—-
From: Jeff Bone
(a) “Drugs fund terrorism” [1] (b) “If you fund terrorism, you are a terrorist” [2] (c) “If we even SUSPECT you are a terrorist, the Bill of Right’s doesn’t apply.” [3] — .: (d) Suspected drug users / sellers have no rights.
—-
It this doesn’t worry you, substitute “p2p file sharing” for “drugs.” [4] Or “SUVs.” Or “commuting alone.” [5] (NB: I like Bill Maher, but sometimes he can be an idiot.) For an opposing view on the relationship between drugs and terrorism, see [6] — which makes the case that drug *prohibition* may in fact fund terrorism — or [7] which merely points out the stupidity in [1].
[NB, Aside: the commercials for [1] above annoy the shit out of me; they point out a new tool in the neo-con rhetorical arsenal that’s been getting a lot of play lately. Basically, it goes like this: assert something stringently enough and often enough, and that constitutes proof — even in the absence of any substantiation. “Drugs fund terrorism.” “C’mon, they don’t.” “Yes they do.” “Really?” “Yes.” “Oh, okay.” Grrrrr…. To see the pattern, consider: this is exactly the same rhetorical technique that was tried (and apparently worked, for most of the mindless drones in this country) in justifying the current conflict. “Saddam is involved in terrorism.” “There’s no proof.” “Yes there is.” “Really?” “Yes.” “Oh, okay.” Grrr….]
jb
[1] http://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/product/film_info/0,3699,2419299,00.html [2] http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_11/b3824050.htm (not the best link, but…) [3] http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/USApatriotact.html [4] http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0313congrpanel.html [5] http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/product1477.html [6] http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art5150.asp [7] http://www.lindesmith.org/library/bakes_jan2003.cfm