bposert wrote:
Great article on how Orwellian our government is becoming.

security directives and secret diktats

When a legal challenge was brought against an aviation security directive concerning passenger identification checks, a government lawyer expressed his confidence in the constitutionality of the secret law— even as he told a federal judge that the law itself could not be seen by the judiciary! Here is a telling excerpt from the court session:

Judge: What is the rule, if at all, concerning
identification?

Government Attorney: The identification
check, every passenger is requested
to produce identification. As I’ve
indicated, the statute provides one of
the purposes to check whether that
person is amongst those known to
pose a risk to aviation safety. The other
reason it’s used for purposes of the prescreening
system, is this a person—

Judge: I understand, you said all of
that. You were saying the rule is not
void for vagueness and we can move
on. I just want to know what the rule is
that isn’t void.

Government Attorney: If you are asking
me to disclose what’s in the security
directives, I can’t do it.
...
The possibility that Americans will now be held accountable for noncompliance with unknowable regulations is not the subject of heated debate in Congress. Indeed, it has not been debated at all.

i hadn't heard about this
has anybody read Kafka's The Trial recently? seems apposite

adam wrote:
i hadn't heard about this

This has been discussed on MemeStreams many many times.

Decius wrote:

adam wrote:
i hadn't heard about this

ThishasbeendiscussedonMemeStreamsmanymanytimes.

well excuse me
r u having a handbag moment decius?
*picture of Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer holding up handbags*

bposert wrote:
Great article on how Orwellian our government is becoming.

Five years have passed since the catastrophic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Those attacks ushered in the war on terror. Since some high-ranking government officials and pundits are now referring to the war on terror as the "Long War" or "World War III," because its duration is not clear, now is an appropriate time to take a few steps back and examine the disturbing new vocabulary that has emerged from this conflict.

One of the central insights of George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four concerned the manipulative use of language, which he called "newspeak" and "doublethink," and which we now call "doublespeak" and "Orwellian." Orwell was alarmed by government propaganda and the seemingly rampant use of euphemisms and halftruths— and he conveyed his discomfort with such tactics to generations of readers by using vivid examples in his novel. Despite our general awareness of the tactic, government officials routinely use doublespeak to expand, or at least maintain, their power.

The purpose of this paper is not to criticize any particular policy initiative. Reasonable people can honestly disagree about what needs to be done to combat the terrorists who are bent on killing Americans. However, a conscientious discussion of our policy options must begin with a clear understanding of what our government is actually doing and what it is really proposing to do next. The aim here is to enhance the understanding of both policymakers and the interested lay public by exposing doublespeak.

doublespeak is not limited to government... HR uses it too, as does any organization that is PC in 'modern' times.