The Truth Simmers the Pot of Sabu
(All credits to the original writer of this article: Patti Galle editor at thehackernews.com)As I look at my guy fawkes mask and reflect on the recent arrest of several lulzsec members, I have a wrenching feeling in my gut to tell the “truth.”Gather around anonymous, lulzsec, FBI, passionate supporters, liberal haters, and people without a clue. I have something to tell you and although the truth may hurt, it is time to find that wrenching in your own gut and step up.Today all focus is on sabu and his taboo relationship with the FBI that caused the arrest of:Ryan ackroyd a.k.a. Kayla, lol, lolsoonjake davis a.k.a. Topiary, atopiarydarren martyn a.k.a. Pwnsauce, raepsauce, networkkittendonncha o’cearrbhail a.k.a. PalladiumJeremy hammond a.k.a. Anarchaos, sup_g, burn, yohoho, powAs should yours, my heart goes out to these brave men and their families as they work their way through the corrupt and ill focused justice system for leading the only movement existing in our mis-shapened world that works to do one thing: tell the truth.One must ask them self why lulzsec, anonymous, wikileaks, etc. Exist? What has driven millions of young people behind the mask and into cyber space to place self, family and home on the front line of attack by the FBI and other infamous law enforcement agencies? The answer is quite clear. The truth. If the FBI, government, multi-billion dollar corporations, banks and other financial institutions were telling us the truth, well, who would need them?I had an amusing read when an FBI agent stated the following after the arrest. “this is devastating to the organization. We’re chopping of the head of lulzsec.”Errrr, excuse me? You can’t chop off the head of an idea, or an injustice, or a revolution. You cannot stop the wheel of the rights of the people and the fight against tyranny. The FBI needs to read a bit of history in their spare time.Sabu did what many others have done in every single fight for right. He turned coat. He played double agent. He sold out.So what? Does that mean that the movement is over? Does that mean that the FBI has successfully told the people of the world that they have to go back to corruption, misuse of tax dollars, and governance by greed?Does this mean that anonymous and wikileaks and lulzsec can no longer fight to tell the people of the world the “truth?”I think not.I was thinking of nelson mandela this morning. Thinking of his 20 years in prison. The government taking away from him every right of every human being on earth for doing one thing: telling the truth. Exposing and speaking out against injustice and tryanny. I was also thinking about the thousands of people who are being forced to foreclose on their homes, the people who have no jobs, the young people who have no future because we have allowed the 1% to bath in our revenues and take our possessions and our pride.Yes, shame on sabu. Shame on him for jumping ship and leaving the boat to sink. But remember, it hasn’t sunk to the bottom. The misguided men and women who work for what they have been brain wahsed to think is justice have only hurt themselves. They are targeting the very people who are putting themselves on the cyber line to tell the truth to the people so they may understand the complete and utter human rights devastation that is taking place world wide.Sabu may join the ranks of people like, john walker, igor gouzenko, oleg gordievsky, adma yahiye gadahn, aldrich ames, tokyo rose, aaron burr, robert hanssen, and the most famous of all, benedict arnold. But, I ask you, has sabu or any of those people truly supressed the right of the people to know the truth?No, because there is an army a foot. It is called a “cyber army.” It cannot be supressed or have “it’s head chopped off.”Lulzsec, anonymous, wikileaks, and the army of angels who support them, I ask you to take the actions of sabu and turn them into a statement so large and so wide and so big that this will not cripple the reason for your existence.
Are you listening? If so, take up your keyboards and fight the good fight. Remember, it is only the “truth” that will set you free.
Targeting Free Expression
by Stephen Lendman
March 4, 2012
Free expression in all forms is fundamental in democratic societies. Without it, all other freedoms are at risk.
Included are free speech, a free press, freedom of thought, culture, and intellectual inquiry. It also includes the right to challenge government authority peacefully, especially in times of war and cases of injustice, lawlessness, official incompetence, and abusive government behavior.
Denying it risks tyranny. Voltaire defended it, saying “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Howard Zinn called dissent “the highest form of patriotism.” It includes the right to speak and write freely, assemble, protest publicly, and associate with anyone for any reason lawfully.
Democracy depends on it. Bill of Rights freedoms affirm it. Nonetheless, US history is strewn with abusive laws. The 1798 Sedition Act criminalized publishing “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against President John Adams or Congress, but allowed it against Vice President Thomas Jefferson.
The 1917 Espionage Act imprisoned anyone convicted of “insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or (encouraging) refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States.”
