Letters to the Editor
-
Chilling effect
Slate has an article today by Erich Lichtbau about the NYTimes decision to delay (and almost not publish) the article on the government's secret domestic spying program. What's striking is that Lichtbau says the Times was worried about harming US anti-terrorism efforts, and characterizes criticism of the delay in publication as leftist. What he doesn't say is whether the Times had any qualms about the negative effects the government program might have on legitimate protest domestically, and whether that might be a reason to publish.
I mention that here because within weeks of 9/11 the government saw an opportunity to expand "terrorism" to include environmental protest. Bush even used vaguer language at times to say that any activities that might destabilize the economy might be terrorism. I suspect very strongly that there was a range of dirty tricks that may eventually come to light, including the use of domestic spying to monitor activist groups under the cover of preventing terrorism.
The convictions that the feds have gotten may or may not be legitimate. They may have gotten the actual arsonists or not. But there has definitely been a feeling of federal creepiness and monitoring even among those who would never destroy property or take lives, but who do have concerns about the environment. Not only have nonviolent people been harassed by the feds and other law enforcement agencies, it has become harder to get information on facilities that pollute or may pose environmental risks. And, unlike the situation in the sixties, if you are wrongfully thrown in jail today you are looking at a long hard time with limited appeals.
Where are our leaders? Where is the media?