mcveigh not a terrorist?This is what fighting “terrorism” in this country has become.

Timothy McVeigh is responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing, the deadliest act of terrorism in this country prior to 9/11, killing 168 people, but a Homeland Security official says he’s not a terrorist. Neither is Eric Rudolph, who killed two people and injured hundreds others in a bombing campaign against abortion and a “homosexual agenda.”

Pennsylvania’s Homeland Security Director James Powers said:

“Tim McVey [sic] is not a terrorist, just very angry with the U.S. government,” Powers said. “Whether a person is a terrorist or a criminal is irrelevant to me.”

You know whom he and the state police do consider terrorists? The Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, even though actions by those groups have been “relatively minor,” by their admission. Those groups have never injured anyone, let alone killed hundreds, but the Pennsylvania state police is offering free, yes free, “risk and vulnerability assessments” for corporations to help protect their profits from pesky activists. [Sounds kind of like that leaked State Department presentation, doesn't it?]

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated, “news of the weird” kind of incident. It’s systemic.

The Maryland State Police have admitted classifying 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists, including opponents of the war and the death penalty, and tracking them in state and federal “terrorism” databases. Cops infiltrated organizing meetings and rallies, and spied on political email lists, similar to the government infiltration of the RNC.

The groups targeted, including the Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty and the Baltimore Pledge of Resistance, aren’t suspected of harming anyone, aren’t suspected of bombing anyone, aren’t even suspected of vandalizing property.

Their crime? They’re “fringe people,” says Thomas E. Hutchins, the former state police superintendent who authorized the operation.

“I don’t believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government,” he said.

Get this, one activist was described in police databases as having a “primary crime” of “terrorism-anti-government” and a “secondary crime” of “terrorism-anti-war protesters.” This wasn’t an isolated abuse of power, this is a coordinated campaign of harassment and intimidation.

The gloves are really starting to come off, folks. Years ago, government officials were using these same tactics, but under the pretext of going after illegal, underground groups like the Earth Liberation Front. Now, they are openly, brazenly, harassing and infiltrating nonviolent activist groups with no connection–not even an ideological connection–to saboteurs. Why? This “War on Terrorism,” above all else, is an ideological war.

In some ways, though, I think folks should take some pride in that. Considering what is mainstream government policy now, I’d much rather be in the camp of “fringe people.” As Billy Bragg said, “If you’ve got a blacklist, I want to be on it.”

Related posts:

  • You first need to realise that McVeigh was likely some sort of patsy. While he may have had something to do with it, the real perpetrators are never investigated and a strict "Hands Off!" approach has always been issued on them just like investigating the real do'ers of 9-11.

    Get beyond leftwing and rightwing and realise that anyone that opposes this system whether we are vegetarians, 9-11 Truth activists, libertarian Lew Rockwell supporters or Ron Paul supporters are labeled as Terrorists thanks to things like the MIAC REPORT and the ADL. Anyone that opposes the system and works for true change unlike the faux setup New World Order stooge Obama is a terrorist. If you do not unite on some front, truly we will ALL hang together.


    www.infowars.com
    www.folkandfaith.com/smf/index.php
    http://examerica.wordpress.com/
    http://www.new-right.org/

    all are sites that at least on some level "get" this...
  • Tarzan
    I think 'Anonymous' needs a 9mm behind the ear.

    If Timothy McVeigh is a 'terrorist', then so is the US Government for firebombing the compound at Waco, killing 76 people.
  • Anonymous
    I'm glad people like the ALF, ELF, SHAC and so on and so forth are officially considered terrorists. That's precisely what they are. Though I think they should be shot, and not just tracked on watchlists.
  • Kathy
    Nicole: I think it depends on whose window you are throwing the rock through. If you are from the Klan and you throw a rock through someone's window because you don't like their race, then you are in the wrong because that person has done nothing wrong by being black (or whatever race you might be targeting). If, however, you throw a rock through the window of a person who tortures hundreds or thousands of animals to death every year, then it is not quite the same story since we are hardly dealing with an innocent person. If you spend your life victimizing others, how can you complain when you are then victimized??? Personally, I think they should consider themselves lucky with just a broken window. Things would be much worse if they actually got what they deserved.
  • Nicole
    This is unfortunate and our rights have clearly been limited under this administration but this is nothing new. Under J. Edger Hoover, the FBI routinely kept civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr under surveillance. These individuals were often harassed by the government and some like Paul Robeson had their passports revoked to prevent them from speaking out against racial injustice when abroad. I think it is important that we are aware of our history as well as current policy.

