As Orwellian as this period is it now appears quite evident that whether it is in Tunisia or Egypt, on the property of UC Berkeley or Zuccatti Park, in the streets of Oakland or Seattle, on "our" government's front lawns in Denver or Los Angeles, it matters little, a peaceful protestor is defined by the U.S. government's authorities, as a "low-level" terrorist.
Prove it, the Kossack from Missouri would say, so here it is.
June 2009 the Pentagon in a test declared demonstrators all over the world to be low level terrorists. Link to FOX NEWS Report titled; Pentagon Exam Calls Protests 'Low-Level Terrorism,' Angering Activists
A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels "protests" as a form of “low-level terrorism”Now how does that jive with the following in the U.S. Constitution?
Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”
— Attacking the Pentagon
— Hate crimes against racial groups
The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Not sure, but remember the beginning of the amendment, Congress shall make no law...where on 10/26/2001 Congress indeed passed laws apparently abridging the assembly or the petitioning the government in what is known as the USA PATRIOT Act where the act expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, increasing the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied. more specifically the definition is:
Title VIII alters the definitions of terrorism, and establishes or re-defines rules with which to deal with it. It redefined the term "domestic terrorism" to broadly include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition also encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" while in the jurisdiction of the United States. Terrorism is also included in the definition of racketeering. Terms relating to cyber-terrorism are also redefined, including the term "protected computer," "damage," "conviction," "person," and "loss."Understand that the common definition of "terrorism" is cited by Merriam Webster's dictionary:
"the systemic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion."But what is really systemic appears to be the shredding of America's civil rights. More below the design that Kos probably created on some Etch-Sketch as a pre-teen.
Let us first understand the idea of coercion and how that relates or does not to protesting, assembly and free speech and how this intersects with the idea or concept of "low level" terrorism. There is this phrase in the PATRIOT ACT this is very broad definition defining domestic terrorism:
"intimidate or coerce a civilian population," "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,"Coercion is commonly defined as meaning from Merriam-Webster again:
"the act, process or power of coercing."Where the root word, coerce mean in this context:
1. to restrain or dominate by nullifying individual will 2: to compete to an act or choice 3: to enforce or bring about by force or threat.So I am going to paraphrase;Is protesting by Occupy intimidating and/or coercing the civilian population? OR is it influencing the policy of the U.S. government by some form of intimidation or coercion?
Not unless you Orwellian define coercion as persuasion.
Well just before they broke up Zuccatti Park and the epicenter of the movement Occupy organizers did "threaten" to close down Wall Street trading. Though not publicly used as justification by Bloomberg and the authorities, that form of intimidation or the threat thereof, could have the lynchpin for Homeland Security and NYC to use declaring OWS as a domestic [low-level] terrorists threat, as defined by the aforementioned Pentagon exam. Let us look deeper into the Pentagon's exam and therefore the government's reasoning's. First understand these items go through a great amount of development and review so this was no rogue corporal typing up something on a computer.
The above report by FOX NEWSwent on
The Pentagon has eliminated a question to an anti terrorism refresher course for all employees that described protests as a form of terrorism, calling it "poorly worded," [typical government double-speak excuse for being exposed] Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk told Fox News that the question should have distinguished between different kinds of protests.Let us look into that idea of illegal demonstrations. Political Science will commonly define that an illegal assembly is a meeting, rally, or protest [demonstration] prohibited by law, usually in a totalitarian state, (i.e., Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Peoples Republic of China or in modern times, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya)--- and an unlawful assembly is one for which a permit has not been obtained, like let us say Occupy Wall Street.
They should have made it clearer there’s a clear difference between illegal violent demonstrations and peaceful, constitutionally protected protests,” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk said on Thursday.
Asked when a protest becomes an “illegal, violent demonstration,” Melnyk said, “I’m not a lawyer. I couldn’t get into the specifics of when you cross the line.”
“If you’re doing physical damage to people or property, that could fall into that,” he said.
So there is a difference between "illegal" assembly activity and "unlawful" assembly gatherings, the primary difference is whether one lives under a totalitarian regime but remember Lt. Col. Melnyk, an officer that one would have to assume has at least a MA/MS and possibly a Ph.D. as I know many Lt. Colonels, and especially a person in his role of public spokesman for the Pentagon in this matter, he used the term "illegal"
, not "unlawful" and further described protests as "violent" where we now have come to know that violent could mean simply "locking arms" in a protest.
Also understand that the PATRIOT ACT is all about "terrorism", meaning interruption of global commerce, and the threat or coercion of U.S. government's protection of its markets, its consumers, so I submit closing the trading ports or big banks or capital trading markets or even the streets whose purpose is for transporting commerce, let alone the possible impediment to a medical center, all of that is considered to be considered "low-level" terrorism.
So let us examine the U.S. Government's preparation for domestic terrorism, as in the threat of interruption of commerce domestically. Back in Jan. 24, 2006 KBR announced they had won the contract to build 400 emergency camps for FEMA. Here is the link to the press release
January 24, 2006Now fast forwarding to Jan 22, 2009 a new bill was presented: Bill H.R. 645 that directed Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
KBR announced today that its Government and Infrastructure division has been awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency. KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton.
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.Notice the insert: (4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘National Emergency Centers Establishment Act’.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure–
(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.
(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be–
(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;
(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;
(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;
(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during non disaster periods;
Now let us make sure we know what "emergency" means. In the bill it refers to
(2) EMERGENCY- The term ‘emergency’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).link to definition
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 68 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 5122As it stands the President Obama possesses "emergency powers" throughsigned the extension of the Patriot Act’s emergency powers for four more years.
§ 5122. Definitions
(1) Emergency.— “Emergency” means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property [emphasis added] and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part [more emphasis] of the United States.
By Agence France-PresseNow let us connect all this back to "low-level" terrorists or protestors. This month the US Senate voted for a new defense act which will allow the military to arrest US citizens anywhere in the world including in the US and keep them imprisoned indefinitely without a trial and a jury of their peers. All they have to do is declare them enemy combatants err [low-level] terrorists". I know I know that the bill was tweaked but all civil rights and legal activists state that the tweaks have done nothing to protect American's civil liberties.
Friday, May 27, 2011
WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into law a four-year extension of controversial counter-terrorism search and surveillance powers at the heart of the Patriot Act.
The president signed the act into law after it was approved by Congress and just before the provisions were to expire at midnight (0400 GMT Friday), extending measures adopted in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The White House issued a brief statement that Obama had signed the extension into law from France, where he is currently attending a G8 summit.
House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders changed the bill to add a provision saying that FBI and other law enforcement’s national security authority would not be affected by provisions mandating military custody of terror suspects.[...]
The legislation also changed the waiver provision, which allows the executive branch to move suspects from military to civilian custody, so that the president can issue a waiver, rather than the defense secretary. Levin said this was done at the request of President Obama, who spoke with Levin last week about the bill.
Why and what is also in bill? Remember in 2009 KBR had been given the contract of building 400 FEMA emergency camps. Earlier this month it was revealed that KBR is seeking to outsource the manning of these camps in order to activate them .
Remember the mentioning of "emergency detention centers" contracted to KBR a subsidiary of Halliburton? Well guess what, on December 6, 2011 Infowars learned that KBRwas ordered to push to implementation of setting up these centers on military installations where now they are seeking subcontractors for things like:
Services up for bid include catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States.All of these developments are terrifying and it seems the powers that be have decided to go all out in in trying to head off the anger which manifested itself in the OWS movement when it first emerged on September 17, 2011.
Establish services listed below within 72 hours for initial set-up and respond within 24 hours for incremental services. This is a CONTINGENCY PROJECT and it should be stressed that lead times will be short with critical requirements due to the nature of emergency responses.TWO THOUSAND PERSONS! Let us do the math.
Subcontractors must be flexible and able to handle multiple, shifting priorities in an emergency environment. Supply lines needed must be short but not necessarily pre-positioned. The personnel on site to be covered by these services will depend on the size and scope of the recovery effort, but for estimating purposes the camp will range in size from 301 to 2,000 persons for up to 30 days in length.
The Continental US will be broken up into five regions as indicated in the map below Services will be required in each State within each region.2000 persons, times 400 centers, equates to 800,000 spots maximum, to a minimum of 120,000 spaces all for indefinite detention? Is this detention under the emergency powers where persons deemed [low-level] terrorists can be placed indefinitely without a trial or habeas corpus?
All of these developments are more than quite terrifying. It might appear that the veiled "powers that be" have decided full throttle seeking head off the anger which germinated in the Occupy movement. But what? Well if you read Nouriel Roubini and others Europe is going to crash and with it the global economy. If you thought the Lessor Depression (2008-2011) was tough, think how the double dip Greatest Depression will be. Is this more evidence that the militarization of America's police and the rapid spread of non lethal crowd control weaponry and methods being provided to the US police by way of the Pentagon? How about using the maximum time for civil disobedience misdemeanors of "peaceful" and non violent protestors. Yes they are being treated as [low-level] terrorists.
Finally let us tie a bow around closing the civil liberties with the proposed Protect IP bill. What we have also seen is the power of social media and blog sites like here to persuade and influence Americans about the police tactics or use of force. The ability of regular Americans to immediately broadcast the images to a larger audience, often to the mainstream media, but before they edited or massaged the message millions already viewed the raw images and were persuaded or is that coercion? By being able to block all access to social media or blog sites because of some convenient copyright infringement accusation would further close the loop.
So I find it ironic that what TIME considers a "freedom fighter" in one nation is now considered a "terrorist" in the U.S. Watch out fellow citizens, this is the slippery slope and all it can do is go down.