"War On Rights"

Anytime the government declares a "War On..." a thing that is only a concept and not an actual human organization of some kind, watch out! That's when your rights are likely to be threatened. In your mind simply call it a "War on Rights" because sure as hell that's going to be more accurate.

Watched Public Enemies with Johnny Depp a couple weeks ago. Loved it. Watched it twice. Couldn't believe it when J Edgar Hoover used a full-time, professional PR man to go from nothing, with no field experience, to be one of the most powerful men in the U.S.

One of the most effective phrases that he devised with his PR man was "War On Crime." He publicly declared a "War on Crime." Through such subtle but powerful psychological maneuvers Hoover was able to change federal law towards erosion of personal rights, and towards an increase in his and his bureau's (FBI) power.

Which politician would want to be known for standing in the way of the "War On Crime?" The subtle implication is that if you're against the "war on crime" you're FOR CRIME!

Gee, haven't we heard something similar recently??

In recent years we've heard a lot about the "War On Terror." I occasionally read german news outloud, delivered by email in order to keep up with the moderate amount of german I've learned. At the height of Bush's campaign for the "War on Terrorism", the german press correctly referred to it as the "so gennanten Krieg gegen den Terrorismus," translated, "the so-called War on Terror."

You gotta love it. Why couldn't the american press do that??

Just as with Hoover, this subtle psychological tactic meant that if you came out against the "War on Terror" it would imply that you were FOR TERRORISM!! Sean Hannity's (god save us from this man) book title at the time took this tactic to the next level. He called his book, Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism thereby equating terrorists, despots, and liberals!!

I didn't make this up! ...and "no", Sean, you're not a "great american" and none of your callers-in are either, just because they called your show and agreed with you. You're just a devious and dangerous demagogue and an asshole, that uses lies to demonize those who might disagree with you and then dangerously whips up well-meaning people against them by appealing to the absolute worst in them.

What is so insidious about this approach and form of speech is that it doesn't merely represent a man's opinion that gets aired fairly with debate. It's instead a matter of demonizing opponents until they're barely considered human.

By demonizing your opponent, not simply disagreeing with them on the merits, you not only incite hatred but also violence against them. For example, Hitler could not have done what he did to the jews and other races without first demonizing them. Once you demonize a person they are seen by others as essentially in-human, and the usual human sympathies that would protect them go away.

"Terrorists, Despots, and Liberals" Sean???

When the government declares a "war on" something they are implanting the idea that it's an emergency where the normal rules don't apply. How many times have you heard someone complain of things during wartime that were unjust, or inhumane, and in response heard, "well we're in a war!" Most of us still seem to think that once "war" is declared, pretty much anything goes. This is what Bush and others wanted.

By using the term "war" they basically say, "this is such an emergency that we need to not let these little pesky laws and rights get in the way. We're dealing with EVIL people here!!"

Another phrase that's used a lot now in the schools and legal systems to implant in the minds of the people that there's such an emergency that normal rules or fair procedures don't apply is "zero tolerance." That's how we get things like some high school kid expelled from school for bringing a friggin key chain.

Normal rules of fairness don't apply remember? It's "a war" or it's "zero tolerance."

What! Do illegal wire-tapping to listen to the private conversations of private citizens?? Hoover sure as hell did it under the banner of "The War On Crime." Recently we learned the extent that the Bush administration took illegal wiretapping to a whole other level under the excuse of "the War on Terror". They basically listened-in wholesale to the personal calls of many thousands of random americans.

Besides when you're at war with an abstract concept it's only metaphorical. You can't literally go out with armored tanks and hit...well, "drugs" or "terror" or "poverty" or "crime." You can't take down an abstract concept, a platonic ideal, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST EXCEPT IN YOUR MIND. "Terrorism" is a man-made concept, an idea. You can't have a war against an idea. You might try to prosecute the people responsible for specific acts of terrorism, but terrorism itself is unreacheable. I take that back. We know where it is. It's in the fucking dictionary!

And again, who wants to be seen as against "The War On [fill-in the blank with some evil thing]".

(The formerly ubiquitous bumper stickers that read "Support Our Troops" used this kind of tactic. The implication was that if you didn't support Bush's War in Iraq you were AGAINST THE TROOPS! Amazing.)

Are you aware that through the Military Commissions Act Bush literally gave the federal government the power to arrest any U.S. citizen, deny them knowledge of the charges against them, deny them right to an attorney, and hold them indefinitely??? All they have to do is classify you as an "unlawful combatant." This act literally takes away the right of habeus corpus. It would be hard to deliver the alarm better then Keith Olberman did in his piece where he takes on the Military Commissions Act and declares it to be The Beginning of the End. Only about eight minutes long, all should see it.

Oftentimes during actual war the right of habeus corpus is suspended, but during a so-called "War On Terror?" Pleaz.

You can't measure victory in a so-called war when it's against an abstract concept. What will constitute "victory" in the "War on Drugs" for example? How about the "War on Terror?" It's impossible to define "victory." This makes it even more useful to those in power because it gives them the ability to sustain their power as long as they wish. All they have to do is keep sustaining or declaring the so-called "war."

Fear is a key ingredient. The more insidious they can paint the common enemy, the more fear will be instilled in the people, and hence the more power the people will be willing to give their leaders. Fear is an important aspect of this strategy.

Remember the terrorist threat levels (by color) we kept hearing about under Bush? I'll paraphrase a typical news report of the time: "Today due to some unknown information that we can't be sure about the Bush administration has raised the threat level to orange." (Click here for a pretty good 2009 review of this system.) Did you know that we're still officially in "yellow", which means basically there's a significant risk of terrorist attacks? No shit? There's also a significant risk of getting in a car accident, being robbed, getting hit by a tornado or earthquake, and a whole lot more. So why the level? Hmmmm. I can't come up with any reason they kept putting out these levels other than to continually plant fear in our minds so the Bush administration could continue to increase their power and continue the War in Iraq.

(Update 9/4/2009: the former head of Homeland Security at the time now says in his book the threats were for political purposes.)

So next time the people that run our government declare a "war on" any abstract concept please watch out! It is probably only an attempt to instill fear in you, to instill a sense of emergency in you, in order to get you to give up more of your rights and allow them to basically do whatever the hell they want.

-Forsyth