You Think You Are Free?

[Echo In Light]

You Think You Are Free?
By Linda S. Heard

28/02/08 "ICH" -- Watching old movies makes me sad. I'm inevitably reminded of a kindlier, gentler world without cameras that spy on populations, where overseas travelling was pleasurable and privacy was an individual's right.

Nowadays, states are usurping responsibilities that are rightfully those of their citizens. Western so-called democracies, in particular, are supposed to have governments that are servants of the people, whereas, in fact, the opposite is true. Under the guise of doing what's best for us or ensuring our security, governments are exercising more and more control over our lives. And, tragically, we are facilitating this erosion of our own freedoms, mostly because we're not even aware it's happening.

The US and Britain are leading the pack in this encroaching Orwellian nightmare. "War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength," wrote George Orwell in his book 1984. In recent years, they have waged wars in the name of peace, put entire populations under their thumb in the name of freedom while government spin and a compliant media serve to keep people ignorant about their leaders' true motives.

If we only knew we are being indoctrinated to offer up our personal freedoms to save ourselves from a horrible fate at the hands of nicotine, calories and Al Qaida. We are being taught to fear asylum seekers, climate change, crazed terrorists and even each other. Western governments are perfecting the politics of fear because fearful populaces will do their bidding without question and willingly subject themselves to control.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19434.htm

[ArizonaJosie]

1. I agree.

I think that if an American from 1920 or so were suddenly "time traveled" to the present day that they would die of shock at the freedoms we have lost.

[dysfunctional press]

2. a time traveller from 1920 would at least be able to get a legal drink...

couldn't do that under prohibition...

btw- what freedoms have we lost that the 1920 guy would have had...? :shrug:

[Sadie4629]

6. Sometimes I think

that all these people who bemoan our 'loss of freedom' just don't really understand how free we are compared to a lot of places in the world.

[Echo In Light]

7. And so when our civil rights are under attack we shouldn't care because comparatively

We're still better off than totalitarian societies that are controlled via the same mindset and draconian measures of those who would strip away our rights under the guise of "security?"

To me that sounds like every right winger who calls into C-SPAN's WJ and "bemoans" all those whining liberals who make a big deal over civil liberties ... after all, their talking point goes, if I'm not doing anything wrong, then why should I care if Big Brother is spying on me?

Granted these problems are not new, and we're collectively at a better place to {hopefully} thwart tyrannical intentions and policies of the corporate/state nexus - provided the problem is acknowledged an understood. A failed democracy which lapses into a police state doesn't occur overnight. Think of it as tip-toe fascism.

[ixion]

9. well said

and very true. We SHOULD 'bemoan' each and every loss of liberty, civil or otherwise, because many have given their lives to see that would would have such liberty.

I can't stand fascism, nor can I tolerate people who can't understand what giving up a freedom ultimately means.

[dysfunctional press]

10. .

.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. I'm currently about 1/3 of the way through "shock doctrine"

After reading about the inhumanity that we exported to Brazil, Chile and Argentina, I realize that the point is to recognize it before it gets to that point.

[blues90]

20. well that's the danger now , isn't it ?

We are becoming citizens without freedom and not to see this and compare it to other countries , then suddenly we are there , screwed , completely screwed .

[RedCappedBandit]

34. Sometimes I think

people who repeat this BS mantra that we are just so damn free compared to the rest of the world don't know what the heck they are talking about.

First of all, the US isn't exactly the most liberated society in the world. It is a load of crap shoved down our throats that has no basis in reality. The fact that there are certain hardcore right wing countries out there does not negate the fact that this country is actually pretty low on the list when it comes to free societies.
Secondly, even if we WERE so much better than everywhere else, we only would have gotten there by being uptight about our liberties. If we don't complain when our freedoms are taken away, what is going to stop us from ending up like those terrible places you speak of?

[sepulveda]

37. it depends on what freedoms

for example, in regards to speech - we are among, if not the most free - far more so than england, the UK, etc.

in regards to drug use- we are far less free than many european countries. canada is a mixed bag. some of their laws on food supps are far more strict than ours, and many people use dietary supps for bodybuilding, performance, etc. and these are more restricted there than here. otoh, pot and heroin are far less restrictive

search and seizure - varies widely. most countries are less restrictive (no exclusionary rule in many euro countries, for example) on the police and are thus less free.

also note we are one of the few countries where privacy rights vary state to state. all states recognize the federal standard and can't go below it. but many states (mine included) has a higher standard of privacy than under federal govt.

right to remain silent - again, it depends. for example, in the UK your decision to remain silent CAN be used against you

guns - we are more free than most

surveillance - many countries (UK comes to mind) surveil their citizenry far more than we do. london is a prime example

abortion on demand - we are less free than many others

and then you have economic freedom and education.

many countries have free COLLEGE as well as precollege. that's nice, but hard to say whether that's a "freedom" or not

it's certainly a nice BENEFIT.

