Patriot Act // Current

added
1 month ago

30 Crimes the Government Chooses to Not Label Terrorism

We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and opinion columnists) have not labeled the... more

animalia_libero
added this

5 responses

added
1 month ago

3 Reasons Why Murdering an Abortion Doctor Isn’t Being Called “Terrorism”

Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, was murdered inside his church on Sunday, and the only suspect is Scott Roeder, a man The New York Times said “had professed an anti-government, anti-abortion philosophy.” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called the murder an “abhorrent act of violence,” but he hasn’t used the word “terrorism.” Not once.

Why?

As a bit of context, if you’re new to this website, the FBI labels the animal rights and environmental movements as the “number one domestic terrorism threat” even though those activists have never harmed a human being. At the very worst, underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have released animals from fur farms, destroyed SUVs and set fire to empty buildings.

When animal rights activists or environmental activists are arrested, though, the government immediately sends out press releases and holds press conferences trumpeting the arrest of “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists.”

So it’s pretty startling that government hasn’t used the T-word, considering that we’re talking about murder, and, as James Ridgeway notes over at Mother Jones, Roeder was also arrested in 1996 with ammunition, gunpowder, a blasting cap, and a fuse chord in his car. He was sentenced to two years of supervised probation. (By contrast, the SHAC 7 received years in prison for running a website).

What gives? Why hasn’t the murder of an abortion provider been labeled “terrorism”?

IT'S NOT A THREAT TO PROFITS. Time and again, we’ve seen that a driving force behind the domestic “War on Terrorism” is protecting corporate interests. The ELF, ALF and above-ground, lawful activists all directly target profits. As the Department of Homeland Security said in a memo, “Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy.” Similarly, the State Department has warned corporations how to protect their profits from “eco-terrorists.”

HEALTH CLINICS AND NONPROFITS DO NOT HAVE THE LOBBYING POWER OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS. NOW is already pushing to label this crime as “terrorism.” I wouldn’t be surprised if they also push legislation to label anti-abortion violence as terrorism. The problem, though, is that groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood don’t have the political influence (read: money) as Pfizer, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, and all the other multinational corporations who push “eco-terrorism” legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

IT'S NOT THREATENING "THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE." In my reporting I’ve found that the word “terrorism” is typically applied to two types of crimes. The first are crimes that go up the chain of power (so, for example, the U.S. military bombing civilians is not terrorism, but an Iraqi civilian bombing the military is).

The second are crimes that challenge dominant American values. Let me explain: Attacking African American voters is not terrorism, right-wingers like Chuck Norris calling for armed revolution is not terrorism, Timothy McVeigh bombing the Oklahoma City building is not terrorism. Why? Because the values behind all of those actions– racism, capitalism, and Christian fundamentalism—are business as usual.

So, for example, if Dr. Tiller had been murdered by Muslim extremists proclaiming jihad against the West, the government would be labeling this “terrorism.” The exact same crime committed by Christian extremists is merely a “wicked deed in Wichita”Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, was murdered inside his church on Sunday, and the... more

animalia_libero
added this

24 responses

added
2 months ago

LA CRISI COME MEZZO PER COSTRUIRE UNO STATO TOTALITARIO GLOBALE

Mentre la crisi finanziaria ed economica arriva al suo punto massimo, i dirigenti politici e le elites occidentali cercano di... more

AlbaKan
added this

0 responses

added
2 months ago

OpenID Dangers, Big Brother & Bad Ideas

Open ID is now being used by Facebook, Yahoo, Flickr, Paypal, Google, Microsoft, AOL, MySpace, IBM, LiveJournal and VeriSign,... more

ninthstate
added this

0 responses

added
3 months ago

Obama’s First 100 Days: Worse Than Dissapointing?

Before the media starts in on their assessment of the first 100 days, I thought current could take a stab at it first.
Do you think Obama accomplished good things in his first 100 days? Do you feel mislead by expectations of what he would accomplish?

I tend to fall in the middle, but Prison Planet points out some things that may not be what we were expecting of Obama, and will probably not make the mainstream summation of his first 100 days.

They ask:

- Will Obama support Dennis Kucinich’s efforts to bring war crimes charges against Bush, Cheney and others for deceiving the country into a war or will he protect them against such charges like Nancy Pelosi has done?

- Will Obama bring war crimes charges against Bush, Cheney and others for authorizing torture and will the torture of suspects under U.S. detention, a complete violation of both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, cease under an Obama administration?

- Will Obama withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan without sending them away again to bomb another broken-backed third world country?

- Will Obama end the warrantless secret surveillance and phone-taps of American citizens?

- Will Obama cease his support for the Bush-administration backed banker bailouts, hated by the majority of Americans, and target the real cause of the problem - the Federal Reserve - or will he continue to give taxpayers’ money to banks who are merely hoarding it all for themselves?

- Will Obama repeal Patriot Acts I and II as well as reversing Bush’s signing statement and acknowledging the repeal of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act? Will Obama seek to continue the militarization of America and preparations for martial law through Northcom and the secret government or will he dismantle the police state that has been constructed over the last eight years by the Bush administration?

- Will Obama follow through on his rhetorical support for the second amendment or will he seek to ban guns as he did in Illinois?Before the media starts in on their assessment of the first 100 days, I thought current could take a stab at it first. Do you... more

banditalamode
added this

8 responses

added
3 months ago

Huge test for Obama: Do we believe in secret law?

Today is the most significant test yet determining the sincerity of Barack Obama's commitment to restore the Constitution, transparency and the rule of law. After seeking and obtaining multiple extensions of the deadline, today is the final deadline for the Obama DOJ to respond to the ACLU's FOIA demand for the release of four key Bush DOJ memos which authorized specific torture techniques that have long been punished (including by the U.S.) as war crimes. Today, Obama will either (a) disclose these documents to the public or (b) continue to suppress them -- either by claiming the right to keep them concealed entirely or, more likely, redacting the most significant parts before releasing them.

It is genuinely unclear what the Obama administration will do today. Several weeks ago, Newsweek reported that Eric Holder had decided to release the memos -- which an Obama official described as "ugly"-- essentially in full. But then, several other sources reported there was a "war" being waged inside the Obama administration, led by former Bush-era CIA official (and top Obama terrorism adviser) John Brennan, to prevent disclosure. Yesterday, The Wall St. Journal reported that Obama is leaning towards the CIA position that only minimal disclosures are warranted, and today the WSJ reports that the memos will be released with substantial redactions to conceal the details of the Bush administration's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- i.e., will suppress information of America's use of torture.

I want to underscore one vital point about this controversy that is continuously overlooked and will be undoubtedly distorted today in the event of non-disclosure: these documents are not intelligence documents. They are legal documents and, more specifically, they constitute what can only be described as secret law under which the U.S. was governed during the Bush era. Thus, the question posed by the release of these OLC memos is not whether Obama will release to the public classified intelligence programs. The question is whether he will release to the public the legal doctrines under which the U.S. Government conducted itself regarding interrogation techniques he claims are no longer being used.

These memos were not prepared by the CIA or the Pentagon. To the contrary: they were written by DOJ lawyers -- specifically, OLC chief Steven Bradbury and then-OLC Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee. They are not "intelligence reports" from the field. They are, by definition -- by their very nature -- nothing more than decrees about what is and is not legal: i.e., they are pure legal documents that state what the Executive Branch's view of the law is with regard to interrogation tactics. OLC is not an intelligence agency. It is a legal agency. Here (.pdf) is how it defines its own function:

The Office of Legal Counsel exercises the Attorney General’s authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to advise the President and executive agencies on questions of law. . . . Our Office is frequently called upon to address issues of central importance to the functioning of the federal Government, and, subject to the President’s authority under the Constitution, OLC opinions are controlling on questions of law within the Executive Branch.Today is the most significant test yet determining the sincerity of Barack Obama's commitment to restore the Constitution,... more

atomiclegion
added this

0 responses

added
3 months ago

Regulation and the Internet: Government Regulation & Surveillance

While most Internet users (myself included) would prefer to have the Internet be free and unregulated, many politicians, organizations, and even governments are proponents of imposing stricter Internet laws and restrictions. And when I say 'governments', I am not just speaking of authoritarian China or any other State that has imposed limitations on freedom of speech on their citizens. No, I'm speaking of the United States of America.

