--- Begin Message ---
House Votes to Legalize COINTELPRO?
The House of Reps Vote 404 to 6 to Pass the Bill that
Legalizes COINTELPRO?
By: Justin Ponkow and Troy Nkrumah of the National Hip
Hop Political Convention
Davey D's Hip Hop Blog - November 26, 2007
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=15116190&blogID=332109139
[As you read this keep in mind that the main sponsor
for this bill was a democrat-Jane Harman. All this is
going down on their watch. I tell ya I used to be a
loyal Dem who voted up and down the party line for
these guys,but no more. They're a bunch of spineless
sell-outs. People may wanna call their Congress person
and ask them why they voted for this and then call your
Senator and ask them not to go along with this. Also
pay close attention to the our Presidential candidates.
What is Hillary's position on this? Where does Barack
stand? What about Joe Biden? We already know that
Dennis Kucinich had enough common sense to say 'No'.
You can contact your Congressman and Senate by click
here... http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Davey D]
=======
The House of Reps Vote 404 to 6 to Pass the Bill that
Legalizes COINTELPRO?
By: Justin Ponkow and Troy Nkrumah of the National Hip
Hop Political Convention
One month ago a bill passed almost unanimously in the
House. This bill has received no mainstream news
coverage. So it must not be that big of a deal, right?
It's just a bill that will soon to go to Capitol Hill
and since the Democrats are in control we are all safe
from further infringements up on our civil rights,
right? Well, maybe that is not totally correct since
this bill is a lot more than meets the eye. But
indicator number one should be the title, and indicator
number two should be how fast it is moving through
Congress.
On October 23rd of this year, the Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2007 passed 404 to 6 in the House. This bill is
proposing an expansion of Homeland Security with the
objective of spying on citizens whose political or
religious beliefs might lead them to commit violent
acts. And we are not referring to the attack of Megan
Williams or the numerous police murders of non
threatening civilians. No this is solely about spying
on political dissidents whose politics were shaped
through a critical analysis of US Foreign or Domestic
policies.
The stated purpose of this bill is to first assemble a
National Commission on the Prevention of Violent
Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence.
Secondly, they will create a university-based Center of
Excellence to study radicalization and homegrown
terrorism.
Their definition of what defines radical and terrorism
are very vague, and can be manipulated to serve several
purposes. In the bill itself, it says homegrown
terrorism means "the use, planned use, or threatened
use, of force or violence" by a native citizen of the
United States. It is this definition that is leaves so
much of this bills purpose, open to interpretation.
Unfortunately, the interpretation by the same ole
"powers that be" is the only one that really matters
because it is them who will have the use of this bill
at their disposal.
It is far too easy to point the finger at an individual
or a group of individuals, and claim that they are
"planning" or "threatening" the use of violence to
achieve their objectives. For instance, if a group of
PETA or the People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, decide protest a rodeo, could it be claimed
that they are "threatening" the use of violence? Or if
activists and concerned citizens congregate at a
building to protest or demonstrate, could it be claimed
that they are "planning" the use of violence or getting
ready to riot?
Let's take it one step further. If there is an act of
civil disobedience, in the form of blocking the
entrance to that building (a non-federal building)
during the political protest, and that blocking is done
with the use of a minimal amount of force (people
physically locking arms), will this new bill turn a
simple misdemeanor trespassing into a felony punishable
through the federal court system? And who has the
discretion to make that determination?
"Planned" or "threatened" use of violence is a vague
term, and we have seen it used before. How many times
have you heard of a cop beating, shooting, or killing
an individual because in the officers opinion they
"posed a threat" or were "planning" harm towards the
officer? This situation is no different, yet now it
decriminalizes police actions at a time when we are
experiencing more police killings of unarmed civilians.
What is feared by the activist community is a general
crack down on social justice activism and civil
disobedience, or any dissent for that matter, because
it now takes on a new and legal form. Being that it is
so easy to point the finger, anybody willing to speak
out will be in the scope of this proposed commission.
Including many Hip Hop artists who have been the most
critical of the government and its agencies. In J.
Edgar Hoover's time, this type of spying and repression
was illegal and later became known as the Counter
Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO). Currently these and
similar practices are legal in regards to non-citizens
under the heading of the "Patriot Act." Did you really
think that the government was only after those who
sneak into the country to commit acts of violence?
