Bipartisan plans to criminalize speech as "terrorism"

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 2859
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Bipartisan plans to criminalize speech as "terrorism"

Post by Will Williams » Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:32 pm

Jim Mathias wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:43 am
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ck-america
Trump $500B Black America plan designates KKK, Antifa as 'terrorist organizations'
The plan calls for making lynching a national hate crime...
Image

$500 billion, with a "b," for the poor African-American victims of "White privilege," "systematic racism," and all that crap. That's a lot. Sounds like the Trumpster is pulling what has to be an ilegal backdoor reparations move. So, what's new?

He's taking the White Republican vote for granted -- a heavy slap in the face of White America -- to win over what will be very few Black voters. The entire Jew Occupation Government takes the White American majority for granted.


Racial Separation is the Only Solution!

The National Alliance has the most viable plan to accomplish this.
Image
The National Alliance is not only working to achieve certain goals; it also stands for a comprehensive view of life, or worldview. Its goals have not been chosen arbitrarily in reaction to current social, racial, or economic problems, the way the Democrats and Republicans put together a party platform for election purposes; instead they follow naturally from the Alliance ideology of Cosmotheism. This brochure provides a comprehensive explanation of “What is the National Alliance?”

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 2207
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Bipartisan plans to criminalize speech as "terrorism"

Post by Jim Mathias » Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:12 pm

Will Williams wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:32 pm
Jim Mathias wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:43 am
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ck-america
Trump $500B Black America plan designates KKK, Antifa as 'terrorist organizations'
The plan calls for making lynching a national hate crime...
Image

$500 billion, with a "b," for the poor African-American victims of "White privilege," "systematic racism," and all that crap. That's a lot. Sounds like the Trumpster is pulling what has to be an ilegal backdoor reparations move. So, what's new?

He's taking the White Republican vote for granted -- a heavy slap in the face of White America -- to win over what will be very few Black voters. The entire Jew Occupation Government takes the White American majority for granted.


Racial Separation is the Only Solution!

The National Alliance has the most viable plan to accomplish this.
Image
The National Alliance is not only working to achieve certain goals; it also stands for a comprehensive view of life, or worldview. Its goals have not been chosen arbitrarily in reaction to current social, racial, or economic problems, the way the Democrats and Republicans put together a party platform for election purposes; instead they follow naturally from the Alliance ideology of Cosmotheism. This brochure provides a comprehensive explanation of “What is the National Alliance?”
And what a booklet this is. Every member and supporter ought to have several copies on hand to give out to Whites who may have that desire for a better worldview for Whites. While a link exists which is the digital version can be found at the www.natall.com website, the glossy booklet is so much more impressive to hold and read.
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 2207
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Bipartisan plans to criminalize speech as "terrorism"

Post by Jim Mathias » Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:02 pm

With Trump likely to be booted out soon, this topic seems poised to be elevated in priority for the national government. Will Cons and Demmunists collaborate? I expect it!
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 2207
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Bipartisan plans to criminalize speech as "terrorism"

Post by Jim Mathias » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:24 pm

https://theintercept.com/2021/01/10/cap ... gislation/
Capitol Hill Assault Revives Calls for Domestic Terrorism Law, but Civil Liberties Groups Are Wary
“Before we go down this road again, we should think very carefully about whether new authorities are actually needed and how they might be abused.”
Alex Emmons

January 10 2021, 4:15 p.m.

Since Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday, evidence has piled up showing that many had violent intentions. Photos of nooses and zip-tie handcuffs and videos of assailants trying to smash their way through barricaded doors have highlighted how much danger members of Congress were in before they were evacuated to safety.

The events of January 6 may be the defining moment of Donald Trump’s presidency. But the siege was also the culmination of years of warnings about the the growing threat posed by far-right extremists. An October report from the Department of Homeland Security, for example, said that “white supremacist extremists” will “remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.”

“Can we just accept that the post-9/11 era is over?” Michigan Democrat Elissa Slotkin, a former Defense Department official who touted her experience as a CIA analyst in Iraq and her expertise on terrorism and insurgencies when she ran for Congress in 2018, told MSNBC. “We are in a new era.” While noting that external threats like Russia and China remained, Slotkin continued that “the single greatest national security threat right now is our internal division. It’s the threat of domestic terrorism. It’s that polarization that threatens our democracy.”

