The bill's
vague and open-ended language hides its true intent as to what "violent
radicalization" and "homegrown terrorism" are? It will be
whatever the administration says they are. Violent radicalization is defined as
"adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate)
ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social
change." [2]
Homegrown
terrorism is used to mean "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of
force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating
primarily with the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate or coerce
the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment thereof (to
further) political or social objectives." [3]
Along with
other repressive laws enacted after 9/11, the new law may be used against any
individual or group with unpopular views - those that differ from established
state policies. Prosecutors henceforth will be able to target believers in
Islam, anti-war protesters, web editors, internet bloggers and radio and TV
show hosts and commentators with views the bill calls "terrorist-related
propaganda." [4]
Many
observers fear that the proposed law will be used against U.S.-based groups
engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political
Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing
organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill will undermine academic
integrity and is the latest salvo in a decade-long government grab for power at
the expense of civil liberties. [5]
American Muslims alarmed
at CIA-NYPD covert surveillance
The
seven-million strong Muslim American community was alarmed at the revelation
that the New York City Police Department have carried out covert surveillance on Muslims with the
help of the CIA. An Associated Press (AP) report recently published by the
Washington Post [6] exposed the NYPD spy
program, which is allegedly being conducted with the assistance of individuals
linked to the CIA.
Following a
month-long investigation, the AP reported that the NYPD is using covert
surveillance techniques "that would run afoul of civil liberties rules if
practiced by the federal government" and "does so with unprecedented
help from the CIA in a partnership that has blurred the bright line between
foreign and domestic spying."
The AP report follows a recent Mother Jones [7] revelation that after years of emphasizing informant recruiting as a key task for its agents, the FBI now maintains a roster of 15,000 spies -- many of them tasked with infiltrating Muslim communities in the United States. "In addition, for every informant officially listed in the bureau's records, there are as many as three unofficial ones, according to one former high-level FBI official, known in bureau parlance as "hip pockets." The informants could be doctors, clerks, imams. Some might not even consider themselves informants. But the FBI regularly taps all of them as part of a domestic intelligence apparatus whose only historical peer might be COINTELPRO, the program the bureau ran from the '50s to the '70s to discredit and marginalize organizations ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to civil-rights and protest groups."
The AP investigative report revealed that the NYDP has dispatched teams of undercover officers, known as 'rakers,' into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program. The report said: The NYDP have monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs. Police have also used informants, known as 'mosque crawlers,' to monitor sermons, even when there's no evidence of wrongdoing. The NYPD officials have scrutinized imams and gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors, jobs often done by Muslims. Many of these operations were built with help from the CIA, which is prohibited from spying on Americans but was instrumental in transforming the NYPD's intelligence unit, the AP report added.
Indiana Supreme Court rules against Fourth Amendment
Indiana 's highest court has turned against our rights and the
Constitution of the United
States. The Supreme Court of Indiana decided
on May 12, 2010 that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not
apply to the citizens of Indiana.
The Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, vacated by the Indiana Supreme
Court, says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
The Indiana
Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, ruled that cops can force their way into your
home without a search warrant. Overturning a common law dating back to the
English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Hoosiers have
no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all; a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
The court's
decision stems from a Vanderburgh
County case in which
police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their
apartment. When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told
police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter.
When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall.
A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Disastrous
fallout of the ruling: Radio host Mike
Church has reported on his website that Newton County Sheriff Department head,
Don Hartman Sr., contends the ruling means that random house to house searches
are now possible. "According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random
house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the
Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme
Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked
three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to
trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated
that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will
welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
