>For one thing, I simply do not buy the Hollywood-inspired fantasy that evil
>government agents frame up some walking innocence just for the heck of
>it.
No, but they do attack and frame radicals.
I am much more inclined to assume some sort of rationality on
>the part
>of the people with whom I disagree - I thus find quite probable that the
>government must have had some bona fide reason to detain Mr. Padilla
>(whether they reveal that reason is another story).
The "rationality" may have been that he might know something, not that he did something. In view of the reluctance to try him and Rumsfeld's statement that they just want to find what he know, that seems likely.
>
>There is a good reason to believe that the "government" genuinely tries to
>prevent terror attacks rather than simply rounding up innocent victims.
Yes.
>As to Justin's assertion that this is a "trail balloon" to do the
>same to
>other US citizens - I've been too long hanging out in various dissident
>circles to fall for this canard.
Betcha you are wrong. Note: Lindh is getting a regular trial while the other Taliban prisoners are interned in Camp X-Ray. Now we get Padilla, a US citizen, treated as an unlawful combatant. I like topresume some sort of rationality on the part of govt officials, as a notably sociologiast once said. My interpretation is that this is a trial balloon.
The founding myth of most
>dissident
>groups is that the government and its agents are after them and will use
>every trick available to get them. That gives the dissidents a sense of
>self-importance. In reality, however, there is no reason to belive that
>left-wing insurgency is threatening to the establishment
Cointelpro is a myth, apparently. The FBI never burgled CISPES' offices or tapped their phones in the 1980s. There was no McCArthyism, after all, the CPUSA was a joke and neverthreated the establishment.
If not anything else, establishing such a police state
>would
>pose too big of a transaction cost that would cut into the bottom line of
>too many businesses. That is why the Soviets & Co, dismantled their police
>states - they were too costly to maintain, and still did not produce the
>advertised results.
Umm, an interesting, if obviously false, theory. Among other things it fails to note the difference between the transaction costs involved in establsihing and distestablsihing a police state. Also it ignire the fact that repression is possible without a Soviet style police state. I refer you to the McCarthyism that didn't happen, COINTELPRO, and other nonoccurrent events.
>
>I also think that counsels like "we should change our foreign policy,
>withdraw our support for Israel, eliminate disparity in wealth and
>eradicate other root causes of terrorism" belong to the same category as
>finding the meaning of life. Yes, it would be so nice if we all lived in
>peace, loved each other, held hands .... oh well, let me pass the bong.
You are on the left because? If you are right, everyone here should just hang it up. Moreover if you are right, the answer to what can be done to prevent another 9/11 is simple: nothing at all. Cheney and Rumsfeld at least are clear on this: given current US polict, future terror attacks are inevitable. So, like globla warming, learn to live with it. I am not being sarcastic. Them's just the facts.
>
>The history has shown that liberal democracies are quite resistant to
>communist revolutions, but fell when attacked by fascist goons bankrolled
>by plutocracies. I was hoping for more realistic, down to earth answers
>how to avert such threat without giving up a democracy to Ashcrofts,
>Hoovers, or Hitlers.
>
Ever read Bertram Gross' (a Guild lawyer) excellent Friendly Fascism? Heexpalined taht the American sort would not come with jackboots and overthrow of constitutional forms, but in the name of those forms.
W, you are a bundle of contradictions. You don't believe the courts can protect us from repression because it's part of the G. You think the G wants to protect us from terror, and would never repress dissent because it's too expensive to do so, and besides the left is too pathetic to bother. These two sets of views are incompatible. You think you are on the left, but there is no hope of changing US policy, ever, it is literally a pipe dream. Maybe you and Carrol should crawl into the "common ruin of the conyending classes" corner and moan about our immanent doom.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com