However Trump leaves office, a new Congress appears poised to revive a years-old debate on whether the U.S. should expand the legal framework for going after “domestic terrorism.” A group of former Justice Department officials, along with the FBI Agents Association, has long argued that current law makes it easier to prosecute ideologically motivated acts of violence as terrorism if they appear to be inspired by a foreign terror organization like the Islamic State, and that a domestic terror statute would allow them to prosecute white supremacist terror — like Dylann Roof’s mass shooting in a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina — on equal footing.

But civil liberties advocates are wary of such a move, noting that federal law enforcement already has powerful tools to investigate and prosecute acts of domestic terrorism without any new laws, and that importing the anti-terrorism framework risks creating broad and vague powers that could be used to go after activists or religious minorities.

“Anyone familiar with the scope of surveillance and targeting of Black political dissent, or Muslim communities, knows that law enforcement has all the tools it needs to aggressively disrupt and hold accountable those who planned and participated in the storming of the Capitol,” said Diala Shamas, a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Why they didn’t raises serious questions, but it was not because their hands were tied. We don’t need new terrorism designations.”

It’s also unclear exactly what a new domestic terrorism law might look like or whether President-elect Joe Biden would support it.

In November, the Wall Street Journal reported that an informal group of advisers had suggested that Biden step up efforts to counter extremism, including by creating a White House post and an interagency task force to oversee efforts to counter domestic extremism. On his campaign website, Biden promised to “work for a domestic terrorism law that respects free speech and civil liberties, while making the same commitment to root out domestic terrorism as we have to stopping international terrorism.” A transition spokesperson told The Intercept that Biden has not yet taken a position on whether “domestic terrorism” should be a federal crime or what a statute should look like and declined to comment further.

In an address last week while announcing his nomination of Merrick Garland for attorney general, Biden called members of the mob that stormed the Capitol “insurrectionists” and “domestic terrorists,” and said that Trump had incited an “all-out assault on our institutions of democracy.”

In U.S. terrorism prosecutions, the defendant isn’t charged with “domestic terrorism” or “international terrorism” directly. In fact, U.S. law didn’t have a definition of “domestic terrorism” until October 2001. Most terrorism prosecutions rely on broadly construed charges of “material support” for international terror groups, even if the defendants have few direct ties to those networks.

Sayfullo Saipov, for example, an Uzbek immigrant who drove a truck down a bike lane in downtown Manhattan, killing eight people, was charged with providing “material support” to ISIS after claiming its cause as his own, despite having no other ties to the group.

But the “material support” provisions work differently for domestic terror acts, because the U.S. government doesn’t designate domestic organizations, even those like the neo-Nazi Atomwaffen Division, as terrorist groups. Instead, terrorism law can be used to charge someone for providing material support for certain offenses, more than 50 of which can be domestic. They include killing a federal officer, using weapons of mass destruction, and setting off explosives, but not many mass shootings.

Although terrorism laws can apply to right-wing violence, a 2019 review by The Intercept found that as a matter of practice, they rarely are. The review found that since the 9/11 attacks, 268 right-wing extremists have been prosecuted in federal court, but Justice Department prosecutors only used anti-terrorism statutes in 38 of those cases. That formed a sharp double standard with international terrorism prosecutions, in which such laws were used more than 400 times.

Jason Blazakis, a former State Department Official and professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies who has written in support of a domestic terrorism statute, told The Intercept that existing law is a difficult and arbitrary patchwork that makes it hard to prosecute certain acts, like politically motivated mass shootings, under terrorism laws.

“When someone like [Tree of Life synagogue shooter] Robert Bowers kills 18 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue, and he’s not considered a domestic terrorist because he used a handgun and not a weapon of mass destruction. It really points to the absurdity of the law as it exists today,” Blazakis told The Intercept. “If that were an individual inspired by ISIS, they’d be charged with an act of terrorism.”

Blazakis said he supports a narrowly tailored domestic terror statute that would make it easier to charge individual, politically motivated acts of violence, rather than trying to designate domestic groups as “terrorist,” which would raise First Amendment issues.

