Friday, July 01, 2005

The Army is Screaming

"While using lethal force to respond to protests is likely to attract the attention and indignation of the international community, non-lethal options can be deployed more frequently and more widely, often with total impunity. Thus, the temptation is great to use such weapons to suppress non-violent protests, political gatherings that would have been left unmolested in the absence of non-lethal means.

"The AP wire story itself already demonstrates the tendency of the media to cast a forgiving eye on non-lethal military interventions, suggesting that the use of The Scream does not qualify as 'resorting to force.' Is it not 'force' to assaulting a person's inner ear until he or she is disoriented, vomiting, and unable to remain in the affected vicinity? In a world where torture is officially no longer torture, but merely 'abuse,' perhaps even this is possible."

Related:

Wonder Weapons, $20 a Pop

"Cloaked in the dull skepticism of a flat-earther, I naively thought that advances like 'Electro-Hypnotizers' and 'Ion Ray Guns' were the stuff of science fiction, or merely hoaxes."

1 comment:

Kyle said...

The key here is the "double-speak" used to minimize the Scream as a "force" in favor of its being "non-lethal". This kind of creeping redefinition of things...just like coercive interrogation vs. torture, enemy combatant vs. prisoner of "war", Clear Skies vs. Pollution is OK, Clean water vs. Pollution is OK, and personal accounts vs. privatization.

While any form of force can be unintentionally lethal, this subtle but inexorable shift of definition smacks loudly of "1984".

We will announce our distaste for this at the ballot box in 2006, and most assuredly in 2008...lest we condone it.

Kyle
UFOreflections.blogspot.com