    This is more than just economics per se, our administration and currently the Republications freely use the term "terrorist" to neutralize anyone that may oppose their agenda. And this is clearly happening in the Pailin/McCain race. Ultimately this limits the freedom of us all.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12ric...

    Oh but I must agree with Katy that violent protest, even for a "worthy" cause is a slippy slope. We all feel our causes are worthy. And it does insight fear and is intended to insight fear in an individual, family or group. The idea is to send a message and to intimidate the individual into changing or leaving. Whether you are an animal rights activists, pro-lifers or members of the Klan if you throw a rock into someone's window you are trying to intimate that person. For those arguing to the contrary, do you honestly think you would be unafraid if someone throw a rock through your window?
  • Kathy
    Katy: I don't know that the SHAC activists threatened any individual(s), but I know that they protested at their homes, which is legal. If the vivisectors felt threatened by those protests--well, good. They got a tiny taste of the medicine they adminster daily to innocent and defenseless animals. I say free the SHAC activists to keep up the good work!
  • Katy
    All I am saying is EVERYONE is entitled to their constitutional rights. When we start to say well, not these ppl b/c they believe... we take away our own rights as well. This is what legislation has done to activists to create loopholes to remove our rights. You find yourself becoming the enemy.Public protests has led to change w/o having to threaten the individual. HLS wasn't cleared for the NYSE due to public pressure. This was a legitimate means to hit the company where it hurts. Again, I completely agree with the cause, I just disagree with some of the means.
  • Kathy
    Katy: If you are opposed to the methods used by SHAC against HLS (which have been shown to be successful, btw) what do you suggest be done?? People have been speaking out against vivisection for hundreds of years, yet we continue to allow it to take place and we allow our tax dollars to fund it. If visiting a vivisector at home is going to make a difference, I support it wholeheartedly. Nothing done by SHAC or any other AR group comes even close to what these people do to animals on a daily basis. When you spend your lives victimizing others, your claims of victimization tend to fall on deaf ears, at least for those who advocate on behalf of the ones you victimize.
  • FYI, related:
    http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/09/29/americ...
    Apparently, anti-Muslim hate crime isn't terrorism either.
  • GW
    Animals should feel secure in their homes as well.
  • Katy
    Look, I completely disagree with HLS and am all for protesting this company. However, throwing a rock through the window of someone's home where their children live...that's not supposed to make them afraid, just cause economic harm? Actions like this deflect from the main issue and alienate protesters. This is the message the public gets about SHAC. You're right, the govt should not be involved to the extent that they are. Unfortunatly, in 1990 animal rights activists could officialy be labeled terrorists (due partly to the actions of a few extremists) and of course the Patriot Act fucked this up even more. My main issue is: we all have constitutional rights, but we should not infringe on the rights of others. 1st amendment should be excercised freely, but not when it impinges on the rights (specifically 4th amendment) of others. Obviously this goes both ways-we ALL have the right to feel secure in our homes and should not have to worry about our mail being read, phones tapped, etc.
  • Katy:

    A key component of any discussion of traditional "terrorism" is that it is used to instill widespread public fear. For instance, if separatists bomb city buses, killing people, it instills the fear that anyone could be targeted: the goal, then, is to pressure the government to cave to demands so that those fears won't be realized.

