From: eckinator
2010/9/15 Daniel J. Matyola <[email protected]>:
> I agree. ?I don't understand why the newspaper insisted on
> investigating and reporting on this either. ?He was a good
> photographer, and took some great images of the civil rights movement.
> ?I am confident nothing he told the FBI harmed Martin Luther King or
> the movement. ?Why drag it up now?
I think this is why:
"It speaks to the problem of secrecy. The government is able to do
things in the shadows that are really questionable. That goes to the
heart of our (democratic) society.'' (Theoharis quote from the
original article as linked by John Sessoms)
To me this is not about Whithers but about government. Burning human
rights and civil liberties on the altar of national security is
certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. Saddening in that
context that the ultra right of all political groups should call
itself the tea party movement when in fact their last president was
all about internal oppression.
I agree.
I think the original investigation was a look back at the FBI, the
Memphis sanitation workers strike and the civil rights movement in the
context of the "National Security State" that has grown up in the wake
of Sept 11, 2001.
The exposure of Whithers role as an informant from the FOIA releases was
inadvertent, but took the article in a new direction.
I think the paper still has some work to do bringing the focus back to
how current security practices echo previous abuses and the implications
that has for a free society.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