[mmonk]

56. Yep. I can think of people that are freer than we are.

And they have become even more free than us with our now, official end to constitutional rights.

[Indenturedebtor]

41. True

And eat your peas because there are starving kids in Africa.

Just because a situation is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be better here.

Be grateful for what you have and all that. But be ready to fight for what is rightfully yours and others would take from you!

Just because another guy shoots his wife doesn't make it ok for me to beat mine.

[superkia]

46. Eventually we will be as bad or worse than those countries,...

for some reason, there are people out there that cant see outside the box, they only chant we are number one, we are number one! Funny thing is, this country has been so dumbed down and controlled, we are turning into a country of wealthy smart people that are number one and the rest are turning into asshats. Its a shame too because it will be our children and grandchildren that suffer because we are allowing this shit to happen in front of our eyes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. This also presumes that the time traveler is a white male. n/t

[Joshua N]

14. Great Point n/t

[dysfunctional press]

15. how so? i see plenty of females and non-whites in bars.

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. The recent erosion of civil liberties affects the population broadly.

The improvement of civil liberties for most people between 1920 and 1980 partially balances out the recent losses.

I'm not suggesting that the patriot act and blanket wiretaps are appropriate. I'm just saying that an african american from 1920 might not see it the same way we do.

My observation wasn't really about prohibition.

[dysfunctional press]

17. what are the "recent losses" that affect the broad population?

you're saying that the gains made from 1920-80 only partially balances out the recent losses...what are the recent losses that attain those levels? i must have missed it, because personally, it hasn't seemed to affect me at all...:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. This seems to be as good a place as any to give agent Mike a shout out.

But we could do it by email or phone too - it's all the same.

Suffice to say, I consider it a risk, albeit small, to have borrowed "The Shock Doctrine" from the local library. This thought would not have crossed my mind 10 years ago.

[dysfunctional press]

19. so- you can't come up with any...?

all this ranting and raving by people about lost civil liberties- and yet when asked- they can't think of any either.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Okay - you're actually serious.

Ask your fellow citizen Jose Padilla.

He was disappeared, shipped overseas, tortured until his personality was entirely erased and brought to a childlike state. His right of Habeas Corpus was removed and he was convicted of a crime other than the one for which he was arrested, a trial during which he was judged incapable of assisting with his defense. He's now serving a life sentence.

Just like you, he was a US citizen, and as of today, his treatment by the government was perfectly legal.

What's more, when your congress passes a law that is inconvenient to the "decider guy" that law is waived with a signing statement making clear that regardless of what the law says, he reserves the constitutional right to defy it.

You live in a fascist state, the only differences between Bush, Mussolini and Pinochet are ones of scale and finesse.

You don't have the right to free speech. Thought crimes are very much punishable. If you want to "freely assemble" you're welcome to do it in the cordoned-off "free speech zone".
You no longer have the right to a speedy trial. In fact you no longer have the inherent right to a trial at all. If the administration thinks you've done something wrong, they reserve the right to secret you away to some dungeon somewhere in the world.
You can no longer consider yourself secure in your papers, houses, person and effects. The government has a right to listen in on all of your communications, and the right to know exactly what you read.
The government's right to eminent domain now extends to other persons. The government can not only take your property for a public purpose, it can give it to another person without your consent or adequate compensation.

You do have the right, however, to choose which lapel to place your american flag pin on. I guess for some, that's enough.

"liberty" is the freedom to do something, whether you exercise it or not. The fact that I'm not posting from a dungeon doesn't suggest that my freedom has not been infringed.

[dysfunctional press]

28. jose padilla- the gang-banger who chose to aid terrorists...a real beacon for a civil-rights crusade

:eyes:

You no longer have the right to a speedy trial.
when has that NOT been true?

If the administration thinks you've done something wrong, they reserve the right to secret you away to some dungeon somewhere in the world.

