It's sadly ironic that the enforcement of and (I cynically believe) the purpose behind most anti-terrorism laws is to terrorize protesters, malcontents, and others the "established power structure" deems embarrassing. Terrorize them with the threat of immense punishment, travel hassles, etc. Keeping them quiet and complacent.
Why the representatives you sent to DC and state capitols are happily voting for AETA-style bills instead of, say, proposing and voting for anti-AETA bills, for example something like "reaffirming and extending the 1st Amendment rights" bills and/or the bills that would treat as a terrorism any assault on the [at least Constitutional] rights of protesters?
The War on Terror is, to a large extent, about creating a domestic counter-insurgence apparatus in the US. Perhaps there are changes coming that necessitate, from the perspective of those in power, this level of control over the population.
like another orchestrated terrorist attack similar to 9/11 this time created by left/right wing domestic "terrorists" ?
If they could pull off 9/11, I'm sure they can do that again with domestic "enemy". But then what's the purpose? Why to do that? Usually, not to loose power. But they are in the power all the time anyway (military/industrial complex). So, what gives?
They are an established power, but they've still had to deal with societal friction in response to their actions. This slows them down as they attempt to compete with other global factions. Hence the need to lessen societal friction by making things more "expensive" to those who gum up the works for them. And yeah, more "strategy of tension" operations wouldn't be surprising.
