There is a word I know exists but cannot remember. One applies it to a piece of art, which inspires in the viewer those things described or otherwise portrayed by that art. Jack Kerouac’s On The Road provokes a spotaneity that emulates Dean Moriatry’s anarchic carpe diem. I read Nick Hornby’s Fever Pitch immediately before the 1998 World Cup, and I recall it had the effect of making a football obsessive out of me, when I hadn’t been before.
Whatever the name of this trait, I find it also applies to Terry Gilliam films. Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas is the best example for obvious reasons, and today I am beginning to think Brazil may be another. I saw it again on Saturday evening, and by Monday morning I was seeing totalitarian beuracracy everywhere.
So: Is it just me, or is the government’s threat graph designed for the sole purpose of striking fear into the population? It is very difficult to see what use it can be.
First, the system just gives a status, a ‘threat level’. It will not give any specifics, so the proles will not know where on these isles is at risk of attack. Second: In what ways should we act differently in the event of a heightened alert? If we are at Level 1, does that mean I can ignore those suspicious packages I find on the train? At what point should we stop using public transport altogether? Without context, it is useless information.
Most importantly, though, is that this system does half of the terrorists work for them. The system of threats without information will only serve to strike fear – terror, if you will – in the minds of the populous. At the very least, it will cause massive inconvenience for those trying to go about their daily business, to say nothing of the effect on commerce. To announce to the country that a terrorist attack is imminent, but then give no information as to its possible form or location, will surely breed suspicion and uncertainty in the financial markets.
The parallels with dystopian fiction are so startling, I’m surprised that Ministers aren’t more self-aware as they trot out lines from Brazil and its ilk. Ministers go on TV and announce banalities such as Vigilance Saves Lives. Then (as happened on BBC News 24 this morning) they talk about what their system will report when terrorists attacks increase (not if). And all the time, anonymous terrorists move among us. We don’t know or care why they might be attempting to blow us up, just that it could happen at any moment. When it does, we are told to “carry on as normal” and remained unbowed, despite the fact that ‘normal’ is now synonymous with a threat rating of ‘severe’.
The publishing of these threat levels is yet another desperate action of a government that has lost the trust of the people. Whatever the pronouncements of Lord Hutton, the Kelly inquiry proved that intelligence service decisions are subject to political interference. When caught doing this, the politicians are without contrition. Jean Charles De Menezes proved that the security services make mistakes, and that when they do, no-one will take responsibility.
Does the government imagine that this system will be trusted? Do they really think that we will use it for anything other than rueful satire?
Tag: Terrorism (Page 13 of 15)
Plenty of discussion on the blogs and in the media about the london bombings, this time last year, notably from survivors such as the irrepressible Rachel and the idosyncratic Dave Taurus.
The bombings were a terrible punctuation to a bizarre week. The previous Saturday, I had worn white and joined the Make Poverty History march, along with thousands of others. It was a hot day, and we stopped half-way round to have a pint on George IV Bridge. We chatted to a couple who had taken a bus from Bristol to join in the event. The G8 summit was about to start, and there was a feeling of optimisim in the air. It was genuine.
Watching the ‘Live 8’ highlights on TV that evening, and later that week when another concert was staged at Murrayfield, it seemed to me that those events had a certain falseness. Jonathan Ross and his interviewees kept talking about what an historic concert Live 8 would be, before it had even begun. The whole event was a paean to the original Live Aid concert, a consolation prize for those who had missed it first time around. I remember saying that you cannot package and market those moments that will define a decade, and that history has a certain spontenaity – it does not take place at a pre-arranged meeting point.
Of course, the following day four guys went straight ahead and made some real history, at their own pre-arranged meeting point. Not only did they destroy lives and property, but they destroyed the sense of optimism, a rising tide of political activity and awareness, that had been swelling over the previous week. And do you know what? One year on, I don’t think we have regained that momentum. Instead we flounder in scandal and misdirection.
