Shared publicly  - 
 
Giggle @ Scottish Terrorist and Tent of Mass Destruction. Well, giggle at all of it, really.
1
Danny Welch's profile photoRobert West's profile photoJeremy Skinner's profile photoElizabeth Ronie's profile photo
15 comments
 
It's like the Red Scare of the fifties or the Salem Witch hunt. Except now the word is "terrorist" instead of "commie" or "witch". 
 
At least for now, we can make fun of it. They don't yet label us 'terrorists' just for talking about the stupidity. In both of those situations, if you were even caught discussing it, out you went. To the bonfire or jail or whatever.
 
Wanna bet if someone disliked you enough to report fabricated terrorist activity on you, that it wouldn't make your life hell real quick? Especially since they've pretty much shredded the bill of rights at this point?
 
Sorry Jeremy, but I have to disagree with you, the Bill of Rights has not been shredded. Civil Liberties are in full swing. Look at how long the Occupy movement has been going on, and how many people are involved, vs. the numbers arrested. Without clear public health dangers or criminal nexus, they can protest all they want so long as they do not infringe on others' rights. Also, those are handled locally, not federally as in the Red Scare, so each local government has their own policies. First Amendment Rights are actually really strong right now, as they should be.
 
+Jeremy Skinner Oh yeah. It would suck to be randomly labeled. Has happened to many people. Seems like they usually get hit with it at airports. The powers that be don't have enough info to go on out in the world, but when you step into an airport, it's a totally different situation.They have a different kind of law there.
+Robert West I'm glad protestors are able to voice their concerns. That has not always been the case, even here in the US (think about the "Commies" of the 50's, eh?). I wonder what happens when one of their more outspoken leaders tries to fly, though.
 
I agree that has not always been the case here in the US. I am saying it is more that way now than it was even 10-15 years ago. It matters not how "outspoken" one is, so much as how violent they project themselves to be. The courts are very pro-free speech right now, so unless you can prove the suspect is a real danger to others (as in actually taken steps to act on verbal/written threats), or they are engaged in other criminal activity, they will likely be acquitted. And as the US attorneys see that, they reject un-provable cases. But again, that is at the federal level. Local jurisdictions all have their own laws and policies, which are not necessarily the same.
 
I had a long response typed up but at the end of the day we'll just agree that we disagree. I have my views and opinions and I trust that you guys respect that, but political discussions always make me uneasy. We'll just say I'm a cynic. 
 
Not to mention that even my current profile pic has probably labelled me as a terrorist somewhere even though I'm as far as you could possibly get from the concept. 
 
Jeremy, recall for a minute where I work, and you will realize I have some unique insight into this area...
 
Lol @ your picture. Yep. Total terrorist. Didn't even notice till you said something. Where was that pic taken?
 
I do, but I don't believe that the system in place couldn't be gamed by people with self-serving interests and the power to serve them. The axiom "It's not who you are, it's who you know." is true in every sense and situation. 
 
Picture was taken in my bedroom. Just showing off my image editing skills.
 
Which is why our system is so good. With private media, defense lawyers, appeal process, rights to protest, etc, if some one did try to game the system, there are many opportunities for it to be fixed. But yes, mistakes are always possible, and sometimes we get the wrong guy.
Add a comment...