Since 9/11, the word Terrorist has been used by the media more than ever. Of course this could be because there are many, many more terrorists around these days… the other possibility is that the media is sensationalising the news in order gain readership/viewers.
Some people have a different take on the situation however. Many feel that the US government is using the term ‘terrorist’ to create and maintain a ‘climate of fear’ that enables them to pass laws that remove or reduce civil liberties… laws that they would not normally get away with passing.
Often people that oppose these laws are accused of being ‘un patriotic’ – Indeed, the very name of one of the most controversial of these laws is in actual fact the ‘Patriot Act’.**
This act seemingly strips away many of America’s civil liberties and much of it's constitution. Naming the piece of legislation the ‘Patriot Act’ is perhaps a cunning move then. – Who would oppose a ‘Patriotic’ Piece of legislation. To say that the naming of this act was carefully planned to psychologically impede people wishing to protest against it may, on the surface, seem far fetched, but make no mistake, politicians choose their words carefully!
The USA seems to be turning more and more into a police state, with reduced civil liberties, increased state monitoring of its citizens, and reputed ‘torture’ of the inmates of Guantanamo Bay.
When we hear the word Terrorist these days, how many of us feel a sense of panic and fear, rather than stop to actually think about the meaning of that word? – The Oxford compact Dictionary gives this meaning of the word ‘Terrorist’: (• noun) a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Looking at America’s treatment of both its own people, and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, some may say that if the American establishment were a person, it would fall into the Oxford Dictionaries definition of a terrorist. Does this make it a terrorist organisation?
I do not want to come over as pro terrorist, or even soft on terrorists, I am not. I just feel that if terrorism is wrong, it is wrong no matter who is carrying it out. Whether that be a suicide bomber attacking a tube station in England, or a US soldier terrorising an inmate of the Abu Ghraib facility.
Once all the mayhem caused by the awful terrorist attacks of 9/11 have died down, do all the civil liberty reducing laws that have been passed since seem worthwhile? – Some may say that this is the real reason for the constant state of terror portrayed by the state and the media.
So long as the risk of terrorism constantly threatens the existence of our soicety as we know it, and the only hope of defeating the terrorists is to trust our government, and allow them to remove some of our most sacred civil liberties and human rights, we are less likely to protest against the new laws that are being passed.
The problem that I have with this is even if I trusted the current government enough to feel comfortable surrendering civil liberties to them (which I don’t!) – Once we surrender these rights, will we ever get them back? What sort of a society will we be left with, and what will future leaderships use these powers for?
It is a very dangerous path we tread at this moment in time, not just because of the terrorists, but the freedom of our children is, in more ways than one, very much under threat.
---------
** The official line on the reason the name Patriot Act was used, is that it is an Acronym, sanding for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).
