We need more surveillance--a morality play about terrorism

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

[Some speculation about the current American attitudes about terrorism,
about the changes in civil liberties to deal with the "terrorist threat,"
and even some comments about Jim Bell and his predicament.]


I've been watching an HBO movie, "Path to Paradise," about the bombing of
the World Trade Center in February 1993. It's quite well-done, as most HBO
movies of this sort are.

However, it is fairly heavy on a propaganda message which may give some
insights into the likely changes in political freedoms in the United
States. Some examples:

* repeated examples of how the cops and FBI _could have_ arrested the Arabs
if only the Constitution could be reinterpreted to allow arrests for
possession of political pamphlets, guns (legally owned), etc.

* "You mean Islamic radicals are free to preach their message of hate and
violence? Unbelievable!" (This is a paraphrase...there were several such
opinions expressed, where FBI managers express outrage that such things are
permitted in the U.S.)

* The niceties of getting wiretap orders were treated as ways to coddle
criminals.

* The ease with which citizen-units and others can order chemicals and
suchlike was shown graphically, with the subtext being that this easy
ordering ought to be stopped. (This was clear from the dramatic
presentation.)

* Unlike many such movies on criminal matters, there was very little
discussion of civil rights, of the right of persons to move about freely,
and so on.

In short, a morality play about the hazards of letting people plot their
crimes without proper surveillance.

Not to sound conspiratorial, I suspect that this changed climate is
consistent with the views of the FBI and White House, and that HBO is
playing some role (unofficially, of course, and maybe not even consciously)
in this new emphasis.

(In the same way that the Rambo movies, to name just one example, resonated
with American popular opinion in the Reagan era.)

Speculation: This may also have something to do with the "no bail"
predicament Bell now faces. The "stink bomb" he allegedly used in an IRS
building could be Sarin gas, putatively, given the claims that he had Sarin
precursors. Now we may mostly think he's harmless, but the combination of
this new "let's get tough on terrorist plotters" mood, combined with the
chemical stuff they found, his calls for killing of government agents, his
apparent willingness to use chemical bombs (so the claim goes), all add up
to a "get tough" outcome. Whether it stays this way past his arraignment in
a few weeks is of course unknown.

(Any magistrate or DA who watches this HBO movie might be wondering if
releasing Bell would be turning him loose to launch a Sarin gas attack on
his Fed enemies. I don't think this is a plausible threat, knowing what I
know of Bell.)

Something to think about. Between the World Trade Center bombing and OKC,
there seem to be more people saying that certain civil liberties need to be
given up to ensure security.

Where have we heard this before? (Hint: back in Ben Franklin's day.)


--Tim May, who's sorry he missed the display of firepower at the physical
meeting today




There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."