> > On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 23:51:56 -0600 (CST) Michael Givel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proactive 0rganizations may wish to read this 12/6/2000 OREGONIAN > NEWS ARTICLE. It affects law-abiding citizens. Anyone. > > UNDERNEWS > Dec 6, 2000 > THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW > Washington's most unofficial source > Editor: Sam Smith > 1312 18th St. NW #502, Washington DC 20036 > 202-835-0770 Fax: 835-0779 > E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > WEB SITE: <http://prorev.com/>http://prorev.com > READERS FORUM: http://prorev.com/bb.htm > ----------------------------------------------------- > BOTH RIGHT AND LEFT > TARGETED FOR PROSECUTION > BY FBI AND POLICE > > [A remarkable memorandum of understanding between the FBI and the > Portland OR police states that the Portland Joint Terrorism Task > Force will "identify and target for prosecution those individuals > or groups who are responsible for Right Wing and/or Left Wing > movements, as well as acts of the anti-abortion movement and the > Animal Liberation Front/Earth Liberation Front."] > > OREGONIAN: A coalition of community activists urged the Portland > City Council to rescind its recent support for a joint Portland > police and FBI task force on domestic terrorism. The Portland > Joint Terrorism Task Force, made up of eight Portland criminal > intelligence officers, 12 federal agents and three other state > law enforcement officers, was formed in September to investigate > "criminal extremist activity." But some community members are > concerned the task force will inappropriately target special-interest > groups. Members of the League of Women Voters, the American Civil > Liberties Union of Oregon, the Portland chapter of the National > Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Portland Copwatch, > the National > > Page 2 of 5 > > Lawyers Guild and the Portland Accountability Campaign stood together > outside City Hall to call for its demise. They criticized Mayor > Vera Katz, who serves as police commissioner, and the City Council > for issuing support for the task force last week without public > input and wondered why the task force was formed this fall. > > The FBI has similar task forces set up in 30 of its 56 divisions > nationwide, said Gordon Compton, FBI spokesman in Portland . . . > "We want to be proactive and keep these things from happening," > Compton said. Much of the community concerns arose from the initial > wording of the City Council ordinance. It said the group's mission > was to "identify and target for prosecution those individuals or > groups who are responsible for Right Wing and/or Left Wing movements, > as well as acts of the anti-abortion movement and the Animal > Liberation Front/Earth Liberation Front." . . . Commissioner > Charlie Hales called the wording "something out of the Nixon > administration." In the adopted ordinance, unanimously approved > Nov. 22, the wording was altered to restrict task force activity > to the investigation of "criminal terrorism.". . . But those > speaking out said the task force's mission is too broad. > > They are concerned law enforcement will investigate anyone who > engages in political activity or associates with an activist group > . . . The task force's mission statement, signed in late September > by David Szady, special agent in charge of Oregon's FBI, and Portland > Chief Mark Kroeker, still holds that it will identify and target > individuals or groups who are responsible for acts of "criminal > terrorism within the traditional criteria of the Right Wing or > Left Wing movements, as well as acts of criminal terrorism committed > by special interest groups, such as the anti-abortion movement > and the Animal Liberation Front/Earth Liberation Front." > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > When Do Demonstrators Become--Terrorists? > > by, Ross Regnart > > The Anti--Terrorist Act of 1996 appears aimed at public dissent: > The ACT contains language which can charge law--abiding citizens > of being agents or affording support to terrorist organizations: > Broadly written--intent to commit terrorist acts is defined: > (Appeared To Be Intended Toward Violence or Activities Which Could > Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian Population; or To Influence the > Policy of a Government). > > Page 3 of 5 > > (18USC Sec. 2331): Any picket line or demonstration, alleged by > police to have blocked or obstructed public access, could qualify > as "Terrorist Activities" to intimidate or coerce a civilian > population: Terrorist charges make it possible for police to > forfeit attending demonstrators homes used for meetings and the > vehicles they used for transportation to the event. Concern: Police > agencies may selectively charge a person or organization with > either a low level offense, or terrorist offense, for the same > illegal act: Example: A fist fight between union demonstrators and > persons crossing a picket line, can be upgraded by police to charge > union members with (Terrorist Activity). The 1996 Anti-Terrorist > Act, broadly--redefined "Terrorist Acts as involving any violent > act or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the > criminal laws of the United States or any state." The violent or > physical act need not cause bodily harm: > > The Act can be used by police to target any group of persons that > would dare demonstrate for or against any issue. > > U.S. ANTI--TERRORIST ACT-- > > OR ANTI--FREE SPEECH and ASSEMBLY ACT? > > The 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act has wide reaching forfeiture provisions. > The Act utilizes the broad term (supporting organizations that > transcend boundaries). Any organization or group that advocates > support for a cause or organization within a U.S. jurisdiction, > or across a state line, or in another country, is considered by > U.S. Government to be (transcending boundaries). Consequently, > any environmental group or organization is vulnerable to being > charged with supporting (terrorist activity) should any