[SPORK] X == Terrorism, or, You Have No Rights

Jeff Bone jbone@deepfile.com
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:53:48 -0600

(a) "Drugs fund terrorism" [1]
(b) "If you fund terrorism, you are a terrorist" [2]
(c) "If we even SUSPECT you are a terrorist, the Bill of Right's 
doesn't apply." [3]
.:  (d) Suspected drug users / sellers have no rights.


It this doesn't worry you, substitute "p2p file sharing" for "drugs."  
[4]  Or "SUVs."  Or "commuting alone." [5]  (NB:  I like Bill Maher, 
but sometimes he can be an idiot.)  For an opposing view on the 
relationship between drugs and terrorism, see [6] --- which makes the 
case that drug *prohibition* may in fact fund terrorism --- or [7] 
which merely points out the stupidity in [1].

[NB, Aside:  the commercials for [1] above annoy the shit out of me;  
they point out a new tool in the neo-con rhetorical arsenal that's been 
getting a lot of play lately.  Basically, it goes like this:  assert 
something stringently enough and often enough, and that constitutes 
proof --- even in the absence of any substantiation.  "Drugs fund 
terrorism."  "C'mon, they don't."  "Yes they do."  "Really?"  "Yes."  
"Oh, okay."   Grrrrr....  To see the pattern, consider:  this is 
exactly the same rhetorical technique that was tried (and apparently 
worked, for most of the mindless drones in this country) in justifying 
the current conflict.  "Saddam is involved in terrorism."  "There's no 
proof."  "Yes there is."  "Really?"  "Yes."  "Oh, okay."   Grrr....]


[2] http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_11/b3824050.htm  
(not the best link, but...)
[3] http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/USApatriotact.html
[4] http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0313congrpanel.html
[5] http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/product1477.html
[6] http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art5150.asp
[7] http://www.lindesmith.org/library/bakes_jan2003.cfm