But critics say the expansion of federal law enforcement power since 9/11 makes additional terrorism laws unnecessary and potentially dangerous. “The FBI has, since 9/11, gained extraordinary authorities to investigate. In order to open an assessment — the lowest level of investigation — the only thing that the FBI needs to have is an ‘authorized purpose,’” said Faiza Patel, co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. “Given the fact that there are at least 50 statutes that count as domestic terrorism, I feel confident that they could find an authorized purpose. They have certainly done that when they have gone after Muslims and other minority communities.”

The “terrorist” label is also “vulnerable to political exploitation,” Patel noted, pointing to Republicans’ use of terrorism language to describe antifa last summer.

During the nationwide protests that followed George Floyd’s death last year, Trump and Republican legislatures showed an awareness of the political effects of the terrorism label. Shortly after Trump tweeted that he wanted to designate antifa a “terrorist organization,” former Attorney General Bill Barr issued a statement: “The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.” A number of Republican members of Congress also introduced resolutions urging the designation, which were condemned by civil liberties groups.

There have already been attempts in Congress to introduce a domestic terror statute, but they haven’t made it out of committee. In 2019, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced legislation that would allow certain crimes to be prosecuted as domestic terrorism if they were aimed at intimidating civilians, influencing government policy by intimidation or coercion, or violently disrupt government business. But civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, opposed the bill in part because they said it would give broad discretion to the attorney general to decide when to prosecute offenses as terrorism. (Blazakis said the Schiff bill had built in checks that could prevent abuse, including a requirement that prosecutions be reviewed by the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.)

“If that statute had been enacted last summer,” Patel said, “Attorney General Barr would have had the discretion to treat property damage from the anti-racism protests as terrorism. And I don’t think we want to leave that kind of discretion to the attorney general, even when you trust the attorney general.” A spokesperson for Schiff did not respond to a request for comment.

Lawmakers should think carefully about applying any broad new legal frameworks for terrorism given how far-reaching post-9/11 measures turned out to be, Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, told The Intercept by email.

“Many of the intelligence and law enforcement authorities that were created or expanded after 9/11 were expanded with al Qaeda in mind — that is, with the idea that these new authorities were necessary to address the threat presented by a relatively small number of committed terrorists based overseas,” Jaffer wrote. “But those expanded authorities ended up having dramatic implications for the lives and liberties of millions of people both inside and outside the United States, the vast majority of whom had absolutely nothing to do with al Qaeda. Before we go down this road again, we should think very carefully about whether new authorities are actually needed, how those authorities are likely to be used, and how they might be abused. It’s important to remember that all of the authority we invest in this administration will be available to every future administration has well.”
Even though the mostly peaceful protests at the Capitol on January 6th didn't appear to involve pro-White individuals or organizations, the focus here is on pro-Whites as seen at the top of this article and interspersed within its body. The writing is on the wall, White man.
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

Old Aardvark
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:23 am

Re: Bipartisan plans to criminalize speech as "terrorism"

Post by Old Aardvark » Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:46 am

You have posted an enormous amount of material here, Jim. Basically, it sounds like if the Jews want to lock you up and shut you up, they have a myriad number of legal paths to do so, and you have only dealt with the law as it relates to "terrorism." If one somehow ducks under those laws, I'm sure they could find some kind of "hate-crime law" that would apply. The penalties for those are probably as severe as terrorism laws.

So what is one to do?

Nature's prime directive has always been to reproduce your own kind. We face tougher days ahead of us, but simply surviving as aware white people will become the ultimate form of "winning." That is -- or should be -- the end purpose for all pro-white organizations.

Right now the balance of power is decidedly against us, but the United States is significantly weaker now than it was 20 years ago, and this weakening is accelerating. If we are smart and patient, whites can easily outlast all the present ruling regimes that control us: federal, state and local; US, western European, Canada and Australia. The Jews and the brainwashed whites who ally with them are becoming arrogantly aggressive against our people, looking to go for the final death blows, but in doing this they are radicalizing millions of whites for us. It is only a matter of a few years before the tide begins turning strongly in our direction. Until then, we should be patient and careful in what we say and do. And try to build quiet strength. The last thing any of us should do is strike any kind of blow against the system. Again, the Biden administration will destroy the present regime far more quickly than we ever could.

