Connecting the (scary) dots on indefinite detention, activism and "terrorism."

[garybeck]

I admittedly have not been following this as closely as others. But in reading two articles that are seemingly disconnected, the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I don't think I'm taking this out of context. the key sentences and links to articles are below:

... a bill that gives the military authority to detain American citizens indefinitely and without criminal charge... In its final form, the bill stipulates that all terrorism suspects are to be handled by the military unless the administration decides otherwise and explains its reasoning to Congress.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/31/obama-pledges-to-exempt-americans-from-indefinite-detention-law/

and....

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act. ... The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, the FBI says
http://younisd.tumblr.com/post/14526341752/fbi-says-activists-who-investigate-factory-farms-can-be

Maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but if you put these two stories side by side, it appears that the FBI wants activists who cause economic loss to businesses to be treated as terrorists. With the new defense spending bill passed, this means that by default, these non-violent activists' cases would be handled by the military and could be held indefinitely without charges. Only if the administration decides to take over a particular case and explain why to Congress would these people be handled through the civilian court system.

This would mean that just about anyone who shows up at an OWS protest could be considered a terrorist and thrown in a cell indefinitely with no charges and no trial.

Giant leap?
Slippery slope?
Paranoia?
Valid concern?

The big concern here for me is how you define terrorism. I'm not a lawyer but to me it seems that without a clear and concise definition of terrorism, we are on a very slippery slope.

[Vincardog]

1. Valid concern? Don't forget that the DOD is teaching its' recruits that protestors ARE TERRORISTS

[roseBudd]

2. Terrorism is like pornography, you definitely know it when you see it

camping, mich checks, signs & marching not

This is

Times Square Bomber, life in prison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt

The vehicle had been parked on a tourist-crowded block at the eastern corner of 1 Astor Plaza (intersection of West 45th Street and Broadway), near the entrance to the Minskoff Theatre which was showing the musical The Lion King.

The team found in the rear of the vehicle:

* two travel alarm clocks with batteries that apparently were fashioned as triggering devices, connected by electrical wires to
* two red full 5-gallon cans of gasoline, sandwiching
* 40+ consumer-grade M-88 firecrackers inside a 20-ounce metal container (wrapped in duct tape, with its end removed),
* gunpowder,
* three full 20-gallon propane tanks, and
* a 55-inch (1,400 mm) x 32-inch (810 mm) green metal gun locker that contained:
o a metal pressure cooker pot containing a thicket of wires, that also connected to the alarm clocks;
o 250 pounds (110 kg) of urea-based fertilizer in 8 plastic bags; and
o 120 M-88s.

Or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

Abdulmutallab spent about 20 minutes in the bathroom as the flight approached Detroit, and then covered himself with a blanket after returning to his seat. Other passengers then heard popping noises, smelled a foul odor, and some saw Abdulmutallab’s trouser leg and the wall of the plane on fire. Fellow passenger Jasper Schuringa, a Dutch film director, jumped on Abdulmutallab and subdued him as flight attendants used fire extinguishers to douse the flames.[122] Abdulmutallab was taken toward the front of the airplane cabin, was seen to have lost his trousers due to the fire, and had burns on his legs.[123] When asked by a flight attendant what he had in his pocket, he replied: “Explosive device.” The device consisted of a six-inch (15-cm) packet which was sewn into his underwear[1][124][125] containing the explosive powder PETN, which became a plastic explosive when mixed[126] with the high explosive triacetone triperoxide (TAPN) (the same two explosives that were used by Richard Reid in 2001[127][128]), and a syringe containing liquid acid.[129] Abdulmutallab created the explosive by mixing PETN with TAPN and other ingredients.[129]

After being taken into custody, Abdulmutallab told authorities he had been directed by al-Qaeda, and that he had obtained the device in Yemen.[130] Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the organization's affiliate in Yemen, subsequently claimed responsibility for the attack, describing it as revenge for the United States' role in a Yemeni military offensive against al-Qaeda in that country.[131]

[garybeck]

3. I guess you agree with the FBI then when they say that non-violent protesters are terrorists.

your theory of "you know it when you see it" is not correct. There clearly is not a consensus on what terrorism is, if the FBI thinks those people are terrorists.

[roseBudd]

6. Get back to me when someone is scooped up for a mic check

[garybeck]

9. Have you been watching the news?

We're not far from it already. I've seen dozens of non-violent protesters and members of the press have their civil rights violated, held without charge, beaten by police, and much more.

I take it you just trust the government to do what is right and giving them the power to deem anyone a terrorist and hold them indefinitely doesn't bother you. Wow.

[hootinholler]

11. You see at that point it is too late.

I will give the devil his rights to see mine preserved.