    With your example of throwing a rock through a window, those components aren't there. For one, when environmentalists and animal rights activists have done similar things, it isn't random--it's against a specific target. Second, it isn't intended to instill a widespread public fear, or even to make the person targeted afraid--it's intended to cause economic damage. And finally, it isn't intended to influence government conduct--it's intended to influence corporate conduct.
  • Katy
    Terrorism or political crimes can be summed up simply as ideologic crimes meant to sway the public opinion. They can be done to or by the government but often believe their moral beliefs are above the law. Of course this includes these bombings but it also includes threats and acts of fear (such as throwing rocks through the window of one's home and threatening to kill their family)
  • Rob
    I am assuming due to his/her ignorant comment, #7 left him/herself anonymous for a reason. Usual bs I see on a lot of activist lists/blogs lately. They love disrupting our communication and education. Fortunately for us, they choose the ignorant to carry out those actions.

    Let's not forget other groups that are deemed terrorists. For example, Food Not Bombs is one of the top ten as a domestic terrorist threat in Texas. Feeding people is so evil.
  • #7: Care to elaborate?

    If you're referring to the actions by animal and environmental groups, I've actually done quite a bit of research on that. And even the most extreme actions by those activists have never killed anyone, let alone the amount of bloodshed seen in the Oklahoma City bombing.
  • Anonymous
    Maybe you guys should do a little research and actually find out what type of actions those groups actually conduct.
  • mike
    Its always been the same, look back at previous governments, even past civilisations. Power corrupts, end of story. I used to think that was a pretty stupid saying and if I got into power I would be fine but its basic human nature - too much power will corrupt your mind, same as too much food makes you fat.

    Also, the people actually enforcing/making these 'laws' are not in the public view and are paid from taxpayers money - great idea. Actually they came up with that idea...
  • Liz
    I think in the McVeigh vs. ALF distinction it comes down to profits. It's easy to write McVeigh off as a crazy societal delinquint (one for whom our great justice system is designed to rehabilitate), but the goal of ALF/ELF is to systematically target the profits of companies who abuse animals and the earth. That's where the threat lies. "What could you POSSIBLY care about that's worth more than money??? Insanity!" They don't know how to deal with people who reject the most fundamental assumption that our society asks us to make - that acquiring money is the most ultimate and worthy goal, that all other actions must answer to.

    Cash is the single biggest engine that this country (and most of civilization) runs on. Protecting profits ahead of human life has always, always been the agenda of the US government.
    If we cared about people more than money we wouldn't encourage a system that runs on sweatshop labor. We wouldn't bomb the hell out of a country for their oil. The list goes on forever.

    Also, is it possible that we are treated as "terrorists" because animal rights is perceived as almost a religious doctrine instead of a political perspective? I think it's fair to say that we are compared (ignorantly) to the terrorists groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq because we are perceived to have the same incomprehensible fervor for the dismantling of a system we feel is dangerous and destructive.

    The fact that our government is taking unwarranted, pre-emptive strikes against us is completely ludacrous, but not all that susprising considering their actions toward other terrorist groups. You know, the ones who have actually murdered people.
  • Stephen: There are actually quite a few definitions used by the government. The common thread through most of them is that it is defined as the use of violence against civilians in order to influence government conduct.
  • Stephen
    Is there a legal definition of "terrorist", we all think we know what it means but obviously not. Seriously, does anyone know how the law defines terrorism, if at all?
  • B: Thanks for the note, glad you like the site! Will
  • B
    This just seems crazy to me.... How can someone who kills 168 people be labelled not a terrorist and just "very angry with the U.S. government". And also, Rudolph and his campaign aren't labelled as terrorists when they deliberatly harm or kill many people, and groups like ALF and SHAC take great care in NOT harming people, and yet are labelled terrorists over murderers. To me it just seems crazy, what is the world coming to, when murderers are defended and liberationists are oppressed?

    I dunno, maybe my facts/understanding is off, but it just seems crazy....
    By the way Will, great website, I heard about your website at AR2008, and I've check out this site Its Awesome!
blog comments powered by Disqus