Here’s the thing: I frequently feel like the boy who cried “Wolf!” But here goes:
We must understand that the words being used by the corporate governmental talking heads have a special significance, other than the obvious emotional and psychological impact needed for propaganda purposes. It has to do with the machinations of appearing to adhere to legality, until such time as the powers that be drop the facade of having to appear to be on the up and up. When did “terrorist” replace the perfectly good and understandable word “criminal?” And why?
John Yoo reinterpreted the Constitution, at the behest of the Bush regime, to radically expand Presidential powers during a time of war. The Authorization for Use of Military Force “legally” allows the President to preemptively invade any sovereign nation in order to prevent future terrorist attacks.
The Patriot Act denies Constitutional rights to terrorists. A terrorist can be detained without charges, held indefinitely without any evidence, and even murdered on orders from the President. A mere criminal act doesn’t qualify for any of the extraordinary extra-judiciary measures a terrorist act does.
By “legal” definition, the President is only authorized to target terrorists.
I’ve warned before that there is an increasing use of the word “extremist” coming out of the mouths of the President and other governmental sources. There is an effort under way to equate the meaning of the words in the public mind. And it’s a brilliant strategy. A terrorist is an extremist.
But not all extremists are terrorists. I assure you there will be no effort to allow for such distinctions to made between the two. The Patriot Act and the NDAA are already being used to define activists as extremists. This is the beginning of legally defining extremism as terrorism. And terrorists have no legal standing, no legal protections.
But more germane to today, the speech delivered by French President Hollande was constructed to use the exact wording needed to invoke NATO Article 5. By the terms and conditions of Article 5, all signatories to it are obligated to provide support for France in it’s efforts to wage war against the legally recognized enemy: terrorists.
And you’ll note that the same key wording is being used by all the Western governments as they express sympathy and support for the people of France. This is a boon for the corporate driven fascist agenda being led by the US. And it’s all “legal.” Wolf! Wolf!