Making your bed and sleeping in it

Oh, be so careful what you wish for. Millions cheered when Muhammed Morsi was deposed last month in Egypt. No, he was no friend of democracy. But, what can you expect when the country has never known anything but authoritarian rule?

Mr. Morsi somehow believed that his election gave the Muslim Brotherhood the authority to impose an Islamic state on the people of Egypt. Never mind that he won with barely a majority of the voters. He took his win and did his best to ram his party's theocratic ideology down the throats of the people.

He seemed to forget that the revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak wasn't the work of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was the work of the masses who were willing to stand up and risk their lives to overthrow a dictator.

After the fall of Mubarak it was the Muslim Brotherhood who was in the best position to take advantage of the power vacuum, having been an organized - albeit banned - party from the better part of the 20th century. They had the infrastructure, and the money, to put together a winning slate of candidates.

What they didn't have was the ability to compromise and to work with others in forming a coalition to develop democracy in Egypt. For Mr. Morsi and the Brotherhood, it was their way or the highway. And it was this attitude that brought about the crisis that resulted in a military coup in early July.

And make no mistake about it, it was a coup. The Obama administration can parse words and play games all they want - but when the military forces out a popularly elected president (no matter how much dissatisfaction their is with his rule), it is a coup.

There were those who welcomed the military into the streets in late June. There were those who cheered when the General Sisi announced that Mr. Morsi had been removed from office and placed under arrest. There were those who claimed that the military was acting to save the revolution.

Are they cheering now?

There are at least 281 more than 500 people who were killed by security forces today when the military-backed government made their decision to clamp down on dissent. What kind of a government turns its military on its citizens?

And, as I have asked before, what does this portend the next time a popularly elected president runs afoul of public opinion? What happens the next time the people gather together to demand that their voices are heard?

The government also imposed a month-long state of emergency. The purpose of the decree? To quell any and all dissent. How is this any different than life under the Mubarak regime? But I suppose that is a tricky question for those supporting the coup. So, come on , President Obama, explain the difference. Explain how the current situation is doing anything to advance democracy across Egypt. Or is this all about appeasing defense contractors who need markets to sell their tools of death and destruction?

I'm no fan of Muhammed Morsi. I'm no fan of anyone who wants to mix religion and politics. Could Mr. Morsi have handled his brief time in office better? There is no doubt about it. If he had been more interested in building a democratic Egypt than he was in deciding who folks could pray to, he would still be the nation's president. Had he been more concerned with improving the lot of the Egyptian people rather than telling them how to live their lives the nation wouldn't be under de facto military rule.

But that doesn't begin to excuse what has happened in Egypt over the past six weeks. And it doesn't being to excuse the shameful behavior of our government in the affair. The Obama administration has clearly demonstrated that our nation's supposed commitment to democracy and human rights is nothing more that empty words.

Never forget that what the military giveth by force of arms, the military taketh as well. Those who support the coup have made their deal with the devil and will have to live with the consequences for a long time. Or so long as they stay within the good graces of the military.

NH police view Occupy protesters as terrorists

From the website Common Dreams comes this story of the increasing militarization of the police:

In a bid to bring armored vehicles to the small, capital city of Concord, New Hampshire, the local police department is trying to exploit peaceful activist groups such as Occupy New Hampshire and the libertarian Free State Project as "terror threats." 

Through a right to know request, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union (NHCLU)—as part of an ongoing project against the militarization of local law enforcement agencies—obtained a grant filed by the Concord Police Department requesting $258,000 from the Department of Homeland Security for an armored BearCat vehicle. 

"The State of New Hampshire’s experience with terrorism slants primarily towards the domestic type," the grant states, adding that—with groups such as the "Free Staters" and Occupy NH active and presenting "daily challenges"—the "threat is real and here."

As the expression goes, if all you've got is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail. Or, to paraphrase, when you want your police department to get the same cool toys someone else has, soon everything looks like an existential threat.

The proposal also exposes the change in attitude of police departments across the country over the past three decades. Once upon a time, officers walked a beat. They got to know the neighborhood. Their job was to protect the citizens from criminal acts.

Now we have police officers who dress like soldiers, who carry automatic rifles and drive armored personnel carriers. With politicians increasingly wanting to declare war on something or other, a war mentality has overtaken police departments across the nation.

The mission has changed from protecting and serving to hunting down the bad guys. And, increasingly, it's an us-against-them mindset.

The characterization of the Occupy movement as a domestic terrorist group is a perfect demonstration of the view the government has taken of political dissent - particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 over-reaction. Turning police departments into paramilitary outfits only serves to dissuade people from exercising their rights to assemble and petition the government for redress. It only serves to intimidate those who would defend the protections afforded under the Fourth Amendment.

The record of the Occupy movement is quite clear. The only time violence erupted during an Occupy event across the country was when the police initiated the use of force. Those protesters at UC-Davis weren't being violent. They were sitting on the ground. It was the police, wearing shields and covering their badges, who broke out the tear gas and fired in into the faces of college students. It was the police in Oakland who fired percussive grenades into a crowd of protesters who were exercising their First Amendment rights.

The threat to our social order doesn't come from peaceful protesters - the threat comes from the increasing militarization of our nation's police departments.

Taking aim at the Occupy movement

An identified _____ as of October [2011] planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified _____ had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. _____ planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.\

*     *     *     

On 13 October 2011, writer sent via email an excerpt from the daily _____ regarding FBI Houston's _____ to all IAs, SSRAs and SSA _____. This _____ identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by _____ interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.

Those are excerpts from documents obtained by Dave Lindorff through a FOIA request to the FBI regarding the Occupy movement. This is how seriously someone took the Occupy movement given the economic conditions and events happening around the world in 2011.

Through my work with the National Lawyers Guild I represented members of Occupy Houston, and their supporters, who were arrested during their "occupation" of downtown Houston. In the course of that representation a colleague, Greg Gladden, uncovered documents regarding the infiltration of the Occupy Austin movement by officers with the Austin Police Department. The documents also spelled out the involvement of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

Never during the course of our representation of the Occupy Houston protesters did we hear anything about a plot to kill the leadership of the Occupy movement in Houston. If the information contained within these documents is true, it raises some very serious questions.

Just how scared of the Occupy movement was the government? Or, maybe the question should be just how scared were business leaders and their lackeys in the government? The Occupy protests were a mass movement that had the potential to catch fire. That they didn't is due to the government's crackdowns and, I would argue, on the lack of a cohesive message from the movement.

The more important question is, obviously, who was behind the alleged plot to assassinate Occupy leaders in Houston? Why did the government redact any identification information about whose plot it was? Is that information redacted because it would expose confidential sources, or is it redacted because the FBI was behind the alleged plot?

I must admit that I have a very hard time believing that the assassination plot was a government-hatched plan. The more effective tactics in shutting down the movement were either driving the protesters out of the parks or waiting them out. Sending in snipers to kill protesters seems like a massive overreaction.

Of course maybe the FBI had infiltrated right-wing groups opposed to the Occupy movement and were running an undercover operation to put the groups out of business. If that were the case, how much of this alleged plot was cooked up by group members and how much of the idea was planted in their heads by undercover agents?

Whatever the answers to the questions may be, we know that something was up. We know that the Houston FBI knew about the plot and that they provided no warning to the Occupy protesters in Tranquility Park.

We also know that the FBI characterized the Occupy movement as a terrorist organization - apparently because the participants dared to question the status quo and the government's role in the economic collapse.  For those of y'all who are okay with our government's domestic surveillance programs under the belief that the programs are keeping us safe, just take a moment to think about how low the bar is for the government to label a group as being a terrorist organization.

