Taking Dictation
by pessimist
As Mrs. P and I are turning our attention to helping her mother get through the end of her life, this will be my last post for a while. I hope that when I return, there is still a Republic left to save. That won't be a sure thing at the pace things are going now that Karl is back on the job.
Back on January 1, 1984, SCTV did a hillarious episode on the outbreak of 1984. Right on the stroke of midnight, Big Brother took over.
Reading the news today, I'm noticing that while SCTV was a little early, I can't say that they were wrong.
That abuse of power will be expanded, as the GOP now in charge never met a ruling giving them additional power that they didn't like.
The ruling of Judge John Gleeson of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York "gave the government broad discretion to enforce the law selectively against noncitizens of a particular religion, race or national origin, and to detain them indefinitely, for any unspecified reason":
"The executive is free to single out 'nationals of a particular country' and focus enforcement efforts on them," the judge wrote. In the judge's view, the government has the right to detain people indefinitely as long as their eventual removal is "reasonably foreseeable."
This opinion might well be viewed favorably by a delegation of Afghan officials seeking the release of about half of the Afghan citizens held in Guantanamo for trial in Afghanistan. "We want to assure our people that the detainees will return to the country," said one.
But there are those who see the slippery slope beginning to tilt unfavorably:
"We saw after 9/11 what the government did in an era of uncertainty about how far it can go. Judge Gleeson has essentially given them a green light to go much further," [said David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University].
Where are all those conservatives complaining about activist judges now?
Go much further they will! Three BYU professors were fired for going against the teachings of the Mormon faith in their questioning of its position on gay marriage. While these three are only losing jobs, and maybe membership in the Mormon religion, is it such a large stretch to see the possibility that going against religious tenets could become a crime?
I'm not just talking about Utah, either. In Alabama, several state judicial candidates recently proposed making the Bible the basis for the law and using it as justification for capital punishment of 'sinners'.
But it doesn't have to be religion where one could 'wander astray' and 'require correction'. It could happen to human rights environmentalists, or even anti-war investors.
It isn't just a coincidence that it was in 1984 that radio host Alan Berg was murdered for violating a radical religious group's standards. The only difference between when that happened and now is that groups with beliefs similar to those accused of murdering Berg are now in control of the government.
The Crawford Cock crowed three times about how "It would be a lot easier if I was dictator". Now that he's got his Peter-principal back, he's expecting us to take his dictation - as Gospel.
With the large amount of information on all of us available over the Internet, it's only a matter of time before Bu$hCo followers are given the green light to violate our privacy in order to find 'something' to use against those of us who don't follow willingly. And [no] thanks to Judge John Gleeson of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for unlocking the door to abusing that information.
May he rot in a Hell of his own creation.
Copyrighted [©] source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.