The US government suggests that the suicides at Guantanamo Bay were some kind of “asymetrical warfare”. Not Little England comments on the preposterous White House spin:
Well, there you have it. I mean, how do you win a war against a enemy who kill themselves before you get the chance? Frankly I reckon the US might as well throw in the towel right now…
And this succinctness from Pigdogfucker:
“Damn those evil terrorists, doing themselves in just to spite us,” say the Americans.
Although the language used is poor, the US Government have a point… in that the men in Camp Delta were trying to make a point themselves. However, the Bush Administration deftly sows another illogical idea: That by committing suicide in prison, they are comparable to suicide bombers. The US Government spokesman declared today that the bodies of the three men were being treated with respect, in accordance with religious practice. At the same time, they have been smeared as terrorists, despite having been charged with no crime. Any gesture towards religious customs is vaccuous.
Taking the American analysis of the situation at face value, we must conclude that the “warfare” waged by these prisoners was successful. It is clear a strategy must be developed to protect decent people from similar “attacks”. How about: guards on suicide watch; and of course, less suicidal conditions at Camp Delta? A time-table for trial or release of the remaining detainees would be a start.
To be fair, Gary, its the attitude that’s all wrong. Some have said that its better to get a result, than to play the game in the way its meant to be played. Now that attitude might go down well with some fans, but for the majority that excuse is just not going to cut it. The fact is, Gary, the opposition came out early, took us by surprise, and put us off our game. We’ve gone on the defensive, and the fans are saying “what’s going on here, I don’t recognise this team any more.” They’re not playing the kind of game that made the fans support them in the first place. Maybe you’ll get away with it if you’re playing school-boy stuff, Gary, but not at this level. The fans deserve the best.
At the end of the day, Gary, the manager is not handling this right. For the team to play so badly frustrates the fans, and for the manager to say “everything is fine” is just insulting. At the start of the season, Gary, the manager can, when all is said and done, rely on the fans to get behind him and the team, and if they slip-up once or twice, then they’ll take it on the chin and say “well, OK, this is our team, and they’re bound to make a few mistakes, but at least we’re trying to play properly.” And the fans have got to appreciate that mistakes might get made, its not going to be 101% right, 101% of the time. But when the manager says that everything is fine, but the fans can see for themselves that this is not quite right, well, you’ve got to question the manager’s judgement Gary. He can’t just say “trust me, I’m the manager” and do nothing, because the same mistakes are going to be made again. At some point, the fans are going to stop supporting the team, and when that happens, the opposition wins.
And then there’s this talk of a new manager. The fans don’t know who to look to Gary. You’ve got players going on press conferences and not knowing what to say. They don’t even know if they’re going to be in the team next week, or what position they’re playing. That’s not good for the side. Its not good for the fans. Its not good for the game.
You can’t simply say that we need to win this at any cost, Gary. This game doesn’t work like that. If you cheat, as we’ve seen some players do in the last few games, then the whole game gets devalued. The fans at home are going to switch off. Winning is important Gary, but you have to win right, even if that means going to extra time, or a replay. Its a beautiful game, Gary, but by the time we declare “mission accomplished” we want to be worthy champions. In spirit as well as letter, Gary. At the moment, I’m just wondering whether any fans will be left in the stadium to watch us lift the trophy.
The news channels are eagerly following the aftermath of the raid on a house in Forest Gate. Police officers are searching the house from top-to-bottom with massive vaccum cleaners, apparently.
With the talk of evidence gathering and ‘credible intelligence’ I cannot help thinking of the 90 day detention proposition that the government put before the House of Commons. If the police find evidence and proceed quickly to a charge, that would lend some weight to the suggestion that the police do not actually need 90 days worth of intrest free credit.
What if they don’t find the evidence? Does that validate the supporters, or opponents of 90 day detention? The former group would say that we’ve let a crimminal walk free. The latter group would suggest that the authorities had made a mistake, and thank goodness no-one has been detained for 90 days without trial.
It is obviously a set of un-falsifiable hypotheticals at present. But it will be interesting to see for just how long Messers Kahar and Koyar are detained.