Skip to main content

View Diary: Narcissism, Conspiracy Theory and the Edward Snowden Affair (229 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you're going to worry about semantics (8+ / 0-)

    then I'd seriously be much more worried about the vagueness of these phrases:

    Prior authorization by the President is impossible
    and
    duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation
    Both of these are open to broad interpretations, whereas "civil disturbance" is, I think, at least minimally understood.

    But again, I'm just not inclined to make this a top worry. Because if the military wants to take over, then we're fucked. Period. End of story. And they're not going to announce it ahead of time, and no quibbling over semantics is going to stop them. On the other hand, the fact that they haven't taken over yet remains a very good sign, in my book.

    I think I'll worry more about a 200-foot meteor landing on my city. It's probably less likely than a coup, but I could do more about it if it were to happen.

    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

    by Nowhere Man on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:08:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Good luck to you with both the meteor and the coup (5+ / 0-)
    •  Why bother with a coup? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      katiec, Demeter Rising, 3goldens

      Does the establishment not get anything it wants already?

      Media?
      Military?
      Monetary Policy?
      Secrecy?
      Political Legitimacy?

      The coup already happened.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 07:40:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're mostly correct, in that the subversion (5+ / 0-)

        of democracy has likely already occurred.  The military's ability to enter the arena easily without state or local approval is all about containment.  They only need to do that a small number of times before open dissent would be pushed underground.  Once people have seen others experiencing the full weight of the state, as I said in the post, most will retreat to their cocoon of game shows and TV dinners.

      •  That may be so (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        In which case, again, the worry over the military's plans is misplaced.

        Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that everything is hunky-dory. I may have been a fringe member of the Occupy movement, but I did (do) consider myself a member. My point is that this particular issue -- whether the military is, by way of some new rules recently set out, planning to play an increased role in controlling the U.S. population -- this is at best a distraction from the real issues, and/or the issues that we stand any chance of doing anything about.

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:37:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As an OWS protester, you may find this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lostinamerica, 3goldens

          interesting, and it is tangentially related to this topic,  In this case it looks like private contractor Craft, (controversy surrounds their presence at the Boston Marathon as well), was involved.  

          Would you be shocked to learn that the FBI apparently knew that some organization, perhaps even a law enforcement agency or private security outfit, had contingency plans to assassinate peaceful protestors in a major American city — and did nothing to intervene?

          Would you be surprised to learn that this intelligence comes not from a shadowy whistle-blower but from the FBI itself – specifically, from a document obtained from Houston FBI office last December, as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Washington, DC-based Partnership for Civil Justice Fund?

          To repeat: this comes from the FBI itself. The question, then, is: What did the FBI do about it?

          http://whowhatwhy.com/...

          •  I saw that when Naomi Wolf's article ran (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego, Inland

            in the Guardian. I don't remember the details, and I'm not going to dig through it again, but I saw a more benign explanation: the FBI was tipped off to these plans, and knew that they'd have to keep an eye on things, but had nothing actionable that they could react to. In other words, there has to be more evidence of an imminent threat before the government is allowed to act. That's they way we want our government to work, isn't it? The fact that no OWS protester was assassinated is either our great good luck, or further evidence that there was no concrete plan in action to assassinate anyone. I lean toward the latter, at least until more evidence arises to suggest that I'm wrong.

            I really did read through the entire FOIA dump that Naomi Klein was working from in her article. In almost all cases, I saw the FBI worried about OWS becoming something other than the peaceful demonstration that it generally was; and I saw them genuinely worried about protecting OWS demonstrators from harm from outside agitators. In sum, it looked to me like the FBI was mostly doing its job.

            Again, I don't deny the possibility that something more nefarious is going on. But I don't tend to pick the nefarious explanation as the best explanation when there are others that appear to be at least as well-founded.

            Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

            by Nowhere Man on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:02:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site