Every mass communications medium in this country faces some form of censorship and regulation or another. And if they are being regulated by the U.S. government, then they are being regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is a government agency, established by the Communications Act of 1934, with jurisdiction over the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.

Radio stations require a license from the FCC to broadcast on the public airwaves, or they face a serious fine. Television is also regulated by certain limitations from the FCC on what can be put on screen at certain times of the day, depending on when children will most likely be watching. Both industries can get around the FCC, however. Services like satellite radio and pay-per-view on cable are subscription-based, which means that regulation by the FCC is much looser. This is because children will be less likely to view questionable content.

FCC regulations are almost entirely based on restricting profanity, sex, violence, and any material that could be considered offensive to children and families. In the U.S., the protection of children from harmful material, national security purposes, and identity protection are the strongest arguments for government regulation of communications. It is also for these reasons, 'national security' being the most prominent, that these regulations are being translated over to the Internet. But how successful can these attempts be, while still remaining constitutional?

~*~

((For the rest of my article, please visit the link above where the complete story is. For more of the 'Regulation and the Internet' series, visit my blog at cyberdiss.blogspot.com))

Signed,

The NetizenWhile most Internet users (myself included) would prefer to have the Internet be free and unregulated, many politicians,... more

The_Netizen
added this

3 responses

added
3 months ago

Time for these NEO-CON Criminals to go to jail! Lock up Bush and Chaney!

They should torture Bush and Chaney!

slvrGelatin
added this

0 responses

added
4 months ago

If you don't love the PATRIOT ACT you are not an American.

If you disagree......Please petition. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/repeal-the-patriot-act

slvrGelatin
added this

1 response

added
4 months ago

The Washington Post: FBI Director Asks Lawmakers to Renew Patriot Act Provisions

By Carrie Johnson Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 25, 2009; 1:39 PM FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III today... more

AlexBush
added this

1 response

added
4 months ago

Oscar Grant’s Family Sues BART for $50 Million

Family members of Oscar Grant, the unarmed BART rider shot to death by a transit agency police officer early New Year's Day, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Monday that seeks $50 million from the agency, its chief of police and three officers.

John Burris, an attorney for the family, had asked for $25 million in a legal claim against BART after Officer Johannes Mehserle shot Grant on the platform of the Fruitvale Station in Oakland.

Grant, 22, of Hayward, and several other young men had been pulled off a Dublin-Pleasanton train by police investigating reports of a fight. He was face-down on the station platform when he was shot, an incident that several passengers recorded on cell-phone cameras.

Mehserle, 27, quit the BART force Jan. 7 and was subsequently charged with murder. His attorney said Mehserle had meant to fire his Taser when he fired a single shot with his pistol.

Burris said Monday that the actions by Mehserle and by BART Officer Tony Pirone, who first detained Grant and five of his friends in the aftermath of the fight, were "more egregious than I initially thought."

The lawsuit Burris filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland on the Grant family's behalf also named Pirone's partner, Marysol Domenici, and Police Chief Gary Gee. The attorney suggested that racism had played a role in Grant's detention and death, an accusation that a lawyer for BART said is not supported by evidence.

Burris wrote that an unidentified officer "directed a racial slur at one of the young men" after they were detained. Grant was African American, and the other detained men were black and Latino, Burris said in the suit.

Dale Allen, an attorney representing BART and the officers in civil court, said Monday that Grant's death was "a tragic accident," citing Mehserle's explanation about trying to fire his Taser.

"BART has been discussing mediation with Mr. Burris in an attempt to bring closure to the Grant family, and will continue to do so," Allen said.

Allen said evidence in the case will show that Grant and his friends "had been identified as having been involved in an altercation on the train" and that officers had properly detained them. He said racism was not a factor in the case and that officers had uttered "absolutely no racial slurs."

Burris said Pirone struck Grant without good reason minutes before Grant was shot, and that Domenici threatened to "tase" the young men in the face. Pirone's attorney, Bill Rapoport, has said Grant provoked Pirone's blow by trying to knee the officer in the groin.