member of > an organization they supported--be charged by the U.S. or other > government, with having (intimidated or coerced a civilian population; > or influenced the policy of a government). Please see USC18 2991, > including additional provisions. > > U.S. Government can now seize the assets of innocent organizations > and/or members alleged to have supported an organization, group, > or person(s) committing a terrorist activity. Excessive government > property forfeiture provisions are tied to the 1996 Anti-Terrorist > act: U.S. Government can forfeit SOURCE ASSETS that supported > terrorist activity. So if a person for example uses income from > their business or bank account to support an organization or > persons the U.S. Government later alleges committed or supported > terrorist acts, the U.S. Government may seize the contributor's > business or bank account as a SOURCE ASSET. Keep in mind, intimidation > may qualify as a terrorist act. So if the press or government has > criminalized an organization, the > > Page 4 of 5 > > presence of the organization's members at a demonstration or other > event may be enough for a police agency to allege the member s or > their organization (intimidated a civilian population; or influenced > the policy of a government) under 18USC 2991 International Terrorist > Activities. Government may now use the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act to > selectively eradicate any group or person which is believed to be > objectionable. > > CONCERN: Police can charge lawful citizens who attend demonstrations > and other public events with affording support to demonstrators > whose activities may constitute Terrorist Activities under USC18 > 2991. Innocent attending demonstrators run the risk of being charged > as terrorists, then having to prove by their presence at a > demonstration, they were not supporting the illegal activities of > the alleged terrorist demonstrators. CATCH 22: Lawful demonstrators > may be convicted simply because they did not think to leave an > event where some demonstrators were committing illegal acts. Broad > provisions of the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act may eventually scare-off > citizens from attending lawful demonstrations and/or contributing > money to progressive causes. > > CONCERN: A corrupt government and/or its paid operatives, may too > easily cause the arrest of innocent demonstrators and/or cause > government forfeiture of their assets. Note: Conviction of an > activist or organization is NOT necessary for government to forfeit > an owner's property. U.S. Government may civil forfeit a citizen's > assets using only a (Preponderance of Evidence) by showing an owner > s property was involved in a felony that would make it subject to > forfeiture. > > 200 felonies can now cause government forfeiture of property: > > Republican Congressman Henry Hyde got passed in Congress (The > Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000) HR 1658. The statue of > limitations, the time period police have to civilly forfeit > property, begin five years from the time police claim to have > learned an asset was made subject to forfeiture. Concern: Police > can claim that anytime in the future. > > CONCERN: Corporate security and private intelligence companies > now work so closing with U.S. police agencies, they appear to > merge. Private security corporations by working closely with U.S. > police agencies are in a position to influence local and federal > police as to which political/environmental opponents should be > arrested, or have their assets forfeited. Note: Neither charged > defendants, nor anyone else, can use the Freedom of Information > Act to penetrate corporate information banks to learn if a > corporation illegally obtained or provided information to a police > agency. Increasingly, corporate informants work both sides of the > street when they get paid for providing police the same information > > Page 5 of 5 > > about, e.g., a political or environmental group. It is a dangerous > trend in the United States when police agencies merge with corporate > security forces, become perhaps an illegal enterprise, to violate > a person s Constitutional and civil rights. > > Secret Witnesses, Secret Jurors, Secret Testimony, Hidden Evidence: > Once U.S. Government or police charge a person or organization > under 18USC 2991, (International Terrorist Activity) the U.S. > Government may use secret witnesses, secret jurors, secret testimony, > and other hidden evidence to convict a defendant and/or forfeit > their assets. All this secrecy can be invoked by U.S. Government > to protect alleged--national security, an ongoing investigation, > undisclosed witnesses and jurors. The same police agencies involved > in the investigation may get to share in the citizen's assets after > they are forfeited by the government. This is especially dangerous > since police routinely purchase testimony. Persons charged under > the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act, may have difficulty defending themselves > even against the death penalty--when they may not be allowed to > know the secret evidence against them, or cross examine government's > secret witnesses. Such Star Chamber Courts do not serve the interests > of a free society. > > Had the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act been in effect during the days of > COINTELPRO, 1960 through the 1980's, many foundations and citizens > to avoid risks such as being charged as terrorists or losing their > assets to forfeiture, would have given contributions only to > organizations that the U.S. Government approved of, not to > progressive organizations or persons who would dare question or > confront government policies or attempt to legally stop corporate > polluters. > > GOVERNMENT COINTELPRO RED SQUADS appear to be back. This time the > squads have in their arsenal the 1996 Ant-Terrorist Act and new > property forfeiture laws which they may use to eradicate their > political, environmental and human rights opponents. > > _______________________________________________
