74
all 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Encromion@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

And privacy rollbacks through the disasterous patriot act! In reality it was a longstanding wishlist of cop and law enforcement intrusions on the populace that would never otherwise have been enacted. Warrantless searches and wiretaps! Intrusive scans! Data sharing leading to leakage and being prosecuted for crimes unrelated to the warrant!

The passage of the patriot act is the reason that, in my heart of hearts, I can't completely dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theories. 96% I can, but 4% I look at the patriot act and the wars and I go "hmmm".

[-] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

Yep. 9/11 was a golden opportunity for people in government who had been warmongering and fearmongering. Dick Cheney (who was SecDef under Bush I) and Donald Rumsfeld (who was SecDef under Ford and Bush II) were absolutely clamoring throughout the 90s for going back to the Middle East for war. We also had Biden who had co-authored an Omnibus bill in the mid 90s that he'd been trying to push through that was the prototype for the Patriot Act. And 9/11 served up the opportunity for all of them to get exactly what they wanted. They may not have planned it or orchestrated it, but they were absolutely happy to pounce on it as an excuse for driving civil rights back to the stone age.

[-] sic_1@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Public flights have become unbearably obnoxious ever since.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I've read conspiracy theories that they knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen so they would have an excuse to usher in their new world order. Given the sweeping overreach, and un-American changes after the events, I can't dismiss those claims.

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Patriot Act and other laws with provision for invasive surveillance didn't come out of nowhere. There are officials and/or lobbies who have always argued for more surveillance in the name of security. They have proposals on standby, and are waiting for opportunities to turn these into laws.

When an attack do happen, these people are going to push their proposal, present them as the solution. It doesn't mean they had anything to do with the attack. I assume people who wrote the Patrick Act are genuinely looking to avoid terrorist attacks, but their solution isn't effective nor right.

this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
74 points (100.0% liked)

Socialism

2843 readers
5 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.


Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS