• Encromion@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    And privacy rollbacks through the disasterous patriot act! In reality it was a longstanding wishlist of cop and law enforcement intrusions on the populace that would never otherwise have been enacted. Warrantless searches and wiretaps! Intrusive scans! Data sharing leading to leakage and being prosecuted for crimes unrelated to the warrant!

    The passage of the patriot act is the reason that, in my heart of hearts, I can’t completely dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theories. 96% I can, but 4% I look at the patriot act and the wars and I go “hmmm”.

    • davehtaylor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep. 9/11 was a golden opportunity for people in government who had been warmongering and fearmongering. Dick Cheney (who was SecDef under Bush I) and Donald Rumsfeld (who was SecDef under Ford and Bush II) were absolutely clamoring throughout the 90s for going back to the Middle East for war. We also had Biden who had co-authored an Omnibus bill in the mid 90s that he’d been trying to push through that was the prototype for the Patriot Act. And 9/11 served up the opportunity for all of them to get exactly what they wanted. They may not have planned it or orchestrated it, but they were absolutely happy to pounce on it as an excuse for driving civil rights back to the stone age.

    • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve read conspiracy theories that they knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen so they would have an excuse to usher in their new world order. Given the sweeping overreach, and un-American changes after the events, I can’t dismiss those claims.

    • Hirom@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Patriot Act and other laws with provision for invasive surveillance didn’t come out of nowhere. There are officials and/or lobbies who have always argued for more surveillance in the name of security. They have proposals on standby, and are waiting for opportunities to turn these into laws.

      When an attack do happen, these people are going to push their proposal, present them as the solution. It doesn’t mean they had anything to do with the attack. I assume people who wrote the Patrick Act are genuinely looking to avoid terrorist attacks, but their solution isn’t effective nor right.