The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> The uses of fear by: Haytham Bahoora

The uses of fear by: Haytham Bahoora

Posted by Jeffrey (Guest) - Saturday, August 8 2009, 9:28:45 (CEST) from 69.14.30.71 - d14-69-71-30.try.wideopenwest.com Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla Website: Website title:

The uses of fear New York City's predictable response to reported terrorist threats against its subway system is not only cosmetic, but symptomatic of larger American failures, writes Haytham Bahoora Last week's reported terrorist threats against New York City's subway system were met with a visible increase in police presence throughout the city's extensive underground system. Despite doubts about the credibility of the threat voiced by the United States Department of Homeland Security, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg acted swiftly by increasing not only the number of police officers patrolling subway stations, but also doubling the number of random searches conducted on subway passengers and their possessions. While federal and city officials debate the significance and legitimacy of the recent threat, the political context and ramifications of the heightened state of alert have been, unsurprisingly, ignored by the mainstream American media. Republican Mayor Bloomberg is currently campaigning for re-election next month against Democratic challenger Fernando Ferrer, and his re-election efforts will certainly not be hurt by appearing to be a strong leader, confidently and effectively leading a robust effort to protect the fearful citizens of New York. While Bloomberg may legitimately feel that he had no choice but to mobilise thousands of police officers to mill about the city's subway stations in a cosmetic show of force, the real questions about the alleged threat are the ones not being asked. When will the threat end? Next week? Next month? Next year? Are we to expect an increased police presence conducting random searches of passengers for the foreseeable future, or simply until the mayoral election has passed (with a Bloomberg victory, of course)? What evidence, beyond the uncorroborated description of a possible attack, by an Iraqi informant, led officials to assess that this "threat" was greater than previous threats? The universally ignored piece of information that the geographic origin of the current threat, Iraq, did not become a threat until the Bush administration's illegal invasion and occupation, is perhaps the most potent evidence that the US government policy in its "war on terror" has created instability and chaos in places where they did not exist before, making the world, and the US, less secure. The irony of a terrorist threat led by cells of individuals originating in Iraq, of all places, must not be ignored. The collapse of the Iraqi state, and the use of Iraq by the US as a staging ground, in addition to Afghanistan, to fight a never-ending war against an unseen and always proliferating enemy, is further evidence of the bankruptcy of US policy in Iraq, and more broadly in its entire "war on terror". That nobody has dared make the observation that prior to the US invasion, Iraq had no history of producing "terrorist" cells, and indeed, that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, indicates the collective amnesia governing the sub-standard reporting of the mainstream American media. The media, participating in the production and use of fear by local and federal government officials, has contributed to stifling dissent and mobilising support for strengthening police and state intervention, both at home and abroad. The problem with declaring a terrorist threat against an unknown and unseen enemy is precisely that the methods used to "secure" the city will do nothing to deter any terrorist intent on carrying out his/her plans, and instead may lead to increased violations of the constitutional rights of subway passengers. A lawsuit filed last year by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) argues precisely that in the absence of individualised suspicion, individuals retain the right to move about freely, without police intrusion. In other words, by conducting its random searches on individuals who have exhibited no suspicious activity, the New York Police Department is in clear violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution, which protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by government agencies. While the NYCLU, the New York branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), lawsuit argues that random searches of passengers are an ineffective deterrent against terrorist acts and, in effect, a meaningless security tactic, it has paradoxically garnered the support of many conservatives, who argue that targeted searches of specific groups, enabled by the Patriot Act, are a far more effective way to combat terrorists than random searches of 80-year- old Caucasian grandmothers. The logic then, is that young Arab and Middle Eastern males, or those who resemble them, are the obvious, and justifiable, targets of scrutiny. In effect, what conservatives and their allies have been arguing unabashedly is that minority groups, certainly Arabs, but also other dark skinned men, and perhaps women, are reasonable suspects whose civil liberties are expendable in the effort to protect the rights of the majority (white) population. The racist logic is obvious, however, in the new America of colour-coded terrorism warnings issued by the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security, the mobilisation of fear by government agencies to enact policies that violate the civil rights of individuals is seen by many as an acceptable and inevitable tactic, and one far more preferable than imposing random searches on unsuspecting groups that do not "look" like terrorists. While racial profiling of African Americans is an American tradition, embedded in the psychology of the American police department, the enlargement of groups under scrutiny to include Arabs, and anyone resembling them, should serve as a warning that the erosion of constitutionally protected civil rights will continue as long as the veracity of "terrorist threats" are not interrogated, and challenges to the legality of federal and local government security measures are not made. The real question to be asked is whether safety can be measured by a simple increase in the physical presence of police officers who have the impossible task of securing at least 468 subway stations and monitoring 4.5 million daily passengers. The answer, of course, is that Mayor Bloomberg's heroic attempts to protect New York subway passengers will do nothing of the sort. They will, however, further deflect attention from the reasons behind the alleged threats -- the many foreign policy failures of the Bush administration. --------------------- - BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic: No replies.

Content-length: 7057 Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Accept-encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-language: en-us,en;q=0.5 Connection: keep-alive Cookie: *hidded* Host: www.insideassyria.com Keep-alive: 300 Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?.INXz. User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13

Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9