It targeted First Amendment speech against WW I and American’s participation in it. The 1918 Sedition Act went further. It criminalized “disloyal, scurrilous (or) abusive” anti-government speech.
The Supreme Court upheld the Espionage Act, notably in (Eugene) Debs v. United States. A five-time socialist presidential candidate, he served prison time for opposing militarism and America’s WW I entry.
In 1968, the Warren Court disallowed draft card burning on grounds it would disrupt the “smooth and efficient functioning” of American recruitment.
However, in 1969, the Court upheld student rights to wear black arm bands, protesting the Vietnam War. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), it ruled government can’t punish inflammatory speech unless directed to incite lawless action.
In Texas v. Johnson (a 1989 flag burning case), Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion, saying:
“(I)f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”
America has no Brennans today. As a result, speech and all other liberties are threatened. Under either major party, the nation’s hurtling toward tyranny.
Forgotten is Jefferson’s warning, saying:
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.” He also said free speech “cannot be limited without being lost.”
Former US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall added:
“Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression (regardless of its) ideas…subject matter (or) content….Our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship.”
Suppressing Free Expression
Major media scoundrels are thought control gatekeepers. Instead of reporting vital information accurately, they suppress it. The free interchange of speech, ideas, and opinions suffers. Public opinion’s manipulated to support what people should oppose, denounce, and refuse to accept.
Police state laws pass largely below the radar. They erode and destroy fundamental freedoms. The USA Patriot Act alone wrecked key constitutional protections, including:
• •Fifth and Fourteen Amendment due process rights;
•First Amendment freedom of association rights;
•Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures;
•prohibitions against unchecked government surveillance powers to monitor virtually all our activities, and use secret “evidence” unavailable to counsel in prosecuting politically targeted defendants.
In addition, the Act created the federal crime of “domestic terrorism.” It applies to US citizens and aliens. It states criminal law violations are considered domestic terrorist acts if they aim to “influence (government policy) by intimidation or coercion (or) intimidate or coerce a civilian population.”
By this definition, anti-war and global justice demonstrations, environmental and animal rights activism, civil disobedience, and dissent of any kind may be called “domestic terrorism.”
As a result, Occupy Wall Street and other protesters may be arrested and so charged.
HR 347 increases the likelihood. The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011:
“Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.”
“Defines ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.”
On February 6, a Senate amendment titled, “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” passed unanimously with no dissent.
On February 28, the House suspended the rules and passed HR 347 388 - 3. The bill awaits Obama’s signature.
Only the fullness of time will determine how much damage is done, but clear red flags are raised.
On February 29, Russia Today reported how First Amendment rights are risked, saying:
“Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further,” this measure threatens legitimate protests near locations where US officials are present, even with no knowledge they’re there.
Participants may be criminally prosecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Section (c) states:
“the term restricted buildings or grounds means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area -
(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;
(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.’ “
In fact, they may be covered wherever they are any time for any purpose. Virtually any event may be designated “significant.”
Among others, they include congressional sessions, party conventions, G8, G20, IMF, World Bank, and NATO meetings/summits, public appearances for any reason, funerals of prominent officials, locations with visiting foreign dignitaries or despots, and other events unrelated to government business.
Vague language leaves it up for grabs how authorities will use this measure, and how courts will interpret it if challenged.
OWS protesters target government, corporate, and related locations for redress. Many hundreds already have been harassed, violently attacked, arrested and detained.
Expect worse if they’re criminalized for exercising their First Amendment rights. As a result, they may be subject to arrest, prosecution, imprisonment up to 10 years, and/or fines.
Whether it turns out this way isn’t clear. However, numerous police state laws currently target First Amendment and other freedoms. Activists are wrongfully imprisoned on bogus domestic terrorism charges.
A Final Comment
Will sweeping anti-OWS crackdowns follow under HR 347 and other measures entirely destroying inviolable constitutional rights cast aside to enforce tyranny? Only the fullness of time will tell, but don’t bet against it.
Remember Jefferson’s warning that “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
In today’s climate of permanent war, corporate predation, and state-sponsored fear, if ordinary people don’t defend their rights, who will?
Award winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Stephen Lendman
TO ANYONE WHO THINKS SOME COPS ARE GOOD
I know it’s long. But don’t be fucking lazy. How long could it possibly take you?
