The
Government’s War on Domestic Terrorism Is a Trap
By
John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead
“This is
an issue that all Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians
should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don’t
have to guess about where this goes or how this ends. What
characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of
a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious
extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians,
what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? [The
proposed legislation could create] a very dangerous undermining of
our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution, and a
targeting of almost half of the country.”—Tulsi
Gabbard,
former Congresswoman
January 31, 2021
"Information
Clearing House"
- This is how it begins.
We are moving fast
down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the
only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by
the government and its corporate cohorts.
In the wake of the
Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, “domestic terrorism” has become the
new poster child for expanding the government’s powers at the
expense of civil liberties.
Of course, “domestic
terrorist” is just the latest bull’s eye phrase, to be used
interchangeably
with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist,” to
describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of
viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”
Watch and see: we are
all about to become enemies of the state.
In a déjà vu
mirroring of the legislative fall-out from 9/11, and the ensuing
build-up of the security state, there is a growing
demand in certain sectors for the government to be given expanded
powers to root out “domestic” terrorism, the Constitution be
damned.
If this is a test of
Joe Biden’s worthiness to head up the American police state, he
seems ready.
As part of his
inaugural address, President Biden pledged to confront and defeat “a
rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism.”
Biden has also asked the Director of National Intelligence to work
with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in carrying out
a “comprehensive
threat assessment” of domestic terrorism. And then to keep the
parallels going, there is the proposed Domestic Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2021, introduced after the Jan. 6 riots, which aims to equip
the government with “the
tools to identify, monitor and thwart” those who could become
radicalized to violence.
Don’t blink or
you’ll miss the sleight of hand.
This is the tricky
part of the Deep State’s con game that keeps you focused on the
shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by
ruffians in your midst.
It follows the same
pattern as every other convenient “crisis” used by the government
as an excuse to expand its powers at the citizenry’s expense and at
the expense of our freedoms.
As investigative
journalist Glenn Greenwald warns:
“The last
two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and
rhetoric in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’ that are carbon
copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that
began nearly twenty years ago. This New War on Terror—one that is
domestic in name from the start and carries the explicit purpose of
fighting ‘extremists’ and ‘domestic terrorists’ among
American citizens on U.S. soil—presents the whole slew of
historically familiar dangers when governments,
exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the
power to control information, debate, opinion, activism and
protests.”
Greenwald is referring
to the USA Patriot Act, passed almost 20 years ago, which paved the
way for the eradication of every vital safeguard against government
overreach, corruption and abuse.
Free speech, the right
to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due
process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense,
accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press,
sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government:
all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s
war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced
since Sept. 11, 2001.
Some members
of Congress get it.
In a letter opposing
expansion of national security powers, a handful congressional
representatives urged their colleagues not to repeat the mistakes of
the past:
“While many
may find comfort in increased national security powers in the wake of
this attack, we must emphasize that we
have been here before and we have seen where that road leads. Our
history is littered with examples of initiatives sold as being
necessary to fight extremism that quickly devolve into tools used for
the mass violation of the human and civil rights of the American
people… To expand the government’s national security powers once
again at the expense of the human and civil rights of the American
people would only serve to further undermine our democracy, not
protect it.”
Cue the Emergency
State, the government’s Machiavellian version of crisis management
that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name
of national security.
This is the power grab
hiding in plain sight, obscured by the political machinations of the
self-righteous elite. This is how the government continues to exploit
crises and use them as opportunities for power grabs under the guise
of national security. Indeed, this is exactly how the government
added red
flag gun laws, precrime surveillance, fusion centers, threat
assessments, mental health assessments, involuntary confinement
to its arsenal of weaponized powers.
The objective is not
to make America safe again. That has never been the government’s
aim.
Greenwald explains:
“Why would
such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons
more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the
result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be
criminalized by new ‘domestic terrorism’ laws that are not
already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly
because—just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror
laws—their
real aim is to criminalize that which
should not be criminalized:
speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling
coalition.”
So you see, the issue
is not whether Donald Trump or Roger Stone or MyPillow
CEO Mike Lindell deserve to be banned from Twitter, even if
they’re believed to be spouting misinformation, hateful ideas, or
fomenting discontent.
Rather, we should be
asking whether any corporation or government agency or entity
representing a fusion of the two should have the power
to muzzle, silence, censor, regulate, control and altogether
eradicate so-called “dangerous” or “extremist” ideas.
This unilateral power
to muzzle free speech represents a far greater danger than any
so-called right- or left-wing extremist might pose.
The ramifications are
so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in
word, deed, thought or by association.
Yet where many go
wrong is in assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or
challenging the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a
suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up
like a dangerous criminal.
Eventually, all you
will really need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the
internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a
hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating
lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or
generally live in the United States.
The groundwork has
already been laid.
The trap is set.
All that is needed is
the right bait.
With the help of
automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software,
hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to
turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior
sensing software, government agents have been busily spinning a
sticky spider-web of threat
assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,”
and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential
enemies of the state.
