It is a powerful word. Iâm not sure it has always been able to pull such strong emotions and feelings of fear as it has since 9/11 but the word is definitely a room silencer in the US these days.
Where do we draw the line? Is there danger of "terror within" if the US government (or any government) doesn't apply special tactics to stop it? How much leeway do we allow them? Is it in our best interest? Who decides what âour best interestâ is? Does a âsafe Americaâ justify âany meansâ?
Terrorism at home is not new to most of the world, but the feelings are still in their infancy in the US.
Racial profiling is becoming âacceptableâ practice, two hour lines at the airport are no longer considered an inconvenience but are now just the norm.
I have accepted that things must change because âour worldâ changed on 9/11, the feelings of safety and security skewed, but is there a program I can watch or paper I can read that can help me with the whys and the whens and the how much more? 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, fiction? Right? Why do I feel like I am in the prologue then?
As Lynne Stewart appeals her conviction as a traitor for helping her client, a convicted terrorist, (she was appointed by the court to defend) she brings up the questionâ¦..
Are Americans post 9/11 over zealous with their prosecution and accusations of terrorism? And is the government ignoring the inalienable rights of our constitution with justifications of âfor the good of the peopleâ.
Read the latest CNN report and dig through the archives, she was convicted in 2005.
The way they found out that she was communicating with her clients cohorts was with âlegalâ wiretapping of client attorney conversations, those are believed to be confidential in the US, part of the constitution says you have a right to private consul but the government has the right to tape these conversations if it feels just cause to protect the people.
and then maybe watch the Lodi case on Frontline.
While I donât feel these guys were as innocent or as guilty as some may think, the way things were handled is disturbing.
Is the word used too loosely? Is it used to get a desired reaction even if justification is questionable? Aiding and abetting? where do we draw the line?
I put this in the debate forum and tried to introduce it as neutrally as possible, which is hard, because I'm scared.
and Im not sure terrorism is what Im afraid of.
Where do we draw the line? Is there danger of "terror within" if the US government (or any government) doesn't apply special tactics to stop it? How much leeway do we allow them? Is it in our best interest? Who decides what âour best interestâ is? Does a âsafe Americaâ justify âany meansâ?
Terrorism at home is not new to most of the world, but the feelings are still in their infancy in the US.
Racial profiling is becoming âacceptableâ practice, two hour lines at the airport are no longer considered an inconvenience but are now just the norm.
I have accepted that things must change because âour worldâ changed on 9/11, the feelings of safety and security skewed, but is there a program I can watch or paper I can read that can help me with the whys and the whens and the how much more? 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, fiction? Right? Why do I feel like I am in the prologue then?
As Lynne Stewart appeals her conviction as a traitor for helping her client, a convicted terrorist, (she was appointed by the court to defend) she brings up the questionâ¦..
Are Americans post 9/11 over zealous with their prosecution and accusations of terrorism? And is the government ignoring the inalienable rights of our constitution with justifications of âfor the good of the peopleâ.
Read the latest CNN report and dig through the archives, she was convicted in 2005.
The way they found out that she was communicating with her clients cohorts was with âlegalâ wiretapping of client attorney conversations, those are believed to be confidential in the US, part of the constitution says you have a right to private consul but the government has the right to tape these conversations if it feels just cause to protect the people.
and then maybe watch the Lodi case on Frontline.
While I donât feel these guys were as innocent or as guilty as some may think, the way things were handled is disturbing.
Is the word used too loosely? Is it used to get a desired reaction even if justification is questionable? Aiding and abetting? where do we draw the line?
I put this in the debate forum and tried to introduce it as neutrally as possible, which is hard, because I'm scared.
and Im not sure terrorism is what Im afraid of.