/-Breaking-DOJ-suddenly-drops-case-against-Andy-Card-s-cousin#
Also, freedom is contingent upon the 4th estate's independence from the state. The prevalence of the 4th estate devouring its own members to curry favor with a corrupt state shows freedom to exist in constant tenuousness:
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/18/wposts-slimy-assault-on-gary-webb/
Or, if mass organizations comprised of ordinary citizens lack the requisite skills (whatever those may be) to be entrusted with freedom to express dissent, then such freedom at least is entrusted to designated experts. Maybe if designated experts express their dissent to certain persons in power. But, if they make such expressions to the wrong persons of whom it should be known are above reproach, then you get what you deserve:
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/11/08/the-mystery-of-ray-mcgoverns-arrest/
My citing the articles above does not imply the corresponding persons and groups mentioned were either heroes or martyrs (except for Revered King whose martyrdom is self-evident). More important, they are victims whose freedoms were seized by corrupt institutions. Each example cited above occurred in one of the previous three decades, showing a dangerous continuity. This continuity shows that during each of the three previous decades the Truth may be eternal, but its seekers are eternally condemned. These examples may be exceptions, but their occurrences show that the U.S. trillion dollar military occupations and empire-enhancing regime changes neither create nor protect our Freedom.
The full political spectrum in the U.S. will wax and gush excessively feigned sentiment over MLK's legacy. Also, the general public will march and wear something saying "Keep the Dream Alive." Hillary Rodham Clinton, Marco Rubio, and the slogan donning public will express dissent at the FBI's copiously tracking MLK and the present day's NSA's wide surveillance. Can the Dream be alive while we are all subjects of the surveillance state?
Former U.S. President George W. Bush once told us that "they hate us for our freedom." Do the "they" in his statement apply to those who seized freedom from the persons cited in the examples above? If not, that infers that those same persons are not included in Bush's view of the "Us." Those expressing dissent are exiled from the grand "Us."
http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html
https://archive.org/details/fbi_mlk_file
The latter hyperlink if accessed allows your downloading the FBI dossier on that subversive communist, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. This dossier consists of 17,000 pages. I possess no skills to serve as an FBI spokesman, but wasn't 17,000 pages slightly excessive?
The FBI must have agreed to some extent because they sent to King during his lifetime a letter wherein they summarized their judgement of his character culled from the voluminous 17,000 page dossier:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance
Regardless of any King's "misdeeds," no amount of infidelity justifies the FBI's voyeuristic surveillance of his life. The technological means used to to create this excessive surveillance seem primitive compared to the NSA's current digital panopticon recording our movements and communications. I text therefore I am, but how free am I?
Another example of freedom is the power vested in government officials or journalists to expose state corruption. Does this freedom exist in the U.S.? I will ignore the obvious example of the exiled Edward Snowden here. But, other persons' examples cast strong doubt on this particular kind of freedom:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/01/18/685452/-Breaking-DOJ-suddenly-drops-case-against-Andy-Card-s-cousin#
Also, freedom is contingent upon the 4th estate's independence from the state. The prevalence of the 4th estate devouring its own members to curry favor with a corrupt state shows freedom to exist in constant tenuousness:
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/18/wposts-slimy-assault-on-gary-webb/
Or, if mass organizations comprised of ordinary citizens lack the requisite skills (whatever those may be) to be entrusted with freedom to express dissent, then such freedom at least is entrusted to designated experts. Maybe if designated experts express their dissent to certain persons in power. But, if they make such expressions to the wrong persons of whom it should be known are above reproach, then you get what you deserve:
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/11/08/the-mystery-of-ray-mcgoverns-arrest/
My citing the articles above does not imply the corresponding persons and groups mentioned were either heroes or martyrs (except for Revered King whose martyrdom is self-evident). More important, they are victims whose freedoms were seized by corrupt institutions. Each example cited above occurred in one of the previous three decades, showing a dangerous continuity. This continuity shows that during each of the three previous decades the Truth may be eternal, but its seekers are eternally condemned. These examples may be exceptions, but their occurrences show that the U.S. trillion dollar military occupations and empire-enhancing regime changes neither create nor protect our Freedom.
The full political spectrum in the U.S. will wax and gush excessively feigned sentiment over MLK's legacy. Also, the general public will march and wear something saying "Keep the Dream Alive." Hillary Rodham Clinton, Marco Rubio, and the slogan donning public will express dissent at the FBI's copiously tracking MLK and the present day's NSA's wide surveillance. Can the Dream be alive while we are all subjects of the surveillance state?
Former U.S. President George W. Bush once told us that "they hate us for our freedom." Do the "they" in his statement apply to those who seized freedom from the persons cited in the examples above? If not, that infers that those same persons are not included in Bush's view of the "Us." Those expressing dissent are exiled from the grand "Us."
No comments:
Post a Comment