Burris filed the lawsuit on behalf of Grant's mother, Wanda Johnson, as well as Sophina Mesa, who was Grant's girlfriend and is raising the couple's 4-year-old daughter.

BART spokesman Linton Johnson said Monday that a criminal investigation into the actions of Pirone and the other officers on the platform will soon be turned over to Alameda County prosecutors for a decision on possible charges.Family members of Oscar Grant, the unarmed BART rider shot to death by a transit agency police officer early New Year's Day,... more

ninthstate
added this

4 responses

added
4 months ago

Wikileaks: FBI Report on Activist Counter-Intelligence

Wikileaks.org, the site responsible for leaking a multitude of useful documents to media and activists, has posted an article... more

animalia_libero
added this

0 responses

added
4 months ago

Environmentalist Receives Higher Prison Sentence than Al-Qaeda Operative

Mar 2nd, 2009 by Will Potter

While the FBI targets environmentalists, Osama bin Laden remains free.

Christopher Paul, aka “Abdul Malek,” is an Ohio native who joined Al Qaeda in the early 90s. According to the FBI, he:

* received training in “the use of assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and small unit tactics,”
* fought with the mujahedeen in Afghanistan,
* and returned to Ohio to recruit and establish a terrorist cell.

He pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to use a weapon of mass destruction against Americans at home and abroad. His sentence: 20 years.

By comparison, Marie Mason was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison, as a “terrorist,” for property destruction in the name of defending the environment.

Her sentence, for arson targeting genetic engineering at Michigan State University, was the most severe yet in what many are calling the “Green Scare.” Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. Jeffrey “Free” Luers was sentenced to 22 years and 8 months for setting fire to SUVs. And Eric McDavid was sentenced to 20 years for “conspiracy” to sabotage the Nimbus dam, even though an FBI operative provided the group with bomb-making recipes; at times financed their transportation, food and housing; strung along McDavid, who had the hopes of a romantic relationship; and poked and prodded the group into action.

The FBI has labeled the environmental and animal rights movements as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Groups like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, and activists like Marie Mason, have clearly broken the law in the name of defending the environment. But they have never used rocket-propelled grenades, never created weapons of mass destruction, and never harmed a single human being.

This should concern everyone, regardless of how you feel about environmental issues or economic sabotage: Such skewed government priorities are wasting valuable law enforcement resources targeting environmentalists while Al-Qaeda continues to place American lives at risk.

What kind of message do you think this sends, when environmentalists who target property are a greater national security threat than the organization responsible for the most deadly act of terrorism in the history of the United States?Mar 2nd, 2009 by Will Potter While the FBI targets environmentalists, Osama bin Laden remains free. Christopher Paul, aka... more

animalia_libero
added this

2 responses

added
4 months ago

Snitch Hunt

Will Potter

After reading the federal complaint for the arrest of animal rights activists on Animal Enterprise Terrorism charges, which I wrote about yesterday, this case still doesn’t add up. Some of you have posted comments that if these activists had actually assaulted someone, or if there was an imminent threat of violence, they would have been arrested long ago. Instead, the FBI spent time and money building a case based on supporting evidence that includes First Amendment activity like chalking, flier distribution, and protests.

Let’s look at this case from another perspective, though. Perhaps the activists arrested were never the intended targets.

I’ve written about the government’s seven-step process for convicting environmentalists as terrorists in property crimes cases. The recent Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act arrests are different from Earth Liberation Front or Animal Liberation Front arrests, though. These are above-ground and lawful—yet controversial–activists. However, I think the same model is being used.

The critical step in this process is for law enforcement to use what little evidence they have to scare the living hell out of those arrested. They use threats of outlandish prison sentences and terrorism rhetoric in order to create government informants, or snitches. They then continue that pattern of threats and fear-mongering with each subsequent arrestee, until they have enough to move forward with a case. This snitch-based model of police work (as opposed to gathering evidence, witnesses and leads) is notoriously unreliable and often illegal.

