General News

Tomgram: Stephan Salisbury, Politics in the Terrordome, 2011

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (23 fans)
- Advertisement -

This story originally appeared at TomDispatch.com.

To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.

Here in the United States of Fear, official voices are again rising in a remarkable crescendo of hysteria.

My advice: don't even try getting on the subway car filled with American politicians and their acolytes accusing WikiLeaks and Julian Assange of terrorist activity.  It's already standing room only.  Among those who have recently spoken out:  Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell ("I think the man is a high-tech terrorist"); former speaker of the House and possible 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich ("information terrorism" [Assange] should be treated as an enemy combatant"); Republican Congressman Peter King, the next head of the House Homeland Security Committee (""asked the Obama administration today to "determine whether WikiLeaks could be designated a foreign terrorist organization'"); former Republican Senator and possible 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum ("We haven't gone after this guy, we haven't tried to prosecute him, we haven't gotten our allies to go out and lock this guy up and bring him up on terrorism charges, because what he's doing is terrorism, in my opinion."); Fox News host, Iran-Contra figure, and bestselling author Oliver North ("This is an act of terrorism. It's information terrorism instead of a bomb going off in Times Square, but it's still terrorism.") 

And that's just to skim the (s)cream off the top of the terror accusations boiling out of this Congress and Republican presidential ranks.  It's quite a brew, especially when you add in senators like Joe Lieberman and Diane Feinstein calling for Assange to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 and figures like Sarah Palin calling for him to simply be taken out as a terrorist, pure and simple ("Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?")

Here, however, is a small catch.  If this is "terrorism," a question arises (or at least should arise): Who has been terrorized?  Who exactly has been terrified by the recent WikiLeaks releases of, so far, more than 1,000 State Department documents, some going back decades?  The answer, I think, is clear enough -- not the American people, but the Washington elite who have, in these last years, put in place a version of secrecy so wide-ranging that most of the government's significant operations abroad (and many at home) have been cast into the shadows beyond the sightlines of the voters in this supposed democracy. 

Within the penumbra of spreading secrecy, that elite, sometimes aided and abetted by the mainstream media, has acted with remarkable impunity in invading other countries, kidnapping"suspects" off the streets of global cities, secretly imprisoning under catch-all categories, and torturing, abusing, or even murdering those believed to be terrorists, or at least opposed to Washington's desires.  At the same time, they have been moving to lock down this country in ever more severe (and expensive) ways.  So for them, it may indeed feel like a genuinely terrifying experience to see any aspect of that secrecy removed, to discover yet again that what they thought they controlled was not really theirs to control. 

And don't think it's just a matter of Julian Assange or WikiLeaks in the gun sights either.  The Espionage Act of 1917, under which Assange may be charged, was a classic suppressive response to antiwar opposition during World War I.  It remains dangerous.  Prosecuting Assange under it or any other terror statute would indeed prove an ominous development.  It would have -- and I'm not one for throwing around totalitarian analogies -- a distinctly Soviet feel to it. 

- Advertisement -

Julian Assange may be the one they are coming after right now, but he's unlikely to prove the end of it.  After all, if you're the next one to give them a fright, you, too, could be declared a terrorist or an enemy combatant (even if you do work for the New York Times).  TomDispatch regular Stephan Salisbury, author of Mohamed's Ghosts: An American Story of Love and Fear in the Homeland, has for some years been reporting on the way "terror" has entered the American bloodstream.  Let him tell you what's in store for 2011.  Tom

Terrorama
The Next Congress Will See Terror in Everything
By Stephan Salisbury

There are some things to be thankful for.

The woman who puzzled over Hispanics in her audience of high-school students and suggested they looked "Asian" was defeated in her run for the Senate in Nevada. The guy who called Islam a cult was knocked out of the Kentucky gubernatorial race. The bizarre candidate who threatened to "take out" a reporter was brushed aside in his bid for the governorship of New York.

Despite the electoral failures of Sharron Angle, Ron Ramsey, Carl Paladino, and a host of others inhabiting what used to be America's political peripheries, the next Congress will have a decidedly fringy tone.  No wonder the wilder types already there are looking forward to the January 2011 legislative session with such relish: so many investigations crying out to be launched; so many dictators and thugs still hanging on in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela; terrorism in the streets of Portland; foreign terrorists flocking to America; secret government documents splayed across the front pages of our newspapers.

- Advertisement -

They wonder if the U.S. hasn't simply become a pitiful, helpless giant. But the rest of us ought to wonder just what kind of politics is going to grow in the strange, rich Petri dish of the new Congress.

Consider just one area that will be a major focus of Congressional interest: immigration, an issue that will gain potency as it melds into the rhetoric of terror.

Foreigners and terrorists: Really, what's the difference? That the nation has grown and prospered precisely because of adaptive immigration is beside the point, an obvious reflection of someone caught in the old mindset of the September 10th world. Interestingly, though, only about 8% of those who cast ballots in the 2010 election cited immigration concerns as their primary motivator.  Of those who did, however, nearly 70% were Republicans.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and, most recently, the author of Mission Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Tomgram: Nick Turse, Uncovering the Military's Secret Military

Christian Parenti: Big Storms Require Big Government

Andy Kroll: Flat-Lining the Middle Class

Noam Chomsky: A Rebellious World or a New Dark Age?

Noam Chomsky, Who Owns the World?

Rebecca Solnit: Why the Media Loves the Violence of Protestors and Not of Banks

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments