Center for a Stateless Society » war on terrorism

Dit is zo’n tijd geweest waarin een reeks willekeurige, schijnbaar losstaande gebeurtenissen allemaal een algemene les voor mij hebben versterkt. Allereerst werd op 21 januari gemeld dat Canadese en Amerikaanse veiligheidsdiensten—Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), de Mounties, de FBI, Homeland Security, en provinciale, staats- en lokale politie—nauw hebben samengewerkt met Enbridge, TransCanada en andere energieleveranciers die betrokken zijn bij de aanleg van pijpleidingen, om activisten die strijden tegen fracken onder toezicht te houden als potentiële “terroristen” (“Opposed to Fracking? You Might Be a Terrorist,” PopularResistance.org). Scotland Yard heeft op soortgelijke wijze “radicalen” uit dierenrechten-, anti-oorlog-, antikapitalistisme- en anti-genetische modificatie-bewegingen in de gaten gehouden.

Nog diezelfde dag werd in Amerika (“So now Homeland Security can detain suspected movie pirates?” IO9, January 21) een man gearresteerd vanwege het dragen van Google Glass in een bioscoop in Ohio. Hij werd drie uur lang vastgehouden—ook al had hij de “record” functie uitgezet.

Tot slot werd op 3 februari door Truth-Out.org een rechtszaak gemeld met als doel het terugdraaien van de Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, een Amerikaanse wet die van voormalige overtredingen zoals het bevrijden van dieren uit intensieve veehouderij—of zelfs het illegaal betreden van grondgebied of undercover opnames maken zonder toestemming—als terroristische activiteiten behandelt. Ter achtergrondinformatie, onthoud dat—ondanks het feit dat de FBI in 2004 dierenrechten- en milieuactivisten als meest gevaarlijke dreiging van binnenlands terrorisme bestempelde—niemand ooit gewond is geraakt bij de protestacties van deze bewegingen.

Alle high-level “antiterrorismewetgeving” die na 9-11 is doorgevoerd werd toentertijd gerechtvaardigd door de dringende behoefte iedereen tegen te houden die van plan was een straalvliegtuig in een wolkenkrabber te storten, miltvuur te verspreiden of een “vuile bom” in een grote stad af te laten gaan. Dit waren veronderstelde buitengewone bevoegdheden die alleen moesten worden ingezet tegen buitengewone dreigingen, nooit tegen gewone misdaden. Maar wanneer heeft de staat ooit iets beloofd en haar woord gehouden? De Espionage and Sedition Acts die werden ingevoerd tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog werden vergezeld door soortgelijke toezeggingen. Ze zouden niet worden gebruikt om gewone meningsverschillen en politiek debat te onderdrukken—en eindigden uiteindelijk als aanleiding voor de massa-arrestatie van leden van de Industrial Workers of the World en de Socialistische Partij en openlijke critici van de oorlog.

Dus hier zijn we dan. De USA PATRIOT Act en een reeks veiligheidsdiensten zoals de CSIS, RCMP, FBI en DHS worden gebruikt om de belangen van de fossiele-brandstoffenindustrie, de filmindustrie en de landbouwindustrie te beschermen tegen open discussie, spot of protest. Het als “terrorisme” behandelen van protesten die bedrijfsactiviteiten verstoren? Als de USA PATRIOT Act een paar generaties geleden was ingevoerd, dan vermoed ik dat sit-ins in lunchzaken en bus-boycots als “terrorisme” zouden worden bestempeld.

Het ultieme doel van alle staatswetgeving en het handhavingsapparaat is, ongeacht de vele schijnbare rechtvaardiging voor deze of gene wet, het verdedigen van de belangen van het systeem en diegenen die het beheersen. Elke wet die door de staat wordt aangenomen, en elke gewapende en geüniformeerde ambtenaar die door de staat gebruikt om deze wetten te handhaven, zal de wet interpreteren op een manier waarop de belangen van het machtssysteem het best worden behartigd.

Vertaald vanuit het Engels door: SBM

If You’re Reading This, You’re Probably A Terrorist

Kevin Carson — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:00:28 +0000

This has been one of those times that a series of random, seemingly unrelated events have all reinforced a common lesson for me. First, it was reported on January 21 (“Opposed to Fracking? You Might Be a Terrorist,” PopularResistance.org) that Canadian and U.S. law enforcement agencies — Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Mounties, the FBI, Homeland Security, and provincial, state and local police — have been working closely with Enbridge, TransCanada and other energy companies engaged in pipeline projects to keep leading anti-fracking activists under surveillance as potential “terrorists.” Scotland Yard has carried out similar surveillance of “radicals” in the animal rights, anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-GMO movements.

The same day in the U.S. (“So now Homeland Security can detain suspected movie pirates?” IO9, January 21), Homeland Security seized a man for wearing Google Glass in an Ohio movie theater, detaining him for three hours — even though he had the “record” function turned off.

Finally, on February 3, Truth-Out.org reported a lawsuit to overturn the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a U.S. law that treats formerly misdemeanor acts of civil disobedience like freeing animals from factory farms — or even trespassing or filming undercover without permission — as acts of terrorism (“Is Freeing a Duck Terrorism?“). By way of background information, bear in mind that — even though the FBI in 2004 designated animal rights and environmental activists the leading threat of domestic terrorism, no one has ever been injured by any of these movements’ protest actions.