It’s the American
police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George
Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one
oppressive pre-crime
and pre-thought
crime package.
What’s more, the
technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break
a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write,
where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you
communicate. Computers by way of AI (artificial intelligence) now do
the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text
messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks, all
of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used
against you someday at a time and place of the government’s
choosing.
For instance, police
in major American cities have been using predictive policing
technology that allows them to identify individuals—or groups of
individuals—most likely to commit a crime in a given community.
Those individuals are then put on notice that their movements and
activities will be closely monitored and any criminal activity (by
them or their associates) will result in harsh penalties.
In other words, the
burden of proof is reversed: you are guilty before you are given any
chance to prove you are innocent.
Dig beneath the
surface of this kind of surveillance/police state, however, and you
will find that the real purpose of pre-crime is not safety but
control.
Red flag gun laws
merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where
everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be
preemptively rendered harmless.
This is the same
government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and
law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and
other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and
result in their being labeled potential
enemies of the state.
For instance, if you
believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely,
your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with
like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the
government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or
searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially
anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could
be at
the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
Moreover, as a New
York Times
editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a.
domestic
terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the
government
is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the
economy
is about to collapse and the government
will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual
number of political
and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.
According to one FBI
latest report, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism
threat if you espouse conspiracy theories, especially if you “attempt
to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors
working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others”
and are “usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations
of events.”
Additionally,
according to Michael C. McGarrity, the FBI’s assistant director of
the counterterrorism division, the bureau now “classifies
domestic terrorism threats into four main categories: racially
motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority
extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion
extremism.”
In other words, if you
dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s,
you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated
accordingly.
Again, where many
Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing
something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for
some form of intervention or detention.
In fact, U.S. police
agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist
“threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual
threats for some time now.
In much the same way
that the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the
surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a
far-reaching domestic spying program that turned every American
citizen into a criminal suspect, the government’s anti-extremism
program renders otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as
potentially extremist.
In fact, all you need
to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected
to heightened scrutiny is use
certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the
internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp
or stutter, drive
a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express
yourself on social media, appear
mentally ill, serve in the military,
disagree
with a law enforcement official, call
in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take
flying or boating lessons, appear
suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or
smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely
resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a
walking cane), stare
at a police officer, question government authority, or appear
to be pro-gun or pro-freedom.
Be warned: once you
get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist
watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a
red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off,
whether or not you should actually be on there.
You will
be tracked wherever you go.
You will
be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.
This is pre-crime on
an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.
The government has
been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with
fusion
centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the
corporate sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral
scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and
by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial
recognition, predictive
policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics
(in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
If you’re not scared
yet, you should be.
Connect the dots.
Start with the powers
amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the
government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be
an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers
under NDAA*, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching
surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share
surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.
To that, add tens of
thousands of armed, surveillance drones and balloons that are
beginning to blanket American skies, facial recognition technology
that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do.
And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers
being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting
to “predict” crimes and identify so-called criminals before they
happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical
algorithms and prognostication programs.
Hopefully you’re
starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to
identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a
potential
threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental
illness to having a military background to challenging its authority
to just being on the government’s list of persona
non grata.
There’s always a
price to pay for standing up to the powers-that-be.
Yet as I make clear in
my book Battlefield
America: The War on the American People,
you don’t even have to be a dissident to get flagged by the
government for surveillance, censorship and detention.
All you really need to
be is a citizen of the American police state.
Constitutional
attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The
Rutherford Institute.
His new book Battlefield
America: The War on the American People
is
available at www.amazon.com.
Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
Click for
Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to
load.
==========================================
* NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act.
Zie
ook: 'De
laatste beslissing van Trump t.a.v. Jemen gaat wat betreft schunnig
handelen mijlen verder dan de Capitol Hill rel en zal niet worden
teruggedraaid door Biden'
'A
Domestic Terrorism Law? War on Dissent Will Proceed Full Speed Ahead'
(een ICH artikel geschreven door Philip Giraldi)
'Trumpisme en fascisme eindig je niet met censuur en andere autoritaire maatregelen, maar door de condities te veranderen die e.e.a. mogelijk hebben gemaakt' (en zie de links in dat bericht)
'Joe Biden belazert het volk en de rel op Capitol Hill leidt tot Patriot Act II: totale controle op het volk, ofwel de vorming van een totale politiestaat'
'De roep om censuur na de stormloop op het Capitol zal ook links keihard treffen'
'Rellen op Capitol Hill: burgeroorlog in VS dichterbij dan de laatste 155 jaar en de roep om censuur klinkt harder dan ooit'
'Edward Snowden over Silicon Valley censuur en andere zaken die de persvrijheid en de vrijheid in het algemeen in gevaar brengen'
'Om ons thuis, de planeet, te redden moeten we de westerse oorlogsmachine stilleggen'
En
terzijde: 'American
Psychosis'
(een kort artikel en korte video op ICH met Chris Hedges)
Worried about free speech, FBI never sent bulletin on Capitol threats