As this case moves forward, I have no doubt that federal prosecutors and law enforcement will, if they haven’t already, offer some kind of a plea agreement in exchange for cooperation. They’ll say something like: “We can offer you a way out of all this. Look, you’re facing prison time as a terrorist. And once you get out, you’ll always be a terrorist. We know you have good intentions, and you’re just worried about the animals. If you help us, maybe by wearing a wire, or offering up some names of others in this campaign, we can make it all go away.”

The FBI has shown it is completely inept at tracking down underground groups, including the people behind the destruction of vans at the University of California, and the incendiary devices left at a researcher’s home (which has been recklessly attributed to animal rights activists). So the feds go on snitch hunts.

That’s why it’s absolutely critical to not be intimidated into silence by these arrests. These activists need to know they have a strong community of people who support them, will look after them, and will not be afraid to speak up. The government relies on fear to create informants and snitches, and with a strong community of vocal supporters, it’s easier for activists to confront this fear head on. These activists, and all others, need to know that there is a way out of all of this, and it’s not by naming names or pledging loyalty oaths, it’s by organizing and fighting back.Will Potter After reading the federal complaint for the arrest of animal rights activists on Animal Enterprise Terrorism... more

animalia_libero
added this

1 response

added
4 months ago

FBI’s 5-Step Process to Criminalize First Amendment Activity as “Terrorism”

Will Potter

The recent FBI arrests of animal rights activists as “terrorists” for chalking sidewalks, protesting and making fliers marks a drastic turning point in the Green Scare, and in the history of this country. The government and corporations are clearly hoping to set a legal precedent for the sweeping power of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. But these arrests are much more than a test case, or an isolated incident of ambitious prosecution.

These arrests are part of a 5-step process the FBI and other government agencies are using to overtly label First Amendment activity as “terrorism.”

The process has worked something like this:

1. Label. The first step was to label illegal direct action by groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front as “terrorism.” The FBI, corporations, industry groups and politicians began doing this in the 1980s, through media campaigns, think tank reports and legislation like the Animal Enterprise Protection Act.

2. Guilt by association. Next, these groups expanded their smear campaign to anyone who ideological supports direct action and economic sabotage. They began labeling the above-ground supporters of those movements as “terrorists.” A turning point was the conviction of the SHAC 7 for running a controversial website that vocally supported a wide range of tactics.

3. More guilty by association. This is now. The guilt by association is spreading from those who vocally support direct action (and, like the SHAC 7, perhaps even publish anonymous communiqués) to those who are merely lawfully protesting as part of the same campaign. In the SHAC 7 case, the government argued that the defendants were “conspiring” to promote illegal activity by running a website. In these recent arrests, the government is arguing that the First Amendment activity itself is “terrorism” because it’s part of a campaign that involves illegal tactics.

4. Expand the net. With the latest arrests, the government is still trying to play up the fact that illegal actions have happened recently in California, including bombings that have been recklessly attributed to animal rights activists. The next step is to completely drop that pretext. In other words, the next step is to go after people who are using their First Amendment rights and are not engaging in home protests, chalking sidewalks or wearing masks. This is the same expansion of the net that happened during the Red Scare: targeting writers, speakers, journalists, and public figures. I feel strange writing this but, in many ways, the next step is to go after people like me.

5. Repeat. This process will be repeated for different organizations and different types of people (activists, non-profit leaders, writers) and it will be repeated for other social movements. The government is not establishing these legal and legislative precedents simply to abandon them once the animal rights “radicals” are imprisoned. The legal latticework will be used against the next social movement, and the next, and the next. This has happened in every era of government repression throughout history: once those in power discover tools for silencing one opposition group, they never stop there.

In analyzing a process like this, it should be very clear that I don’t mean to imply, in any way, that this process is inevitable. The FBI is formulaic in how it cracks down on protest movements—we can see the patterns throughout U.S. history. The responses of activists and everyday people, though, need not follow any formula. The future is fluid. We have the power to intervene in this process—through education, community building, media outreach, lobbying, and the courts—and we must do so immediately, swiftly, and forcefully.Will Potter The recent FBI arrests of animal rights activists as “terrorists” for chalking sidewalks, protesting... more