To it's defense it is claimed that this bill will not
"violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or
civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful
permanent residents." It is also claimed that this bill
will be racial, ethnically, and religiously neutral
when carrying out its' study. With such claims, it is
interesting that the criteria for members of this
commission are individuals with expertise in "juvenile
justice", "local law enforcement", and "Islam and other
world religions." As if that knowledge and expertise
will have any relevance to what makes "citizens" look
toward other means of confronting social injustices. I
would think that sociologists, social workers,
academics and social justice advocates have a better
grasp on why individuals or organizations gave up on
working "within" the system to seek other alternatives
to achieve justice and equality? Why is it that social
critics are not the primary targets for this commission
membership? Is it because these social critics are the
primary targets of this commission?
This bill, and its 'provisions, looks like ideological
profiling of potential "trouble makers" national, and
especially on the university campuses. This commission
and its' "studies" will be used to begin surveillance
on suspected dissidents and those who might associate
with them, but it will not end there. The commission's
purpose is to not analyzes the critics of the
government policy and suggest reforming the policies to
avoid the development of "homegrown terrorists" but
rather to identify and neutralize those critics.
For those that know their history, this bill should
sound familiar. Back in the 50's J. Edgar Hoover, Head
of the F.B.I., started the Counter Intelligence Program
(known as COINTELPRO). This program was meant to, in
Hoover's words, "neutralize political dissidents", and
used thousands of illegal and covert operations to
achieve its' means.
Though COINTELPRO claimed to watch the actions of all
potentials threats, it seemed to focus all of its
efforts on leftist and liberal political activists.
They focused on everybody from John Lennon to Jane
Fonda to keep tabs on dissidents. The other stated
purpose was to "prevent the rise of the black messiah".
They kept their eyes on the likes of Malcolm X, Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr., Fred Hampton and many others in
order to quell the Civil Rights and Black Power
Movements.
This new bill that is being fast tracked through
Congress is nothing but a legalized COINTELPRO. And
anybody that cherishes the right to speak out for their
rights should keep an eye on this. If violence is
already against every law of every state in the union,
why exactly does there need to be a group that will spy
on citizens and then possibly take actions against
those whose "threat of violence" have a political
undertone? And who is to be the targets? Well if
history is any indicator, we know that the FBI did not
use its resources to eliminate the KKK and other White
Supremacy organizations, but they did do everything
they could to eliminate, kill or jail the leadership of
Black, Brown, Red, Yellow and White left organizations.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this bill is how
fast it is moving through Congress. You would think
such a monumental bill would be debated and discussed
to no end. At least by the few progressives left in the
House of Representatives. But the actions of the House
show anything but concern. (Where are you at Barbara
Lee?) We saw this happen right after the attack on the
World Trade Center when the congress passed the
"Patriot Act" but then later complained that if they
had read the text of the bill they would had more
reservations because of the power it gives to the
government and the rights it strips from the citizens.
So I guess we can say that the House of Representatives
have not learned from that past and are thus doomed to
repeat it, and are repeating it.
When this bill came to House it was given certain
provisions specifically to reduce debate time. Such an
important bill as this was given little serious debate
time, and was rushed to be passed. And it did pass. It
was passed with a 404 to 6 vote. Of the notable votes,
Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich did vote against
the bill, whereas Presidential Candidate Ron Paul was
not present to vote on the issue. This bill was hardly
debated, it was passed almost unanimously, and now it
is on its way to the Senate, and then the President.
There is no doubt that this bill will have the same
results in the Senate, and will be signed by the
President. At the speed it is moving, this bill may be
a law by February, just in time for the primaries. And
all of this is happening with almost nobody noticing.
The news outlets are not mentioning it. It is slipping
right in under our noses, like most laws of this nature
do. And chances are, if you were not reading this you
would still think that you had the right to defend
yourself against government oppression (as stated in
the Declaration of Independence) or at least the right
to demonstrate at the next Democratic and Republican
national conventions.
As for those of us who are concerned about our
individual civil liberties, what more can we do besides
sit back and shake my head in disgust. Looks like
protesting will lead to federal charges. 2008 is an
election year, and every candidate promises change for
the future and to correct the abuses of the current
administration. Yet read their congressional voting
records and you will see where some of these candidates
actually stand. Most are for the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and keep funding it with billions of our
tax dollars. And as evident in this new bill almost all
of the House or Representatives are for the war against
your civil and political rights. It kind of makes you
wonder, why these fear mongers and ideologues run
around saying, "they hate of for our freedoms" what
exactly are those freedoms that we are hated for?
[Justin Ponkow is a writer for the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas student paper, The Rebel Yell, and is
a member of the National Hip Hop Political Convention.
Troy Nkrumah is an attorney, writer and educator. He is
also the Chair of the National Hip Hop Political
Convention.]
_____________________________________________
Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.
Submit via email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive
--- End Message ---
