Date: Tue Feb 28 2006 - 12:35:16 EST
Pauls B & Z, I don't think we're really in disagreement, although I can see why Paul B objected to the formulation that "we have to ignore the issue." On the one hand, we need to defend our rights when we have cause to believe that they are being violated. On the other hand, even when we are _aware_ that the state is violating our rights, we can not let them intimidate us into non-activism. This was the same conclusion which my Al-Awda friend drew. S/he had reason to believe that agents had repeatedly searched her/his space, harassed her/his friends, and otherwise attempted to spy on and intimidate her/him. Part of their mission, it seems to me, was to scare her/him into withdrawal from political activism. Obviously they didn't know who they were dealing with! -- my friend is a hardcore, life-long activist and (while s/he watches her/his back more now) s/he's not going to let the state win by retreating into a private, non-activist life. I don't think they recognize sometimes how their harassment can often have the exact opposite consequence of what they intended. In solidarity, Jerry [Paul B wrote] > The point is surely that we must all exeret to the very maximum all of our > legal rights and defend and extend them at all times. Those who live only > vicarious existences cannot be allowed to affect this one iota. [Paul Z wrote] >Your expectations of surveillance are reasonable. But I also remember a >talk many years ago by David Halberstom (sp?) how he was so surprised >that his letters into and out of the Soviet Union was being monitored by > the CIA in a manner he could not detect at the time. Mainly, I think we > have to ignore the issue of being monitored or we'll get nothing > accomplished.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 02 2006 - 00:00:03 EST