BTW, I think some of the best and most zealous fighters for our folk will be whites who are now "woke" liberals. It will not take long for the ruling regime to turn on them, too. When these people finally awaken from their brainwashing, they will amaze us old fighters.

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 2207
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Bipartisan plans to criminalize speech as "terrorism"

Post by Jim Mathias » Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:49 pm

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/2 ... sts-477658
DHS looking at tracking travel of domestic extremists
Law enforcement sources say that Homeland Security is investigating monitoring movements of U.S. extremists and white supremacists.

By BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN

03/23/2021 05:47 PM EDT

The Department of Homeland Security is considering monitoring the travel of domestic extremists and expanding its use of the No Fly List, law enforcement sources told POLITICO.

The discussions are part of the Biden administration’s strategy of treating domestic terror as a national security threat, and not just a law enforcement problem. They're also part of broader conversations in government about how to use tools developed for the Global War on Terror to combat domestic extremism. And, if past is prologue, the approach could prove politically contentious.


The department could begin analyzing the travel patterns of suspected domestic extremists, monitor flights they book on short notice and search their luggage for weapons, a senior law enforcement official told POLITICO. There have also been discussions about putting suspected domestic violent extremists — a category that includes white supremacists — on the FBI’s No Fly List, the official said. When suspected extremists travel internationally, officials may be more likely to question them before they pass through customs and to search their phones and laptops.

A second law enforcement official told POLITICO that conversations about monitoring domestic extremists’ travel have involved multiple federal agencies at the interagency level, including the FBI.

“Domestic violent extremism poses the most lethal, persistent terrorism-related threat to our homeland today," a DHS spokesperson said in response to a request for comment. "DHS is committed to improving security and is reviewing options for enhancing screening and vetting protocols and travel pattern analyses, consistent with privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.”

The FBI declined to comment.

Officials at DHS are interested in international travel connected to the kind of ideologically motivated terrorism that inspired the Capitol insurrection, the official added, and may increase this focus. An unclassified U.S. intelligence assessment released earlier this month highlighted the intelligence community’s interest in domestic extremists’ international travel.

Previous DHS efforts to combat domestic terror have generated volcanic political opposition. Early in the Obama administration, DHS intelligence analyst Daryl Johnson wrote a paper warning about the growing far right threat. Congressional Republicans were incensed, and Obama’s then-Homeland Security chief withdrew the report. That episode had a chilling effect at DHS, signaling that analysts scrutinized the threat at their own peril.

Top DHS leaders now want to reverse that dynamic. In his confirmation hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called domestic terror “one of the greatest threats that we face currently on our homeland.”

The discussions, which are not final, are part of DHS’s efforts to dramatically increase its work to prevent domestic terror. On January 7, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) — the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security — called on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the FBI to use the no-fly list to keep suspected perpetrators of the January 6 attack from boarding planes.

The week after January 6, a top FBI official said the Bureau was “actively looking at” adding the names of Capitol attackers to the No Fly List. And the week before Inauguration Day, the head of the TSA said the agency was working “to ensure those who may pose a threat to our aviation sector undergo enhanced screening or are prevented from boarding an aircraft.” His statement did not mention the No Fly List.

According to the officials who spoke to POLITICO, conversations about domestic extremism and the No Fly List aren’t just limited to people who attacked the Capitol on January 6.

The threat from domestic terrorists has grown in recent years, and — per the Center for Strategic and International Studies — white supremacists were responsible for two thirds of all terror plots and attacks in 2020. But the Trump White House largely downplayed the threat from white supremacists as the president instead tweeted ceaselessly about Antifa. The Trump national counterterrorism strategy — a 2018 document — only mentioned the threat in two brief paragraphs. And DHS officials who tried to combat the problem under Trump told POLITICO last year that a barrage of crises within the administration hampered their ability to get much done.

Elizabeth Neumann, who worked on domestic terror prevention at DHS under Trump, previously told POLITICO that National Security Council staff tried to work on the issue in an organized way — but without much progress.

“[W]hen you have chaos all around you, it’s really hard to do process stuff,” she said.

Instead, the Trump administration stressed its concerns about far-left agitators. Trump tweeted that he planned to designate Antifa as a terrorist group — a move that would have been legally impossible. And a state law enforcement official told POLITICO in the final months of the Trump administration that DHS intelligence products overemphasized the threat from the left while under-emphasizing the threat from the right.

