PDA

View Full Version : Food for (Paranoid) Thought


Brian Rucker
09-29-2006, 06:25 AM
Via Salon:

The intelligence report cites "leftist" groups as a terror threat

The now-declassified summary of the National Intelligence Estimate (PDF) on "Trends in Global Terrorism" focuses almost exclusively on Islamic extremists. But inserted at the very end is this one overlooked, though seemingly quite important, passage that identifies other terrorist threats:

"Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint." It continues: "We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train and obtain logistical and financial support."

Prior to 9/11, the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil was in Oklahoma City, where Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in pursuit of his right-wing, anti-federal-government agenda. But there is nothing in the NIE findings about right-wing or anti-government groups. Instead, there is a rather stark warning about the danger of "leftist" groups using the Internet to engage in terrorist attacks against the United States. Is there any basis at all for that warning?

There have been scattered reports over the last several years that the Bush administration's anti-terrorism programs have targeted domestic political groups solely because such groups espouse views contrary to the administration's. That this claim about "leftist" terrorist groups made it into the NIE summary is particularly significant in light of the torture and detention bill that is likely soon to be enacted into law. That bill defines "enemy combatant" very broadly (and the definition may be even broader by the time it is enacted) and could easily encompass domestic groups perceived by the administration to be supporting a "terrorist agenda."

Similarly, the administration has claimed previously that it eavesdrops on the conversations of Americans only where there is reasonable grounds (as judged by the administration) to believe that one of the parties is affiliated with a terrorist group. Does that include "leftist" groups that use the Internet to organize? This NIE finding gives rise to this critical question: Are "leftist" groups one of the principal targets on the anti-terrorism agenda of the Bush administration, and if so, aren't the implications rather disturbing?
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

Brendan
09-29-2006, 06:33 AM
Via Salon:


http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

I don't even live in the US and this sounds scary to me in conjunction with the new torture bill going through.

Good luck out there folks.

Flowers
09-29-2006, 06:47 AM
There are groups on the political left that occasionally toy with violence. Animal rights activists are a prime example. Usually acting on their individual initiative by mailing threatening letters or vandalizing property, the activists sometimes organize themselves in an attempt to infiltrate animal research facilities to do damage and release wild, disease infected animals in need of medical treatment into the community. While this is not direct violence, there is a shameful disregard for both the animals' safety and the safety of members of the community surrounding the facility from which the animals were released.

For the rest of them, it's hooey, you don't get more than simple vandalism from the left right now. But if that does start, that violence is solely the fault and responsibility of the Bush administration. There is a life and materials cost associated with mistreating citizens and depriving them of their rights.

We should distinguish between ideological violence and dissatisfaction violence.

Anders Hallin
09-29-2006, 06:55 AM
Hey, it's like Sweden in the 60s/70s!

mouselock
09-29-2006, 07:00 AM
Hey, it's like Sweden in the 60s/70s!

Alas.. far fewer impressively built nordic women to make it bearable. :(

FIDGAF
09-29-2006, 07:23 AM
There are groups on the political left that occasionally toy with violence. Animal rights activists are a prime example. Usually acting on their individual initiative by mailing threatening letters or vandalizing property, the activists sometimes organize themselves in an attempt to infiltrate animal research facilities to do damage and release wild, disease infected animals in need of medical treatment into the community. While this is not direct violence, there is a shameful disregard for both the animals' safety and the safety of members of the community surrounding the facility from which the animals were released.

For the rest of them, it's hooey, you don't get more than simple vandalism from the left right now. But if that does start, that violence is solely the fault and responsibility of the Bush administration. There is a life and materials cost associated with mistreating citizens and depriving them of their rights.

We should distinguish between ideological violence and dissatisfaction violence.

That's like the anti-abortionist that shot the Dr.

svenr
09-29-2006, 07:24 AM
It takes a lot more to be considered a radical leftist than simply voting Democrat, and "nationalist and separatist" covers most of right-wing extremism. The Salon article is a little hysterical, at least as far as the NIE quote is concerned.

Brian Rucker
09-29-2006, 07:30 AM
The article is over the top, hence my sticking the word "paranoid" in the thread title. But it's worth noting because the issue might not be whether this is the intended result or would actually be used to harass, detain or spy on the political opposition but that it could be used along those lines. Or, even barring that, it would indicate we're sliding that much closer to that kind of a future eventually.

Acoustic Rob
09-29-2006, 07:45 AM
Yeah...I suspect that the 'leftists' the intelligence community are keeping their eyes on are folks like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales and the people that they stir up as they position themselves as counterweights to American aggression.

But Brian's point is valid: look at how law enforcement has been using Patriot Act anti-terrorism provisions against money launderers and meth labs. Now think about how the recent detention and surveilance legislation could be similarly mis-applied. We're giving the executive branch a lot of power and trusting them to use it appropriately. And even if you think the Bush administration has earned that trust, they're out the door in 2008...do you trust every president from here on out to act responsibly?

Incendiary Lemon
09-29-2006, 07:50 AM
We do have history of surveiling and infilitrating benign leftist groups.

Lum
09-29-2006, 07:52 AM
(Salon? Hysterical? OMG, you're joking!)

The government has been proven, many times over, since at least the 1940's, to not be able to be trusted with unlimited investigation, search and seizure. The fact that we keep allowing the government to grab those powers anyway simply shows that we're unfamiliar with history. Given an inch, the police forces will gladly take a mile. They will abuse any statute in place to "get it done", whatever enemies they may be focused on.

Flowers
09-29-2006, 08:19 AM
But it's worth noting because the issue might not be whether this is the intended result or would actually be used to harass, detain or spy on the political opposition but that it could be used along those lines. Or, even barring that, it would indicate we're sliding that much closer to that kind of a future eventually.

We already use the Patriot Act for that. My fiance works in animal research and law enforcement occasionally informs them of potential threats that they successfully dealt with using the Act.

AndrewM
09-29-2006, 09:37 AM
COINTELPRO 2: With a Vengeance.

Daniel Morris
09-29-2006, 09:40 AM
Everything is unfolding exactly the way John Titor predicted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor) (though perhaps the better word is recalled.)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Time2.gif

Jasper
09-29-2006, 05:23 PM
We do have history of surveiling and infilitrating benign leftist groups.
Moreover we have a recent history of surveiling and infiltrating even benign mildly left of center groups. Connecting the dots from reports stemming from botched surveilance, and the Bush administration's attempts to legalize Domestic spying, I'd guess we've already basically reinstated COINTELPRO.

This is part of a sweeping increase in de facto Executive power, and is chilling taken in conjunction with the current US fetish with torture, kidnapping, indefinite imprisonment, star chamber like suspension of lawyer-client privalleges, etc.

Crispus
09-29-2006, 05:47 PM
Everything is unfolding exactly the way John Titor predicted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor) (though perhaps the better word is recalled.)

There's a John Titor Foundation?