See also:

"FBI Document - "[DELETED]" plots to kill Occupy leaders "If Deemed Necessary," by David Lindorff, WhoWhatWhy (June 27, 2013)

-- Please note that Mr. Lindorff's story is inaccurate with regard to my role in the defense of the Occupy the Port protesters who were charged with felony offenses. I represented one protester charged with a misdemeanor arising out of that protest. --

  FBI Docs Referencing Sniper Murder Plot

Trying to quiet the voices of dissent

Hank Williams, Jr. (who can't hold a candle to his father) may have gotten his panties in a wad after ESPN fired him for his comments comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler, but his loss was only monetary.

Marzieh Vafamehr is an Iranian actress who starred in the Australian film My Tehran for Sale about an actress whose work was banned by the Iranian government. Ms. Vafamehr reportedly is facing a year in prison and 90 lashes for appearing in a movie critical of the Iranian regime.

Mr. Williams wasn't deprived of his First Amendment rights when ESPN decided they didn't want Monday Night Football to be associated with Mr. Williams after he made his comments. ESPN is a business who has a brand to protect (don't get me started on that). Mr. Williams was paid by ESPN to do the intro.

When working for a corporate master, one must be careful what one says lest the words reflect badly on the company. Mr. Williams wasn't careful and he paid the price.

Ms. Vafamehr, on the other hand, is being punished by a government because she had the nerve to appear in a film that cast the government in a bad light. Such an outcome would be anathema to our sensibilities in this country.

Just what is the Iranian government fearful of? Are the leaders worried that someone might see the film and question what the government is doing? Are they afraid that such expressions of protest might cause others to cast a critical eye and ear to what government officials do and say?

Of course if your government claims to be carrying out God's law, dissent might become an issue. You see, faith can't tolerate dissent or critical thinking. You either believe it or you don't. You allow someone to question the tenets of a religion and the walls will begin to crumble.

Governments that continue to crack down on dissent will realize soon enough that just because you criminalize dissent, doesn't mean there is no dissent. In this day and age you can't control the voices coming into the country. The internet, blogs, Twitter, satellites and smart phones have made it impossible to squelch popular dissent.

Dissent is healthy. It's the pressure valve on a pressure cooker. When people feel they have a voice and that someone is listening they are less likely to resort to violence. The Soviet Union thought it had eliminated dissent - but its leaders were sadly mistaken. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt thought he had squelched dissent through his use of violence against his people. Wrong again.

Ms. Vafamehr's sentence is the sign of an illegitimate government. It is symbolic of a regime whose base is crumbling beneath its own feet.

But more than that, her sentence is an attack on those of us who fight for freedom here and abroad. It is a crime against our humanity.

*****

Here's a little Hank Williams for your enjoyment:

So much for the First Amendment

Cheap Trick sang about them two decades ago -- the Dream Police have invaded the Twin Cities. This past weekend, while everyone else was focused on Gustav and his assault on Nawlins, the Minneapolis police cracked down on anyone who had the gall to challenge the Bush/McCain illusion of America. Is this a glimpse into the crystal ball of how McCain intends to prevent 9/11 from happening again?

Media with Conscience reports that the FBI-led Minneapolis Joint Task Force on Terrorism recruited informants to report on the activities of leftist groups in the area. The Minneapolis police and the FBI-led task force conducted pre-emptive assaults on groups exercising their right of free speech.

The Michigan Messenger reports that Ramsey county sheriff's officers conducted an armed raid at a St. Paul convergence space and handcuffed hundreds as they watched movies and ate a pot-luck dinner. Officers defended their actions by claiming they had search warrants -- though no one was allowed to see the warrants.

Despite the authoritarian tactics employed by the local police and the FBI, protesters turned out en masse on the opening day of the RNC.

The strength of this nation comes, not from our similarities, but from our wildly divergent origins, paths, views and philosophies. The United State's isn't a melting pot where disparate elements are melded together -- we are a pot of jambalaya, a rich stew made all the better by the mulitude of tastes.