[magical thyme]

13. when people are disappeared

you don't see it.

[JDPriestly]

14. roseBudd, you have listed specific examples of terrorism,

but the definition of terrorism in the relevant laws including the Patriot Act are so vague that no one can know in advance whether joining an OWS march or putting a tent somewhere as a protest could be construed by an angry or biased member of the military or some other government agency as terrorism.

You may think you know terrorism when you see it and there may be instances in which certain acts seem obviously to be terrorism, but someone else may see the same acts and just judge them to be crimes.

Was the shooting of Gabby Gifford an act of terrorism? I thought so, but what charges, if any, were brought?

If somebody brings a gun to a political rally, is that a terrorism threat? Maybe, maybe not. How can you know? You can't define a legal concept or a crime in that way. That is because you have no objective criteria by which to determine whether the parameters of the legal concept or the crime exist.

To prove a crime, you have to list the elements of the kinds of acts that constitute the crime. The prosecutor has to prove each of those elements.

For example,

breaking and entering legal definition

noun
Two of the elements constituting the crime of burglary. Under the common law, forcible entry into a building (however slight) without permission used to be required, but many state laws now only require one to enter (for example, through an unlocked door or open window) or remain on the premises (for example, hiding in a closet until no one else is left in the building) without authorization.

http://law.yourdictionary.com/breaking-and-entering

The prosecutor has to show that the defendant entered or remained on premises without permission. The prosecutor has to show evidence supporting that the defendant entered or remained on specific premises and in addition that the defendant remained there without authorization. That one is not so complex, but when you think about the various murder charges, first degree, second degree, etc. the elements of the crime charged can be complicated.

If harm to property connected with a political aim or purpose is terrorism, then conceivably writing graffiti with a message that could be interpreted as political on a police car (if it were possible to do that) or on a public wall or building could be terrorism.

Does a demonstration escalate to the level of terrorism just because the city pays a huge bill for the policing of the demonstration or because some public property -- say a drinking fountain -- is damaged during the demonstration?

The current definition of terrorism is vague and way too overbroad. It could be interpreted to include acts that the actor would not recognize as "terrorism."

As a result, the current definition of terrorism could "chill" speech, that is cause people to hesitate before expressing their political or personal opinions. That is contrary to our fundamental values.

[roseBudd]

15. We run the risk of jumping the shark when we coopt Abu Ghraib imagery, and tell people we expect to

be whisked away never to be seen or heard from again to Guatanamo for sleeping in a park, as Occupy supporters in my city are doing and publicly saying

The wingnuts squealed about janel Napolitiano's report on the possibility of extremists from the right, we would be myopic to think no one who would be attracted to this movement could possibly have extremist & paranoid fantasies, that they could act on.


http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-15/politics/extremism.report_1_extremist-groups-homeland-security-political-climate-fueling-resurgence?_s=PM OLITICS

It's how the SDS jumped the shark and spawned weather underground

[garybeck]

17. that reasoning makes no sense

you don't close your eyes to reality because you're afraid of jumping the shark. just look around you. whistleblowers are going to jail. peaceful protesters are being beaten. you're saying we should not worry about it because if someone was whisked away and never heard from again, the ACLU or some hot shot lawyer would take care of it. The concern is not necessarily that they're going to whisk us away and never be seen again. It's that our rights are eroding. It's like the frog in the slowly heating up water. He doesn't notice it's getting hot until he's dead because it happens so slowly. This law is another cog in the wheel. It creates a potential for people to lose their civil rights. We are supposed to have a right to a fair and speedy trial. That is an important right. I don't think that should be taken away for anyone. If they think you're in Al Queda and they want to put you behind bars, then there should be a trial. What if they're wrong? It's not like the government doesn't ever screw up. That's why we have trials.

[JDPriestly]

19. The Communists in Eastern Europe and the NAZIs and Fascists

and all totalitarian regimes justify their repression of dissent with the argument that those who disagree with the authorities' policies or ideas are dangerous and a threat.

All too often that innocent people have been imprisoned, even killed, simply for voicing dissent.

Think about domestic violence. What is it? It is a method through which a powerful person in a relationship crushes the right to dissent of a weaker person. Invariably the person who practices domestic violence blames his or her victim, "She/he made me do it. He/she started it. She/he pushed me." It is extremely common. Considering how common domestic violence is -- even against children -- then the idea that a government given the power to crush dissent among the populace is very real.

Fact is that our criminal law already provides adequate means to prosecute and punish those who commit crimes including acts of terrorism. We do not need laws that permit the prosecution of people for simply posing a threat. We have a good justice system when it comes to punishing ordinary people. (It is far less effective when it comes to punishing wealthy or prominent folks.)