On January 6, far right domestic extremists ransacked the Capitol Building — a catastrophe that better intelligence could have prevented.

Federal law enforcement officials are now trying to figure out how to prevent future attacks, and discussing how to scrutinize domestic extremists’ travel in a more organized and deliberate way. DHS was founded in the wake of 9/11 as part of efforts to prevent future terror attacks. Its components — including the TSA and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — specialize in aviation security and already have broad access to Americans’ travel information.

One challenge that DHS and FBI officials are weighing is how to distinguish between people traveling to exercise their Constitutional rights — by attending a protest, for instance — and those traveling to commit crimes. Those same challenges materialized in the efforts by national security officials to prevent foreign terrorism.

Some of those efforts are deeply controversial. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil rights groups have long lambasted the feds’ use of the secretive No Fly List. Americans on the list don’t have the right to know why exactly they’re on it, and it can be difficult or impossible to get removed once they’re there. The ACLU has called it “an indefinite Kafkaesque nightmare.”

Groups advocating for American Muslims have participated in multiple lawsuits to remove people’s names from the list. They scored an incremental win related to travel restrictions at the Supreme Court last December. The justices voted unanimously to let three Muslim men sue FBI agents who promised to help get them off the No Fly List if they aided Bureau surveillance of other Muslims. That case, Tanzin v. Tanvir, is ongoing.

Federal efforts to stop terrorists from traveling have even ensnared lawmakers. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy famously said he was stopped and interrogated multiple times at airports, and the late civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis said he was held up more than 35 times in one year, per CNN.

Details of the FBI list are scant. In 2016, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said fewer than 1,000 U.S. persons are on it. If the DHS and FBI talks reach fruition, that number could grow.

FILED UNDER: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
POLITICO
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 2207
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Bipartisan plans to criminalize speech as "terrorism"

Post by Jim Mathias » Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:43 pm

DHS weighing major changes to fight domestic violent extremism, say officials
Biden officials say DHS wants more ability to track information about domestic extremists, like the social media posts that pushed violence before the Capitol riot.

March 25, 2021, 1:37 PM CDT / Updated March 25, 2021, 3:04 PM CDT
By Ken Dilanian and Julia Ainsley
WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security, which was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to protect the country from international terrorism, is moving toward a sweeping set of policy changes to detect and stop what intelligence officials say is now a top threat: domestic violent extremism.

Two senior Biden administration officials said DHS, whose intelligence division did not publish a warning of potential violence before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, is seeking to improve its ability to collect and analyze data about domestic terrorism — including the sorts of public social media posts that threatened an attack on the U.S. Capitol but were not deemed "actionable" by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

DHS plans to expand its relationships with companies that scour public data for intelligence, one of the senior officials said, as well as to better harness the vast trove of data it already collects about Americans, including travel and commercial data through Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service and other DHS components.

The department is also contemplating changes to its terrorist watch listing process "to see if there are ways we can leverage it to take into account international and domestic travel of known violent extremists," the senior official said.

"The idea is to identify people who may through their social media behavior be prone to influence by toxic messaging spread by foreign governments, terrorists and domestic extremists," the official said. "We want to Identify the narratives that are emerging, assess which narratives are likely to incite violence, figure out what targets are likely and then take steps to mitigate the risk. We're going to do this in a very careful way that is mindful of privacy and civil liberties, because it's focusing on narratives, not people."

The officials stressed that the trigger for scrutiny would be plans for violence, not political ideology.

In a statement, a DHS spokesperson said: "Domestic violent extremism poses the most lethal, persistent terrorism-related threat to our homeland today. Under Secretary Mayorkas' leadership, DHS is working closely with federal, state, local, tribal, and non-government partners to address this threat, and all of our efforts are carried out in close coordination with our privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties experts."

Alejandro Mayorkas is the secretary of homeland security.

While law enforcement officials may legally examine public social media posts, any effort to do so using sophisticated computer analytical tools is likely to spark concerns among civil liberties activists. And while Americans have long been among those on the government's various watch lists, a move to restrict the travel of those deemed to be domestic violent extremists — without charging them with crimes — is also likely to be controversial.

