Re: a little something worth noting . . .

--- dep <[email protected]> wrote:
> begin  Michael Grimborounis's  quote:
> 
> | > look at the archives of this list for the items posted by
> | > andreas. andreas walks a free man.
> |
> | Others however don't, and we can not tell for sure they deserve it
> 
> true. and you have no evidence one way or the other. the evidence on 
> which we *can* draw, though, suggests that they are with some 
> evidence suspected of having done things worse than those which 
> people who are walking free have done.
> 
What evidence are you talking about? The issue here is that some people
are being held prisoners without any evidence whatsoever, without even
an explanation, any suspicion even, ever presented for public scrutiny.
Unless of course you have inside information we lack.

> | The US would have to allow the world to be a freer place, for
> | things to start getting better...
> 
> how has the u.s. prevented your bring free? where has the u.s. 
> decreased rather than increased freedom? certainly not greece.
> -- 
> dep
> 
Today happens to be a sad anniversary. It was the 21st of April, 1967,
when Greece was the victim of a military coup. The elected government
was overthrown by a dictatorship. This regime terrorized Greece for 7
years, before being overthrown. Many bad things befell Greece due to
this evil regime. That dictatorship could not even exist without the
support of the US. Of course, the US has many a time given full support
to evil dictators in order to overthrow legally elected governments
with unfavorable political views, but this was a European first. I
won't be going into any more details, this is history and anyone can
look it up, you can find a few pages in English I presume. Just for the
anniversary...

Returning to the present, however, we can find plenty of cases to
support the opinion the US is actively limiting freedom in Europe (I
would like to keep things general here, but all situations apply to
Greece, and even more so since it is not one of the largest or
strongest European countries).

Apart from DMCA-style laws mentioned by dan, the US has actively used
all its influence to "convince" many European governments that passing
stricter anti-terrorist laws is "the right thing", openly stating that
not doing so will be regarded as supporting terrorism. While no one in
their right mind would ever support terrorism, there are many concerns
about the so-called "war on terrorism." "Terrorist" is a very loose
term. It is often adopted by anyone trying to justify a (mostly
wrongful) fight against a political, social or ethnic group that
threatens their interests. The US has clearly demonstrated how
"terrorist" could include parties just wanting to change the political
situation in their own countries, even if such parties included the
vast majority of a country's populace, and even if that party used
means as legal as a proper election by all citizens of age.

It would then come as no surprise that this term could include people
stating political opinions outside the mainstream, or seeking to
protect their country from exploitation of its physical resources, or
opposing a depressing, but favorable to the US government and US
financial interests, regime. After all, a man can be hanged for saying
SHELL has no right to destroy their country to steal its oil. (Oil
seems to find itself in many wars against terrorism nowadays, doesn't
it?) It seems that all countries are systematically passing laws that
limit all freedoms deriving from constitutional - and even basic human
- rights, based on a simple claim that the given individual is a
"terrorist", a claim however that needs no justification and no
supporting evidence. Guess who started it all.

While measures as extreme as violently overthrowing a legal government
are now regarded as not tactful, at least for European countries, the
US government has actively supported the demonizing of people whose
views are either leftist or activist, and in fact anyone who would
protest against policies actively supported by the US, such as anti-war
protests, anti-internationalization protests etc. It is worth noting
that many of these policies are used in a one-way manner by the US. For
example, while global markets are advertised as a means of achieving
global welfare, they are in fact promptly violated whenever they don't
suit the US commerce.

Coupled with stricter control of the public, US is exerting its full
pressure to get the cooperation of the EU in collecting personal data
on EU citizens, even though it is, according to EU laws, illegal for
any party to distribute or process such data without prior consent by
the persons concerned. (google around to learn about EU being forced to
grant the US access to private passenger data collected by European
companies, as part of an airline ticket booking system, for all flights
to the US.)

Of course, the Sklyarov case clearly demonstrated the US has no regard
for international law, as it regards its laws to be enforceable to all
people all over the world. Even if one has never violated a US law
within any US territory, or committed any crime in any place of the
world, as in not doing anything in violation of a country's laws while
present at that country, and not violating any of their own country's
laws while at any place, one can be arrested in the US. Well, one can
be arrested in the US for no reason at all, so this should be a trifle.

Setting up an international network, known as ECHELON, to intercept
communications worldwide, and using such information for such good
causes as industrial espionage (in favor of US companies of course)
will give you another idea. After all, intercepting, storing and
analyzing all communications, even if they do not constitute part of
illegal transactions and could not constitute material covering a legal
investigation, is again a clear indication of how strongly the US is
pursuing freedom all over the world.

All in all, no, the US has explicitly reduced my freedom here in
Greece. And the fact that, at least at this time, I am not a direct
target of an illegal attack against my rights does not mean that I must
not protest - now, because later could be too late...

--
"They first came for the communists and I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak
up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't
speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and there
was no one left to speak up." Rev. Martin Niemvller

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.