Is the Government Exaggerating the Threat of Terror for Political Purposes? → Washingtons Blog
Is the Government Exaggerating the Threat of Terror for Political Purposes? - Washingtons Blog

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Is the Government Exaggerating the Threat of Terror for Political Purposes?

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security - Janet Napolitano - just told congress that the U.S. might be facing the greatest threat of terrorist attacks since 9/11:

And in some ways, the threat today may be at its most heightened state since the attacks nearly 10 years ago.

We should be afraid ... right?

Well, as I've repeatedly noted, FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials "were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power".

Indeed, the former Secretary of Homeland Security - Tom Ridge - admits that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.

Given that so many have said that terror warnings have been used for political purposes, is it possible that the current warnings about heightened threats are also politically motivated?

Well, Congress is currently voting on whether or not to renew the Patriot Act.

There is a lot of opposition to renewing the Patriot Act (and see this) and so - if people were going to use terrorism fearmongering for a political purpose - this would be a logical time to use it.

Indeed, fearmongering has been connected with Patriot Act extensions before.

Specifically, in 2006 - only hours after sensors in a U.S. Senate office building detected a nerve agent - key Senators suddenly reversed direction and announced a capitulation to the White House's demands on the renewal and expansion of the Patriot Act.

And when Congress was originally asked to pass the Patriot Act in late 2001, the anthrax attacks which occurred only weeks earlier were falsely blamed on spooky Arabs as a way to scare Congress members into approving the bill. Specifically:
Indeed, many people have questioned whether or not the anthrax was intentionally sent to scare people. For example:
  • Senator Patrick Leahy said:
And I think there are people within our government -- certainly from the source of it -- who know where it came from. [Taps the table to let that settle in] And these people may not have had anything to do with it, but they certainly know where it came from.
  • The American bioweapons expert who actually drafted the current bioweapons law (the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989), who holds a doctorate of law magna cum laude and a Ph.D. in political science, both from Harvard University, and teaches international law at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, served on
    the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-92) and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court, and who "advised the FBI in its initial investigation of the anthrax letters", is convinced that the anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government. The motive: to foment a police state by killing off and intimidating opposition to post-9/11 legislation such as the Patriot Act and the later Military Commissions Act. He has said:

    Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy were holding it up because they realized what this would lead to. The first draft of the PATRIOT Act would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus [which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment and guarantees due process of law]. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, come these anthrax attacks.

Remember, the government now admits that the anthrax was made in a government lab by government personnel (although the government's theory about who did it doesn't match the facts).

Whether or not the anthrax was actually mailed as a false flag attack, it is clear that it was used to drum up fear.

The bottom line is that fear of terrorism makes people stupid, and so we should at least question whether the government is selling fear for political purposes.


  1. The bottom line is that fear of terrorism makes people stupid, and so we should at least question whether the government is selling fear for political purposes.

    Yes and we seem to have more than normal number of stupid people here in Amerika.

  2. Of course the US government is and has for the past 10.5 years at least, exaggerated the threat of "terror". It is doing its best to ensure that the majority of USers continue to view it as "necessary", therefore maintaining and even growing the sizes and numbers of various enforcement agencies. And of course there is the instilling in the minds of current and would-be enforcers that their jobs are "necessary", that they are "protecting" while what they are really doing is initiating physical force on large numbers of people.

    However a slowly increasing numbers of people are getting their news information from other than the MSM that mostly repeats the government leadership line with little if any questions as to the validity of statements made. And therefore a slowly growing number of people do not accept he government leadership line that there is a terrorist behind every bush/tree/door/etc. And some even have come to realize that it is the US governments actions around the world that have the most negative effect on the safety of USers traveling abroad or even in their own country.

    The US government will probably also increase its efforts to "uncover" terrorist plots, parading some poor simple fools and demonstrating how it has "saved" the populace from harm...

    Well, my response is to have nothing to do with government enforcers and encourage others to do likewise - shun individuals who are willing to initiate physical harm-doing. Without enforcers, all the legislations/edicts/mandates/laws/etc are nothing but words. The fewer government enforcers there are, the less harm governments can do.

  3. I agree that fear-mongering is being used for political gain in the United States.. here is some proof:

    A recorded phone conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and a top military analyst, released under the freedom information act:


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.