"something wrong"...gosh, you mean like parking a handicapped spot, or what?


i feel completely secure in my papers, house, person, AND effects.

"The government can not only take your property for a public purpose, it can give it to another person without your consent or adequate compensation." -if that's in regard to the court case in connecticut, you obviouslyhopefully have to realize that it's not as simple a process as your statement would like to make it out to be.

except for the frustration over how my tax money is being squandered, i don't personally feel any less "free" than at any other point over the past 4 1/2 decades. and that's because i'm not any less free- and the VAST majority of americans would tell you the exact same thing.
but you have the right to see ghosts and shadows wherever you like- and that seems to be one freedom that you're good at exercising.

btw- since you no longer have freedom of speech- aren't you afraid that by posting all these slanderous and seditious comments that the jack-booted thugs are going to kick in your door and drag you off to a hell-hole prison somewhere in the world?
because if you TRULY lived in the kind of country that you like to pretend this one has become, you REALLY would be scared of that happening for what you choose to write.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. The ghosts and shadows are there

"something wrong" as in if you were taken away to Gitmo and had your personality erased, you could be found guilty of anything they want to convict you of.

You're not living up to your moniker.

[dysfunctional press]

33. i've been there, and there's no there there. i don't believe in ghosts...

and i've never been all that afraid of my own shadow.

question all means just that.
and applies equally to the paranoid loonies that also inhabit the side i'm on.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. You consider me paranoid. I consider you credulous.

Explain to me what is peculiar about Jose Padilla. What makes him unique, in that drugging and torturing him, locking him up in a secret prison for three years until his ability to defend himself was entirely compromised, is justified.

Why was holding him in prison for three years based on the claim that he was making a dirty bomb and a terrorists justified, if after all that time, the government couldn't even charge him with that?

The treatment given him prior to his trial is treatment that can legally be given to you.

Jose Padilla wasn't nearly as big a threat to us as the precedent set by his pre-trial treatment is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. He was detained IN THE US... he IS a US Citizen

and you MIGHT not be aware of this, but the terrorism charges were NEVER used by the Government in the actual trial

So let me ask you. Should we detain under terrorism protocols? After all you do not realize that he was a way to get YOU used to these new laws.

By the way... there are many parallels to NAZI Germany... even in the Padilla Case

Those who refuse to learn from history... you know the rest

[Hannah Bell]

51. "jose padilla- the gang-banger who chose to aid terrorists"

I thought the idea of rights was that everyone had them, even people who were doing something criminal?

You're saying, if the government thinks someone is doing something wrong, they don't have to follow the Constitution or established law?

[Echo In Light]

55. Likely perceive as a "new and improved" format. Who benefits, and why

[walldude]

23. What do you call this?:

"Suffice to say, I consider it a risk, albeit small, to have borrowed "The Shock Doctrine" from the local library. This thought would not have crossed my mind 10 years ago."

The feds are watching the libraries. They are listening in on your phone conversations and reading your e-mails. There are cameras on every major street corner in America, not to mention spy satellites that can follow you around if they want. You can speak your mind, at risk of offending the wrong people and end up like Don Seigleman. Granted these don't equate to slavery but to think that your civil liberties haven't been eroded is just turning a blind eye.

[dysfunctional press]

26. you honestly think that "they" are listening in on YOUR phone conversations and reading YOUR emails?

wow.
i smoke A LOT of pot, and even i'm not THAT paranoid.

cameras on "every major street corner in America"...:rofl: :rofl: -you're kidding about that one, right? when i lived in chicago(til last year) there are cameras in some of the drug-dealing neighborhoods, and a few red-light cams, but nowhere NEAR having cameras "on every major street corner"- that's just a silly statement.

you are WAAAAY too paranoid.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. They are absolutely, demonstrably running all communications through systems...

... intended to do the heavy lifting of surveillance. "They" have deployed computers dedicated to assessing threat level of all communications. Those deemed interesting are sent to actual analysts.

Read up on Carnivore. Of course that's been replaced by the as yet unexplained Carnivore v2.

[dysfunctional press]

32. that's nothing new- it's been going on for LONG before bush/cheney...

but there are some people out there who believe that their own actual calls and emails are being monitored by actual people- they aren't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Free clue, I don´t believe they are listening to my calls

I KNOW they are doing that.

Why? They told me they were going to under the USPA and FISA .... and I take them at their word

In fact, last time I was in Mexico City... we even heard it, when they went "live" The wonders of a badly maintained phone system is that if you know what you are listening to, it is clear as day... no pun

As to the libraries, part of the USPA...


