|
This has been going on and on and on.
As an activist, and someone who for some significant time now has been 'escorted', harassed and had both property and privacy invasions for apparently nothing more than my opposition to the policies of the Bush Administration, I have to wonder if this late night flying of helicopters is a type of conditioning to create fear and mistrust?
Of course by writing this, it sadly seems I am inviting an adverse response that would simply affirm the helicopters flying over head in Dolby sound, as they were tonight.
Of course any excuse can essentially be created to justify the circling these days, so that is what inevitably makes us all remain silent in speaking out against what seems to have become an overusage of helicopters.
Those of us who question their overall need may then be cast as scapegoats, or "flaming liberals" versus citizens who have experienced harassment and are feeling unsafe from the helicopters that are deemed to be protective.
And then of course situations come any situations created where people will then want helicopters to fly overhead.
I am the first person to advocate good protection.
However who's to say what is legitimate protection versus illegitimate assault on innocent citizens?
I think it warrants more interaction with those in our local police departments, with those of us who are active in the communities and concerned that harassment by government entities is taking place.
A valid question is, is it really necessary to fly a helicopter overhead again and again?
Some would say of course.
Others would say how do we know?
Others would also say they have felt they were being harassed by the helicopters over their house consistently and due to their oppositions to the Bush policies would have license to make such concerns known.
Of course by saying this, it could potentially make others and myself vulnerable to those not happy I am broaching such a subject.
How do we know if there is never any accountability or record of why such a helicopter legitimately took place?
It can be very important to have such surveillance, but how and when do we know it is justified?
That apparently takes participation by citizens.
Will we know if there is a media that creates situations where it seems justified?
Who owns our media these days and how much variation, if ANY, do we even receive?
Is there local media available which is not owned by corporate entities that can educate and inform us as to what is happening immediately in our local region? Very few.
With the amazing ability those within Homeland security and other government entities have to monitor and trace everyone who is "LEGALLY FOUND TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF BEING A POTENTIAL TERRORIST", (whatever that may mean) via computers and via cell phones and how they are equipped in those cars engaging in surveillance, which is questionable in and of itself, then why is it so necessary to continue circling overhead via helicopters?
Another question is what qualifies them to track and trace a person who is classified as a terrorist?
Especially when the Patriot Act essentially allows and could easily be viewed as legislation which promotes planting of evidence and invasions of privacy, and that would and does potentially create assumptions of guilt where there ordinarily would not be any?
|