[lbo-talk] Fidel drops in

[andie nachgeborenen]

Nathan, this is just historically blind. The fact is that terrorism is not (demonstrably not!) such a threat to civilized life as to require serious curtainlment of civil liberties. We know this because Europeans ocieties have dealt with terrorism from the IRA, the ETA, the Red Brigades, etc., for decades without the sort of repressive legislation and adminstrative action that Ashcroft has unloosedw ith the consent Congress, including the Dems who almost unanimously voted for USAPA.  But the US is demonstrably that sort of menace to every free or semi-free society that attempts seriously progressive policies. The Chileans had a  democracy, and Kissinger and the CIA used to to destroy Allende. Despite the contra war, the Sandinistas kept a free press and a competitive political system, and the US used it to destroy them.  I don't like repression either, but you're not going to get anywhere if you persist in acontextual, a priori, nonhistorical false equivalencies. There's a real problem. If you want to have progressive govts at all, you have to have some better answer than saying: let the US in to do what it likes, which is to blow them to hell. Brad resolutely refused to answer, or address, or even acknowledge these concerns. I expext better from you.   jks

Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Henwood" 
>And I've said many times that I don't like the practice of jailing
>dissidents and suppressing freedom of speech, but I don't know how
>any remotely progressive government can defend itself against the
>U.S. and still respect civil liberties. It's a very profound problem,
>and critiques of authoritarianism that don't ackonwledge its
>profundity are evasions of any real discussion too.

Substitute the words "terrorism" for the "U.S." and you have the Ashcroft
position on civil liberties.

The idea that civil liberties are the enemy of security is the trope of
authoritarians everywhere. That Cuba (or the U.S.) is made more secure by
jailing dissidents is just a false argument, only true if you believe that
the majority of the population is so insecure in their loyalties that
hearing an alternative view will undermine support. But in that case, the
dissidents viewpoints are so correct that their suppression is even less
justified.

-- Nathan Newman

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20030512/b8999c20/attachment.htm>