"The top-secret world the government created
in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so
unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many
people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many
agencies do the same work" the Post's Dana Priest and William Arkin write.
"After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the
system put in place to keep the United
States safe is so massive that its
effectiveness is impossible to determine."
Here are
just a few of the investigation's findings included in the online report [1]:
* "Some
1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related
to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000
locations across the United States."
* "An
estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in
Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances."
* "In Washington and the
surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are
under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they
occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings --
about 17 million square feet of space."
Moreover,
the Post writes, "51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in
15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks," and
"Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and
domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports
each year -- a volume so large that many are routinely ignored."
Since 9/11
no fewer than 263 intelligence and counterterrorism organizations have been
"created or reorganized."
The Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act 2007
Perhaps
more disturbing still is "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2007" (read Thought Control Act). The bill was passed on Oct
23, 2007 by a margin of 404-6 where as the Senate version of the bill is still
awaiting action.
Under cover
of studying "violent radicalization," the bill would broaden the
already-fluid definition of "terrorism" to encompass political
activity and protest by dissident groups, effectively criminalizing civil
disobedience and non-violent direct action by developing policies for
"prevention, disruption and mitigation."
Despite the
fact that the legislation has not been signed into law, the Department of
Homeland Security is moving towards implementing a provision of the Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. One of the bill's provisions gives the
Department of Homeland Security the authority to fund a University based Center
of Excellence to study ways to thwart what the government believes are
extremist belief systems and radical ideologies of individual Americans.
The
"Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of
2007" creates a ten member new commission which will study how to prohibit
". . . . .the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system
. . . . .to advance political, religious, or social change.. . . ."
Spreading these beliefs to "advance political, religious, or social change"
is defined as "radicalization." If you are trying to educate your
fellow countrymen, to democratically influence popular opinion, then you may
find yourself accused of "facilitating ideologically-based violence."
It also
establishes a Center
of Excellence for the
Prevention of Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism that will study the
social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of the problem to
provide further suggestions for action to address these dangers.
The DHS is
already funding a Center of Excellence to study thought criminals in the United States at the University of Maryland.
Under cover
of studying "violent radicalization," both bills would broaden the
already-fluid definition of "terrorism" to encompass political activity
and protest by dissident groups, effectively criminalizing civil disobedience
and non-violent direct action by developing policies for "prevention,
disruption and mitigation," Tom Burghardt argues and calls it COINTELPRO
2.0.
The bill's language hides
its true intent
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