"The story of DHS really is one of overreaching," said Rachel Levinson-Waldman, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, who co-authored a 2019 report about how DHS uses social media in immigration enforcement. "And given the urgency of the moment, these periods don't necessarily lend themselves to really being careful and judicious about how information is collected and kept."

DHS officials say they plan to address the concerns by involving agency lawyers, outside advocates and the DHS privacy and civil liberties offices at every step of the process.

"We have to be incredibly careful," said the second senior official, who said the department is halfway through a 60-day examination of domestic violent extremism ordered by Mayorkas. "We're looking at what can we do versus what can't we do. If we're not doing something, is it because we don't have authorities, versus we can't because it would violate civil rights and civil liberties?

"It is premature to say how things will change, but it is not premature to say it will change," the second official said.

DHS and its component agencies have long mined public social media for intelligence, and the department was criticized in July after it emerged that officials had published intelligence reports about tweets and reporting by American journalists who published leaked documents related to violent protests in Portland, Oregon.

Chad Wolf, then the acting homeland security secretary, shut down the collection program and curbed other efforts to examine public social media, said one of the senior officials and another person familiar with the matter.

"It had this chilling effect, as it always does, and there was kind of a pulling back on open sourced intel review," said Elizabeth Neumann, who served under Wolf and other DHS secretaries in the Trump administration.

The 2019 Brennan Center report examined how ICE, CBP, the Transportation Security Administration and other components monitor social media. The report, written by civil liberties activists, concluded that "wholesale monitoring of social media creates serious risks to privacy and free speech. Moreover, despite the rush to implement these programs, there is scant evidence that they actually meet the goals for which they are deployed."

The report did not cover DHS' National Operations Center, which monitors certain public social media "to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture for the Federal Government, and for those state, local, and tribal governments."

The report said DHS has contracts with data companies, including Palantir, Babel Street, Pen-Link and Giant Oak, to help investigators make connections and find people.

ICE uses Giant Oak to "continuously monitor, aggregate, and analyze social media data" to help prioritize leads in the hunt for immigrants who overstay their visas, the report said.

Christopher Wall, a "solutions architect" at Giant Oak, said the technology used by his and other private companies can help the government hunt for domestic terrorism threats on public-facing social media.

"We screen and vet large amounts of data to find information of interest" using so-called machine learning techniques, which train computers about what to look for, he said. "Machine learning will improve your efficiency, but you still have to have a human analyst" looking at the data, he said.

"Rather than dedicating your resources to being intrusive, why not dedicate them to finding the people who are actually posing a risk?" Wall said.

He acknowledged that "there's a lot of hesitation about what this technology can do" and "a lot of fear of overstepping," but he noted that tech companies already collect, buy and sell large amounts of data about private individuals.

"People worry about Big Brother, but we already exist in that world," he said.

Neumann, the former senior DHS official, said that while the government has the legal right to monitor public social media, she has observed a hesitance about the issue.

"There was a backsliding away from information-sharing between DHS and FBI," she said. "Almost like this lack of memory of all the changes post-9/11. I can't tell you when or why. But it's a cultural shift back to what they consider to be legally safer."

Paul Rosenzweig, who was DHS' deputy assistant secretary for policy in the George W. Bush administration, said that in the fight against international terrorism, the intelligence community has long targeted money, travel and communications. Doing that in the domestic context poses thorny constitutional issues, he said.

He said the Trump presidency shattered his confidence that the government can be trusted with intrusive surveillance authorities.

"I used to be much more sanguine about the bona fides of the executive branch, thinking that judicial and legislative oversight would constrain bad actors," he said. "The last four years have really eroded my confidence."

What is driving the changes at DHS is broad recognition, the officials said, that the federal government either did not see or did not act on widespread indications on social media that extremists were planning violence in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6. The failure left the Capitol unprepared for an onslaught of Trump supporters, led by far-right militia members, who stormed the building to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes in the presidential election.

NBC News has reported that the FBI, which said it saw no actionable intelligence of potential violence at the Capitol, has been reluctant to use the full scope of its authorities in analyzing social media.

Social media monitoring is useful not just to stop organized political violence or domestic terrorism, the senior administration official said. Very often, mass shooters leave trails of social media posts that paint pictures of increasingly disturbed minds. Just as often, those posts are not seen by law enforcement until after the violence.

