![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
First, let me state quite plainly: I am not advocating violence, the violent overthrow of anything, or anything other than a thought experiment. Right? I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'.
So.
I don't trust Our Appointed Government any farther than I could throw the Enterprise (any of them, from the early 18th century 6th-rate through the Big E and onwards to the NCC-1701E). And given the way they've been eroding our already-thin Constitutional liberties, I don't know that they need do anything more than win (or steal) the next election to be able to impose whatever they want on our suffering backs. Hell, look at what they've gotten away with this term, with the prospect of ShrubCo having to face an election battle looming ever nearer.
But then I recall the pResident-Select saying, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." (Source: CNN interview, 12/18/2000. And I look at the way other dictatorships made their final moves, and I got to wondering.
All it would really take would be one more major "terrorist" attack, hitting some significant target at a critical juncture, and BushCroft would have their excuse to impose martial law, suspend civil liberties "for the duration of the National Emergency", and cancel the November 2004 election.
Let's suppose for purposes of this discussion only that there's some deep black-ops dirty-tricks department buried somewhere in the government, answerable only to BushCo. I'm not saying there is such a group, just wondering out loud. And let's suppose that this group's mandate was to "create" public outrage at whatever group of "terrorists" we're currently demonizing. Not unlike the FBI's old COINTELPRO program, the CIA's Operation CHAOS, or especially the Defense Department's Operation Northwoods, wherein "terrorist"-like attacks would have been perpetrated against innocent citizens to foment popular support for a 1960's war on Cuba. Of course, nothing like that could ever be done today, what with our ever-vigilant watchdog media on constant alert.
So I was at a Meetup for Howard Dean last night, and one of the topics of discussion was the entire nomination process, which culminates in the Democratic National Convention in Boston, some time in August 2004. And I got to musing about what possible "terrorist" act might simultaneously eliminate BushCo's most vocal opponents while yielding maximum public outcry and minimum resistance to "whatever it takes to overcome The Terrorist Menace™" particularly the aforementioned suspension of liberties, imposition of martial law, yadda yadda yadda.
And I couldn't sleep for a long, long time.
I hope I'm only being paranoid. I hope this is only a thought experiment. I hope I'm not being prescient.
But just in case, I'm going to have my bags packed, the car gassed and ready to make a run for the nearest border during the Democratic Convention next summer. Because you just don't really know...
So.
I don't trust Our Appointed Government any farther than I could throw the Enterprise (any of them, from the early 18th century 6th-rate through the Big E and onwards to the NCC-1701E). And given the way they've been eroding our already-thin Constitutional liberties, I don't know that they need do anything more than win (or steal) the next election to be able to impose whatever they want on our suffering backs. Hell, look at what they've gotten away with this term, with the prospect of ShrubCo having to face an election battle looming ever nearer.
But then I recall the pResident-Select saying, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." (Source: CNN interview, 12/18/2000. And I look at the way other dictatorships made their final moves, and I got to wondering.
All it would really take would be one more major "terrorist" attack, hitting some significant target at a critical juncture, and BushCroft would have their excuse to impose martial law, suspend civil liberties "for the duration of the National Emergency", and cancel the November 2004 election.
Let's suppose for purposes of this discussion only that there's some deep black-ops dirty-tricks department buried somewhere in the government, answerable only to BushCo. I'm not saying there is such a group, just wondering out loud. And let's suppose that this group's mandate was to "create" public outrage at whatever group of "terrorists" we're currently demonizing. Not unlike the FBI's old COINTELPRO program, the CIA's Operation CHAOS, or especially the Defense Department's Operation Northwoods, wherein "terrorist"-like attacks would have been perpetrated against innocent citizens to foment popular support for a 1960's war on Cuba. Of course, nothing like that could ever be done today, what with our ever-vigilant watchdog media on constant alert.
So I was at a Meetup for Howard Dean last night, and one of the topics of discussion was the entire nomination process, which culminates in the Democratic National Convention in Boston, some time in August 2004. And I got to musing about what possible "terrorist" act might simultaneously eliminate BushCo's most vocal opponents while yielding maximum public outcry and minimum resistance to "whatever it takes to overcome The Terrorist Menace™" particularly the aforementioned suspension of liberties, imposition of martial law, yadda yadda yadda.
And I couldn't sleep for a long, long time.
I hope I'm only being paranoid. I hope this is only a thought experiment. I hope I'm not being prescient.
But just in case, I'm going to have my bags packed, the car gassed and ready to make a run for the nearest border during the Democratic Convention next summer. Because you just don't really know...