We do not need the military involved in investigating, arresting, trying or prosecuting American civilians. That's how banana republics work not how we work. Our Constitution does not permit that.

Habeas corpus may be set aside in a time of insurrection, but we are far from that.

Rather than passing laws that effectively do away with habeas corpus, our Congress should try to bring Americans together to find solutions for the problems we face and will face in the future.

It is a terrible failure on the part of Congress (primarily) and the Obama administration (to a lesser extent) that we are not being brought together but rather are being torn apart.

This NDAA opens a path that could result in an extremely dangerous reaction to some threat, real or imagined, by a president or vice president.

The manner in which the Bush administration expulsed members of the audience at Bush's events simply for wearing tee-shirts or carrying signs or banners with messages that Bush's aides did not like indicated frighteningly little respect for dissenters and for those who exercise free speech.

You may hold your opinion, but I personally think that the safeguard against movements like the Weathermen is to refrain from repressing dissenting opinions but rather to listen patiently to and acknowledge diverse ideas.

The excessive punishment of the anti-war protests in the 1960s and early 1970s caused an escalation in the very normal conflicts that are a part of a lively and free political system. It pushed dissidents out of the mainstream and encouraged cultish movements like the Weathermen.

Of course only the Weathermen themselves are to be blamed for the crimes they committed. But the more you encourage free dissent, the less likely it is that movements will become secretive and the less likely it is that they will resort to violence.

I think the best course is to advocate for and demonstrate nonviolence in one's own actions and discourse. We should allow and encourage verbal dissent. Tolerance is the key.

For example, I do not think that you would have the Occupy Wall Street movement if our media had given dissenting views about the causes and remedies for our economic problems more attention. When you shut out dissent, you force it to become either louder or to go underground. In either case, the results can damage society.

Have you read the book, Non-Violent Communication?

I strongly recommend it. The more we practice non-violent communication, the less anxious we feel about dealing with people who may be angry or fearful or who may disagree with us.

Check it out. The method helps in personal relationships and also in understanding how to deal with people who disagree with you regarding political issues.

http://www.cnvc.org/Training/NVC-Concepts

[RKP5637]

4. Depending on how the pieces are fit together I find it worrisome, because TPTB will

shift with time and with any of this stuff an evil agenda can often be found. To me, terrorism is a nebulous word with its meaning dependent on TPTB at a particular time. And I could certainly see OWS linked to terrorism by some PTB.

The right to protest is one of the ingredients that makes a democracy and I've been very concerned about how brutally the OWS protests were handled. Over the past several decades democracy in this country has faded and faded IMO. And too many Americans are IMO too accepting of this fading democracy.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Terrorist is the new Communist red scare, the new etc. etc. etc.

England already call #Occupiers terrorists, and IIRC a DOD article calls US protesters, low-level terrorists.

Can't have the $$$ interfered with, can we?

[RKP5637]

7. Yeah, it is, isn't it. It's the same fear propaganda over again and this time labeled

terrorism. The status quo will use whatever means to protect $$$ and the 1% even if it means harsh punishment for much of the country. What drives me up the wall is I think way too many Americans are oblivious to what is going on.

Just listening to the R pres. hopefuls talk should be enough to scare the sh** out of any sane individual with at least one eye and ear opened.

[Howler]

8. I think that exactly where they are going with it Garybeck.

they mean to crush all dissent.
Next they have targeted the internet too. Then they will have control of the information flo.

[bhikkhu]

10. The AUMF and the NDAA are very specific in their language about terrorism

...and while the media might talk about a "global war against terror" or muslim extremism, or in general terms, the legislation itself is very specific - the war is against the Taliban and Al-qaeda, period. If you read the NDAA or listen to the CoC, that's all there is, and any broad statements about "sheltering or supporting terrorists" always loop back to the Taliban and Al-qaeda as the sole enemy.

Which I think is a good sign, and a big change from previous republican narratives about a 100 year war against vaguely identified ideas. From a military perspective, one of the things to ending a war is defining the objectives, and I think they are being deliberately precise now. I have heard a plan to be entirely out of Afghanistan in 2 years, and it may be that Al-qaeda will be enough of a footnote or otherwise occupied by then that there is a real possibility, if Obama has a second term, that all this will be done.

[Octafish]

12. Frank Church warned us...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3510598

Senator Church was a war hero and liberal who led the last real investigation of the Secret Government.

[99th_Monkey]

16. Occupy Protester banned from flight home for Christmas => "as Terrorist".

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/occupy-protester-banned-from-flight-home-for-christmas-6282555.html

[lunasun]

18. The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, the FBI says

the new terrorism = “economic loss” to businesses
don't do it and they will leave you alone