All the high-level “counter-terrorism” legislation passed after 9/11 was justified at the time by the urgent need to stop anyone from ever again crashing a jet plane into a skyscraper, spreading anthrax or setting off a “dirty bomb” in a major city. These were supposedly extraordinary powers granted only to counter extraordinary dangers, never to be used by law enforcement against ordinary crimes. But when has the state ever promised that and kept its word? The Espionage and Sedition Acts passed during World War I were accompanied by similar assurances that they wouldn’t be used to suppress ordinary dissent and political debate — and wound up being used as grounds for mass arrests of I.W.W. and Socialist Party members and public critics of the war.

So here we are. The USA PATRIOT Act, and a whole slew of security agencies like the CSIS, RCMP, FBI and DHS are being used to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industries, the movie industry and corporate agribusiness against public debate, embarrassment, or protests. Treating protests that disrupt business as “terrorism?” If USA PATRIOT had been passed a couple of generations ago, I suppose lunch counter sit-ins and bus boycotts would have been classified as “terrorism.”

The ultimate purpose of all the state’s laws and enforcement apparatus, regardless of the many ostensible justifications for this law or that, is to defend the interests of the system and those who control it. Any laws passed by the state, and any armed and uniformed functionaries employed by the state to enforce those laws, will interpret the laws in a way that serves the interests of the system of power.

Translations for this article:

Spanish, Si Estás Leyendo este Artículo, Probablemente Seas un Terrorista
Dutch, Wie dit leest is een terrorist.

True Justice Must Be Served For Guantanamo Detainees

Ryan Calhoun — Mon, 27 May 2013 22:00:02 +0000

President Barack Obama lifted a moratorium on transfers of Guantanamo bay detainees to Yemen – a moratorium he put in place. Why Obama put this moratorium into place after vowing, on a multitude of occasions, to do whatever he could to restore justice and shut down Gitmo is neither here nor there. I don’t intend to speculate on his reasons for taking so long, but I will say that this is one step forward after 3000 steps back.

But of course, this step is only a drop in the bucket representing justice for those jailed indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Now that Obama has made a meaningful step forward toward ending Gitmo, we must put pressure on the executive to see true justice is served. So what will true justice look like for those innocent individuals jailed at Guantanamo? Surely justice would not be to merely release these prisoners into Yemen, where they may very likely meet their end in death-by-drone at some later date.

First, we must look at compensation. In half of the union’s states, compensation is due to those who have wrongfully been imprisoned. Federal statute stipulates $50,000 per year of imprisonment, and $100,000 for those on death row. But of course, for far too many at Gitmo, their wrongful caging goes beyond the standard state or federal case. For example, many were never formally charged with a crime. Many were stripped from their homeland and brought to a foreign island. Many were either tortured directly or force fed during a heroic and continuing hunger strike. All were forced to live under the constant threat that any privileges afforded to them can be stripped away, if they ever refused to comply with the demands of guards. And lastly, many have been known to be innocent for years.

For all of these reasons, we must consider that due compensation far exceeds that of the average wrongfully imprisoned American. I do not mean to speak softly of the plight of your average American prisoner. Practice of solitary confinement has been found by human rights watchdogs to be nothing less than torture. But issues of solitary confinement at Guantanamo are even worse than your average federal supermax. As of 2009, a majority of Gitmo detainees were being held in solitary confinement, often deprived of sleep and beaten for the slightest deviations of prison protocol according the Center For Constitutional Rights.

The issue of compensation is then a difficult one to calculate. There are no standards one can abide by. I might suggest a lump sum of $2m for each innocent detainee, along with either continued compensation from their torturers or even a shifting of the torturers’ wages and benefits to those who should be freed. The same will go for any other prisoner who, in the past or in the future, will be proven innocent of crimes they have never even been accused of formally.

There is also the concerning issue of releasing detainees into Yemen, where I earlier half-jokingly referred to their possible fate of being bombed by the same government that at one time imprisoned them. President Obama, in the same recent speech that he addressed the issue of Guantanamo, also hinted that the drone policy of his administration is going to be made permanent and even be pursued to new degrees. Perhaps instead we should allow the detainees to be freed into the U.S., into any area of their choosing. Anthony Gregory has suggested Pennsylvania avenue as a possible relocation for them, but that might not be in the cards. I think that they should at least be given the option of living in America, as opposed to Yemen or other countries. Perhaps we can even get them on a path to U.S citizenship? This might, quite ironically, be the safest place for them.

And then there is the issue of future justice. Justice can not truly be served while the practices that led to their wrongful imprisonment are still being carried out. We must arrest their torturers and those responsible for implementing, endorsing and enforcing their torture. This includes both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, along with a lengthy list of top military brass. They, like all others, are entitled to a trial. Those found guilty must pay restitution. We must end the unjust occupations that made such black-bagging of individuals seem necessary. End our campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and all other nations under attack by the U.S government. End government secrecy. Allow free and open journalism about war crimes the U.S has committed. We must make a solemn promise to never allow such a travesty of justice to occur ever again.

Finally, there is the issue of legacy. Many of those detained unjustly have acted as noble heroes worthy of reverence. Their hunger strike forced the issue, laying bare the injustice of their imprisonment. As such, a memorial is in order. Perhaps we can set aside a space in the heart of Washington D.C, alongside those who seek to emblazon the injustice of Japanese internment camps, where family, friends and supporters can set up such a memorial. To create a memorial for all those innocent victims of a racist United States military.

We must honor, revere and restore as much justice as possible to these innocent victims. We must never forget.