Boy you are gullible

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. You no longer have a right to your privacy while making a phone call

yes, any and all your calls can be listened to (in fact are) in a grand scheme called the Protect America Act, and just because it has "lapsed" don't think this is not continuing.

You have given up some of your rights to your medical privacy... or haven´t you gone to the doctor in the last seven years?

You no longer have the same level of privacy you had with your bank before 9.11

Perhaps it might be good for you to READ the USPA... hey you´d be ahead of most legislatures who DIDN´T read it.

By the way, have you travelled recently?

And those are just from the tip of my head

[ArizonaJosie]

24. Women could smoke in a bar

and did not have to wear seat belts in 1920 and they cold vote so what is your "theory" again?

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. Welcome to DU.

It's apparent that, since your definition of civil liberties is intimately tied to being allowed to do your smoking and drinking sans seatbelt, you'll benefit from spending some time here.

In 1920, women and minorities had significant, meaningful limitations on their civil liberties. The losses that all of us have suffered since 2000 are, although unacceptable, less than we would suffer if we were returned to 1920 as a woman or as a minority.

[ArizonaJosie]

39. Perhaps, but you are comparing apples to oranges.

Taken as a whole, ALL are not as free now as they were in 1920, no matter how they are situated now or were situated then.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. I don't think that early 20th century history is as idyllic as you do. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Nor was freedom of thought respected

perhaps we should intro this person to Debbs, and the Red Scare of the 1920s

[ArizonaJosie]

52. At least you could relax with a smoke in a bar

And drive around without your seatbelt. Not a bad start. Do you claim life has been idyllic for the last 20 or 30 years?

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Mmm let me see

smoke in a bar... .don´t get me started on that one... yeah I guess smokers have rights that impede over the healt of others...

And as a medic... I have a solution to the seat belt helmet crowd

Carry with you a DNR so we medics don;t have the duty to try to resus you after you go through the windshield, but give your organs away to science. After all somebody else may be able to use them.

Yep, nanny government, but while you worry about that one... how about them black folk who could not ride on a bus because they were black, or for that matter vote? Yep idilllic I guess

I could also go into the many women who were forced to the back alleys because abortion is against God´s law and died from terrible infections or bleeding. Yep, but you could smoke in a bar.

Then there are them lynchings in the south because they were black... or kids in San Diego were forced to speak English because they were Hispanic or Indian and the languages of their parents were of the devil. Yep, grand ol; life

Of course if you were white and Jewish... you could not go to many a college because we had a quota. and in many places we didn´t sell property to jews, blacks or Catholics, (Irish in some cases... and I forgot about them Italians)

You truly want to go back to that country?

Oh and to the bar... I forgot about the 19th amendment... so I guess that smoke in that bar was out, legally at least.

That does not mean that we are loosing significant rights, beyond the seat belt and smoking laws that bother so many libertarians, after all we care about that, but torture... and spying on Americans, phew.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. In 1939 Germany, women could drink in bars and drive without seatbelts too.

I think you're fixating on the trivial. I see this often, a result of watching the wrong media.

[Quantess]

50. Well, you do have have some points, but I'm not sure where you're coming from.

This post of yours will only add to our conversation!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4814180&mesg_id=4818059
It will be fun to get to know you. :hi:

[Mind_your_head]

48. I think you're right,,,,,they'd be truly horrified

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

3. K&R

[irish.lambchop]

4. Sky News (yes, I know who owns it)

did a report that the U.K. are after taking DNA from every child born in the U.K. There is much opposition to this proposal, as you would imagine. Even DNA samples taken from individuals in order to clear them in cases is kept in a database and this is objected to as well.

[jakem]

5. Excuse the diversion, but reminds me of the Vandals song:

Title: Anarchy Burger
Artist: Vandals


Anarchy
Kill a cat
Shoot James Brady in the back
Raise an army of rabid rats
Beat your neighbor with a bat

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government

Anarchy
Go ape shit
Let them know you're sick of it
Write your congressman
Tell him he sucks
Only in it for the bucks

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government

Your robbing can't sell anarchy burgers
And if you wanna be free
Order yourself an anarchy burger
Hold the government please

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government

America stands for freedom
But if you think you're free
Try walkin into a deli
And urinating on the cheese

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Hold the government please
Hold the government

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government

Say fuck in front of your mom
FUCK!
And go to school and make an...