When we are dealing with the police as an institutional structure, we are not dealing with a group of individuals acting on their own personal feelings and judgements, but rather, with a group of functionaries who have, as part of the terms of their jobs, agreed to set their personal opinions and feelings aside and instead act as obedient agents of the state… Thus, if we are referring to “the police” as an institution, rather than the personal feelings of individual police, no, they are not “part of the 99%”, they are the enforcers of the 1%’s power. — David Graeber, PHD Professor of Anthropology
According to the 3rd Quarter Report of The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project, police officers were accused of sexual assault at a rate of 79 per 100,000 law enforcement personal. The rate of accusations for the general public is 28.7 per 100,000 general public. When corrected for gender these numbers tell us that there are 1.5 times more accusations of sexual assault among male law enforcement officers than among the general male population. The fact that rapists seem to be concentrated among a group of armed individuals who have the purported authority to detain and arrest other individuals should be more than a little alarming for even the most prolific police bootlicker.
“As you can see, when we examine violent crime statistics, law enforcement officers appear to be involved in violent crime in a comparable rate with the general population. 432 officers out of every 100,000 compared to 454.5 people out of every 100,000. So, roughly 0.43% vs 0.45%.
Both seem like small numbers, don’t they? Yet most people would probably tell you that they are worried about the rate of violent crimes… but not police misconduct even though both occur at similar rates statistically.
If you’re wondering about the homicide rates, “Homicide Charged” compares the number of alleged homicides in general population with the number of police officers actually charged with homicide or murder. The “Homicide” number compares the same general population statistic with the number of officers involved in questionable non-vehicular homicide deaths including deaths in custody as a result of excessive force that were not charged as homicides.
The statistic for sexual assaults is the stunner for us though. 29.3 per 100,000 in the general population vs 73.3 per 100,000 for law enforcement officers. That would seem to catch people’s attention as a problem, but apparently it doesn’t.
So, you see, it’s all a matter of context. Sure, .073% is a small percentage of the population of police officers in the US, but that number represents 522 officers per year and is a larger, by over 2x, ratio of the population of police than are the number of alleged sexual assailants in the US general population at .029%.
So, the next time you find yourself challenged by a law enforcement officer who says that police misconduct isn’t a problem because it only represents a small percentage of the number of police officers in the US. Remember that it really does represent a small percentage but so does crime in the general population but that doesn’t stop people from worrying so much about it that they’ll spend a majority of their tax dollars to fight it.”
When current data is filtered to examine only incidents that can be classified as violent crimes as specified per the US FBI/DOJ Uniform Crime Reporting standards and then compared with the 2009 FBI/DOJ UCR Crime in the United States report as a per capita general population and per capita law enforcement basis the results indicate that overall violent crime rates are not too divergent between the two population groups with a difference of only 20.1 per 100k point between the two. However, there appear to be some more significant differences at a more granular level with robbery rates for police far below those reported for the general population but sexual assault rates are significantly higher for police when compared to the general population.
While the rate of police officers officially charged with murder is only 1.06% higher than the current general population murder rate, if excessive force complaints involving fatalities were prosecuted as murder the murder rate for law enforcement officers would exceed the general population murder rate by 472%.
“But most cops are good right? It’s just a few that spoil the bunch.”
In today’s American society, if you don’t suggest this propaganda at the end of any comment regarding police brutality, you’re labeled as anti-police, or perhaps a conspiracy theorist.
I just want to set the record straight: I am not anti-police. I am anti to the current form of law enforcement we have today. For far too long I have believed that the police have the ability to “adjust” the law, to serve it in any form they see fit. And what bothers me most is the fact that when one police officer does wrong, there are VERY few officers who will stand up for what it is right and come forward about the abuses perpetrated by their fellow officers. A lot of officers would say they wouldn’t rat on their “brother”. But in my opinion, this makes those officers complicit and equally responsible under the law, as an accomplice.
So the next time you see a video of 12 cops, 5 of which are beating the shit out of a suspect, don’t just castrate the 5 cops who are clearly to blame. Ask yourself: What about the other 7? Why didn’t they come forward? Why weren’t those cops stopping the others? THEN… tell me it’s just a spoiled few in the bunch.
And just for good measure:
The Department of Homeland Security and police forces label anyone who they disagree with – or who disagrees with government policies – as “terrorists”.
Don’t believe me?
Well, according to a law school professor, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act, “Anyone who … speaks out against the government’s policies could be declared an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.”
This may have seemed over-the-top to some, but events have proven it true.
For example, the following is considered terrorism or suspected terrorism in modern America:
- Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones (although killing innocent civilians with drones is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this)
I just don’t even know how to respond to this.
so much for that factory farming thing =/
‘According to a newly published DHS report if You Love “Individual Liberty” Or If You “Believe In Conspiracy Theories” You Are A Potential Terrorist.’