After the September 26 FBI raids on peace activists’ homes across the nation, it appears that free speech depends on who’s speaking and what they’re saying.
Is free speech worth the constitutional paper it’s written on?
After the September 26 FBI raids on peace activists’ homes in Minneapolis, Chicago and North Carolina, it appears to depend on who’s speaking and what they’re saying.
The pretext for the raids was investigating “material aide to terrorists”, resulting in grand jury subpoenas and confiscation of computers, books, music CDs and from one home, a Martin Luther King poster. The targeted Minneapolis activists have openly protested US military policy since the 1980s. The FBI certainly knows they have nothing to do with terrorism. These activists simply have the audacity to challenge bi-partisan US invasions, occupations and support for dictatorships and human rights abusers. Dissent on the left has long been seen as ‘criminal behavior’. Where once “the communist threat” was the argument for such repression, now, “terrorism” is.
When it comes to war, US government sees three roles for the American people: 1. Pay hundreds of billions for the largest military on Earth 2. Kill and possibly die or be maimed for US military and corporate dominance of other countries 3. Cheerlead war. The US government — bought and paid for by weapons-makers and mercenaries (‘contractors’) — does not think that We The People have the right to even question, much less challenge and resist permanent war, which is bankrupting our country and civilian deaths ignite more violence.
Just days before the raids, the Department of Justice Inspector General released a report about FBI abuses of peace groups under the Bush Administration — abuses that President Obama continues. Republicans and Democrats rubberstamp domestic spying on peace organizations, Quakers, and solidarity groups visiting countries that the US bombs or subsidizes death squads in.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Center that peace groups who talked about non-violent, democratic practices and international human rights law — that is, alternatives to terrorism — with organizations on the State Department’s “Terrorist Watch List” may be charged with ‘material aid to terrorists’. If ending terrorism is actually the goal, then, why make working to end violence a crime? In his dissent, SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer warned that political speech — the most protected speech under the First Amendment — was being criminalized.
5 Key Principles That Unite Populist Progressives and Tea Party Libertarians
Hey Hillary, Which ‘Intolerant Governments’ Are You Referring To?
Be the first to comment on "Progressive Dissent Is in the FBI’s Crosshairs"