I may never be able to forgive The Who for creating that haunting song that's now best known as the soundtrack for the TV show C.S.I.: "Won't Get Fooled Again."
It came out in 1971, the year I graduated college, a year after the Kent State massacre (which former White House Counsel John Dean reports the FBI didn't want to investigate because, FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover argued, one of the four slain students was "a slut"), and a year before the incident that brought an end to Dean's (and President Richard Nixon's) career, the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel by CIA operatives.
Because if history shows anything, it's that the bulk of the American people do "get fooled again" ... and again, and again, and again, and onward.
But as I prepare to fly back east to attend my 40-year high school reunion, I've been corresponding with some of my old classmates on my high school's blog. One of the recent topics of discussion has been this latest "terrorist" scare that supposedly prompted Vice-President Dick Cheney to say, of Ned Lamont's primary victory in Connecticut over pro-war incumbent Joe Lieberman, "The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that ... the Al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."
That, by the way, is a lie.
But the simple fact is that the Bush administration and its supporters have used the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack to solidify theocrat control of all three branches of government, to intimidate those in the "fourth estate" who weren't already behind the religio-reactionaries, and to increasingly suppress (if not actually terminate) American citizens' civil rights.
In that light, I discussed with my classmates the meaning of the "foiled terrorist plot" of last Thursday in the United Kingdom, and the increased restrictions on airline travel that supposedly flowed from that – and some new information I just became aware of, thanks to the excellent blog, The Sideshow, that revealed what a crock of shit that is.
What follows is what one of my classmates wrote, and my response:
>Mark,
>There is nothing off-handed about my acceptance of the situation.
>What there is for me is the acceptance that in the face of incredible
>dangers beyond anything our forefathers might have anticipated.
What our forefathers anticipated is that our own government would use exactly this type of situation as a pretext to deprive citizens of their rights. The working title of the editorial I'm currently writing for AVN is "Porn, Drugs, Iraq, Civil Liberties: It's All The Same War." You can probably guess what it's about.
>In the
>face of the mass destruction and loss of life that these dangers
>present to us also beyond anything our ancestors could have predicted.
>And in the face of the fact that we must be eternally vigilant and
>careful while those that would do us harm need only get lucky once.
I'm not sure "lucky" is quite the word to describe at least this recent situation we've been talking about. Let me quote from an article by Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, which can be found here:
Writes Murray:
The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.
There's more, but you get the idea.
>I
>am, and I believe an overwhelming percentage of the traveling public
>are, willing to accept some inconvenience.
Of course you are. But why? My suspicion is because, at base, many people do not look at themselves as "free men" (and women) but as people who must negotiate with their own government for the rights *already* guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Do the following words have a familiar ring to them?:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
>We are not talking about
>people missing flights or being jailed. We are talking about random
>searches that anyone might be selected for. We are talking about a
>process that is well known and travelers are aware of well in advance.
>Precautions that in the face of the type of threats and nature of the
>potential outcomes are not unreasonable to me at all. I am far less
>worried about what a possible terrorist might smuggle on board as I am
>concerned about what a trained individual might do with what you or I
>bring onboard. Common everyday items that could easily be converted
>into flammable and explosive mixtures or airborne toxins. These things
>are easy to do with many of the items recently banned from carry on
>luggage.
Which brings me to yet another article from the British press, which seems to have much more on the ball than do the American media these days. This article can be found here:
Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
[snip]
Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?
We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane.
[snip]
Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.
First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.
Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.
[snip]
Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.
After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.
There's more, but you get the idea.
[snip]
>I also would not
>argue that many the current threats we face were certainly spawned by
>our (current and previous) political and functional errors which have
>fueled the frenzy that threatens us. For me this all the more suggests
>the need to be even more vigilant than ever before. And yes to address
>the causes in hopes of a future lessening of the dangers. But a return
>to the free unchecked ways of the past. The potential danger of that
>would truly scare me and I believe most people given an objective view
>of the various points of the debate.
The problem is, Americans haven't been "given an objective view of the various points of the debate." They've been incessantly propagandized to by the government and the theocrats, and asked to use their "common sense" in situations where they A) don't know all (or a sufficient number of) the facts, and B) "common sense" doesn't provide the expertise to deal with them.
I feel almost as if I should apologize for putting a damper on all this "terrorist" rhetoric whose sole intention appears to be to elect (or re-elect) more Republicans in November, but sadly, politics IS my life ... You'd think a pornographer could get *a little more* sex into it ...
