Terrorism is extra-procedural violence to effectuate a political end that cannot be achieved via “normal” political methods.
Scholars on terrorism warn us that one of the objectives of terrorists is to incrementally push the target government to adopt increasingly draconian policies and methods — all in the name of national security and ensuring the people’s safety. In this manner, the government more and more becomes dictatorial. The hoped-for result is a populace increasingly unhappy and alienated from the government, and the government’s concomitant loss of legitimacy.
We are seeing that malignant process unfurling before our very eyes.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks led to the Bush administration’s Patriot Act and a never officially-declared state of emergency. Next, while declaring that the War on Terror was over, the Obama regime nevertheless not only continued but exacerbated the Patriot Act with the NDAA — the infamous National Defense Authorization Act that “authorizes” the president and the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.
Now, right on cue, New York mayor Michael “Hitler” Bloomberg — whose every bone and sinew seem bent on restricting the liberties of New Yorkers, from super-sized soft drinks to breastfeeding to gun control — says our “interpretation” of the United States Constitution “will have to change” after the 4/15 Boston Marathon terrorist bombings, to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.
Jill Colvin reports for Politicker, April 22, 2013, that Mayor Bloomberg
said during a press conference in Midtown:
“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.
Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11.
We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to.”
Bloomberg then pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons. “Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws.”
While urging that our “interpretation” of the Constitution “will have to change,” Bloomberg is insistent that Muslims must be protected. He pontificates: “What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms. You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”
†
Bloomberg said nothing about a U.S. military training manual putting Christians as the No. 1 “extremist” threat to America.
Yeah, Bloomberg, you really care about religions and religious freedom — but only if the religion is Islam and religious freedom means Muslims’ construction of a mosque at Ground Zero.
~Eowyn