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government

----

ah the classics!

[Mr Rabble]

8. I suggest "Prospects for Democracy" as well as...

"The Emerging Framework of World Power" as excellent lectures which years ago gave very convincing arguments as to where society was headed.

We have arrived.

[Individualist]

11. That last sentence says it all,

and the cabal has used the tactic so successfully. If only we had responsible media, they'd have spoken out against this long ago and continued speaking out against it. How I miss Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite!

[backscatter712]

22. I'm more addicted to posting pics now...

[Swamp Rat]

25. Actually, it is obvious to some.

[Echo In Light]

38. Ha...great pic!

[The Stranger]

27. Required Viewing in DU:

The Power of Nightmares

[tpsbmam]

36. K&R n/t

[ben_meyers]

47. I would suggest actually reading Animal Farm and 1984

Since the OP refers to Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) you might be interested in his background and what shaped his writings. 1984 (The Last Man in Europe) and Animal Farm were allegories about the failed promises of communism.

In 1946 Blair lived for a year at Barnhill on the Isle of Jura. For years he had been developing his favourite novel that would cinch his literary legacy, Animal Farm (1944). “On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood.” Publishers did not want to touch his anti-Stalinist allegory while war was still raging so it was held for publishing until after the war had ended.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/

Blair is an interesting character, but to think we are anywhere near his vision of the future is a bit of a stretch. While he may have written "War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength," he was referring to totalitarian states and forms of Government. We are hardly that.

[Lorien]

49. We are taught to fear climate change? Now there's a load of BS

the mainstream media downplays the very real threat of climate change to keep the fossil fuel barons in power.

[albert johnson]

54. no i dont! we are now a card carrying third world country

you now seem to need a card for everything,from driving to buying food,etc...my s.s. card says not for identification purposes. what happened to that?

[flashl]

57. No....

Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have already expunged (as reported by the Associated Press):

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

These rights have already been lost!

Whether individual Americans have been personally subjected to the resultant tyranny or not doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms!

This fact, alone, should be enough for any studious lover-of-liberty to be outraged.

Freedoms Lost Under G.W. Bush

[Echo In Light]

58. Dig that "enemies of god" bit!

:wtf:

[flashl]

59. puke alert ...

[Echo In Light]

60. Wonder how many were aware of The Constitution Restoration Act?

Thankfully it was a no-go, but reveals dark intentions indeed...

Introducing The Constitution Restoration Act

Say Hello To Taliban America And Goodbye To Godless Judges, Courts And Law
by W. David Kubiak April 03, 2005

Tired of waiting for the Second Coming to enforce Christ's rule on Earth? Fortunately, so is your Congress and they know how to "bring it on."

Just when you thought the corporatist/Christian Coalition had milked the 9/11 "surprise" for all it was worth in powers, profits and votes, we regret to report that you may have to think again. Just in case you've briefly fallen behind on your rightwing mailing lists, you might have missed the March 3rd filing of Senate bill S. 520 and House version is H.R. 1070, AKA the "Constitution Restoration Act" (CRA).

In the worshipful words of the Conservative Caucus, this historic legislation will "RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION!", mainly by barring ANY federal court or judge from ever again reviewing "any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

In other words, the bill ensures that God's divine word (and our infallible leaders' interpretation thereof) will hereafter trump all our pathetic democratic notions about freedom, law and rights -- and our courts can't say a thing. This, of course, will take "In God We Trust" to an entirely new level, because soon He (and His personally anointed political elite) will be all the legal recourse we have left.

This is not a joke, a test, or a fit of libertarian paranoia. The CRA already has 28 sponsors in the House and Senate, and a March 20 call to lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby's office assures us that "we have the votes for passage." This is a highly credible projection as Bill Moyers observes in his 3/24/05 "Welcome to Doomsday" piece in the New York Review of Books: "The corporate, political, and religious right's hammerlock... extends to the US Congress. Nearly half of its members before the election-231 legislators in all (more since the election)-are backed by the religious right... Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7569

[flashl]

61. Probably not many. Most often, even rabid repukes recoil when the word Constitution

is in a bill's name. It’s been interesting to observe which bill moving through Congress or passing receives public attention. Coverage rarely provides meaningful details in the bills or follow-up after the language in the bill is applied.

[Xenotime]

62. We lost our freedoms in 2000

[Support the ACLU]

63. Thanks for posting this