"People are dying," the official said. "We've had two targeted attacks in eight days — we have to do more. Yes, we need to make sure that anything we do is legal, ethical and constitutional. But we can't just sit here and say, 'Oh this is difficult, this is hard, we can't do it.' We have to act."
Do you believe they're not targeting political ideologies given their track record?
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 2207
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Bipartisan plans to criminalize speech as "terrorism"

Post by Jim Mathias » Wed May 12, 2021 5:48 am

http://oneworld.press/?module=articles& ... ew&id=2026
The American Cyber Stasi Will Suppress All Digital Dissent In Biden's Dystopia
7 MAY 2021

CNN's recent report that the US' security services are considering contracting the services of so-called “researchers” as a legal workaround for spying on average Americans confirms that Biden's dystopian hellhole is rapidly moving in the direction of establishing a “Cyber Stasi” for suppressing all digital dissent against the Democrats as they continuing consolidating their de facto one-party rule of the country.

The dystopian hellhole that I predicted would become a fait accompli following Biden's confirmation as President by the Electoral College is quickly becoming a reality after CNN's recent report that the US' security services are considering contracting the services of so-called “researchers” as a legal workaround for spying on average Americans. According to the outlet, these ostensibly independent contractors would be charged with infiltrating the social media circles of white supremacists and other supposedly terrorist-inclined domestic forces within the country. The report claims that the intent is to “help provide a broad picture of who was perpetuating the 'narratives' of concern”, after which “the FBI could theoretically use that pool of information to focus on specific individuals if there is enough evidence of a potential crime to legally do so”.

In other words, the US' security services essentially want to establish a “Cyber Stasi” of “fellow” citizens who spy on one another and produce purported “evidence” of “potential crimes” for “justifying” the FBI's “legal” investigations. CNN quoted an unnamed senior intelligence official who asked, “What do you do about ideology that's leading to violence? Do you have to wait until it leads to violence?”, thereby hinting that this initiative might likely be exploited to stop so-called “pre-crime”, or crimes before they occur. Put another way, even those average Americans who practice their constitutionally enshrined right to the freedom of speech to peacefully dissent against the Democrats' consolidation of their de facto one-party rule of the country might find themselves targeted by the security services depending on how the contracted “researchers” spin their words.

It should be remembered that even Americans' constitutionally enshrined right to the freedom of assembly is nowadays under scrutiny depending on the stated reason behind their planned peaceful protests if they dare to propose gathering in opposition to last year's alleged voter fraud for example. The events of 6 January were exploited as a game-changer by the security services in order to restrict Americans' freedoms. It's neither here nor there whether one sincerely believes that the election was stolen since the purpose in pointing these double standards out is to prove that average Americans are being politically discriminated against with the implied threat of legal intimidation when it comes to exercising their constitutional rights about “politically incorrect” issues of concern to them.

Although the reported purpose of the “Cyber Stasi” is to preemptively thwart emerging domestic terrorist plots, it can't be discounted that the combination of political Russophobia and “mission creep” will combine to create additional objectives such as stopping the spread of so-called “Russian disinformation” throughout society. That phrase is actually just a euphemism for “politically incorrect” facts and interpretations thereof that contradict the Democrats' official narrative of events, being intentionally vague enough to function as an umbrella under which to cover practically every alternative understanding possible. With this in mind, those average Americans who dare to share something “politically incorrect” – even in private chats amidst the presence of “deep state” infiltrators (“researchers” employed as “Cyber Stasi”) – might be targeted by the FBI.

The end effect is that the US' security services might succeed in suppressing most expressions of digital dissent in the coming future. They're inspired to do so by the ruling administration which wants to impose a syncretic system of economic leftism and social fascism onto the country. It's not “communist” in the sense that the economic vision is more akin to state capitalism than traditional Marxism, but the social impact will certainly mirror that of East Germany during its darkest days of Stasi rule, though that's precisely why many critics casually describe it as “communist” despite that not being economically correct (at least not yet). The US' “researcher”-contracted “Cyber Stasi” will have a chilling effect how Americans interact with one another from here on out, all in order for Biden's dystopian hellhole to avoid the fate of its predecessor, East Germany
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

Post Reply