Tag Archives: FBI

On criminals, terrorists, and mad men.


Before 9/11, a person who went out on a ‘killing rampage’ was viewed by the public as one who “went postal’, a ‘bomber without a cause’ or a ‘serial killer’. In other words, it was considered the act of a ‘common criminal’, not a political or act of war.  After 9/11, that same person committing the same act is considered ‘a war terrorist’ and ‘a crazy person’, to boot.

When and how did we decide to re-classify our definition of ‘common crime’ as ‘an act of war and terrorism’, and to link it to mental illness? Who helped shape our collective ‘perception’ of ‘imminent’ danger?

I will share my views about how mental illness has been scapegoat, after 9/11, as terrorism in a veiled effort to control political and social dissent in our nation, which our current president has declared to be in “a permanent state of war”.

Parts of this post will go under the headings:

The politics of crime: crime in the US before 9/11

Our a-political perception of crime

Mental illness to the rescue

THE POLITICS OF CRIME: Crime in the US before 9/11

Before 9/11, mental illness was seldom considered the sole culprit of acts of violence in our society. Acts of violence by ‘civilians’ (killing co-workers or loved ones) was seen by the public mostly as something done by someone who ‘lost it’ or who ‘went postal’. Implied in these descriptions is some sort of collective understanding that the person committing the crime was under the pressures of work, finance, love betrayal, or other social problems; the public was able to point to a ‘social context’ behind the act of violence. Because of this awareness of a social context behind crimes, the citizens of a town, city or state could look for a social solution to the problem of violence, not for a ‘war’ policy or armaments solution.

Also, pre-9/11 there was an unspoken social ‘agreement’ on the distinction between a ‘common criminal’ and a ‘terrorist’. A terrorist was a foreigner ‘at war’ against us but not here in the USA, and home-grown violence (by civilians) was just ‘regular crimes’. Thus, terrorism = act of war.

In other words, before 9/11 there seemed to be no ‘political’ crimes in the USA, acts of violence to advance political beliefs.  Seldom did the media or law enforcement agencies (at least publicly) tagged as ‘terrorism’ crimes that were clearly political in nature. Not even Timothy McVeigh, member of a separatist militia movement, was tagged as a terrorist, not until way after 9/11. The killing of a US President was NOT considered a political or even as terrorist act either. It was tagged as the act of a fanatical ‘lone-wolf’, who probably had been manipulated by the commies, a fact which would have made the crime a political one and a conspiracy. (But we never really went there, did we?) The ‘unabomber’ was a ‘rebel without a cause’, even a ‘mad genius’ but not a terrorist, certainly not a ‘political crusader’ for the animal rights movement, a fact many people don’t know about. And, finally, incarcerated political dissidents before 9/11, like imprisoned Puerto Rican liberation movement members, considered themselves ‘political prisoners’ (not terrorists) but the federal government had perennially refused to accept them as such, tagging them instead as ‘criminals’, until recently.

All of these examples of reluctance by the government to use the ‘t’ word, ‘terrorism’, fly despite the fact that it (FBI) had, before 9/11,  a clear definition of terrorism:

“the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals,against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

That is a political definition of terrorism, based on power struggle between the government and other groups of people to “furtherance of political or social objectives”. It required a “group” (“two or more”), and purposeful coordination of acts was implied. But we hardly knew about this definition, didn’t we? Why? This is in part because of the “two or more” requirement, given that our criminals were almost always portrayed as ‘lone-wolves’.

OUR POLITICAL PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME

The one thing the government (federal and state) must protect above anything else is…no, it’s not ‘the nation’.  It is the public trust in the government’s institutions. No trust in government = dissent, polarization, and power struggles for change in the way the government leaders run the nation, be it through peaceful civil disobedience or violence.

The public’s perception of ‘crime’ is shaped by the government’s criminal and justice systems policies and politics, among others. (It’s interesting to me that the first American group to be labeled as  ‘terrorist’ was the animals rights movement in The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006, something unrelated to war or Al Qaeda.)

So, it is conceivable that, to protect the public’s perception that the majority of the people are satisfied with the government’s policies, that there is no significant dissent within the society, the actions of dissenting groups are described as ‘regular crime’ and ‘crazy’ to devoid them of its political statement against the government policies. It reeks to Nazism, doesn’t it?

So, in a nation engaged in a ‘permanent war against terrorism’ and in enacting political, economic and repressive policies (police and surveillance state), which attack the middle class (leaving de-facto only two classes, the elite and the poor), how is the government going to label the natural political acts of dissent and resistance of those affected by its unfair policies and the impact it has on the social fabric?

Tomorrow: the pre and post 9/11 perception on crime, and mental illness to the rescue.

Disturbing news: FBI calls half of populace with 9/11 doubts potential terrorists


This is the latest installment of Big Brother’s “anti-terrorism” orders.  What I find most disturbing in this Digital Journal   article  is that ANY “personal problems” is sufficient to label you as  “terrorist”, or more specifically a “sleeper” cell terrorist, if during your “personal problem” you happen to vent “fury at the West[?] for the  global policies of the US”. Also, “excusing violence against Americans on the grounds that American actions provoked the problem”, in other words, disagreeing with US foreign policies would automatically convert you into  a “sleeper cell”.

Notice that expressing your “fury” against any European nation, the “West”, counts as an act of ‘treason’. That’s the long arm of the globalist elite. You are not allowed to criticize or have dissenting views ANYWHERE, not only in the US or about non-US policies. Your political opinions are restricted now to either shut up or accept as perfect the nation’s  actions to ‘protect the homeland’.

If there where any doubts of the reality that our government distrusts its citizens, that this is a BIG BROTHER state, that dissent is DE FACTO banned, that ALL Americans are considered traitors by the FBI and our politicians, that our Constitution is dead…that article ought to erase any such doubts.

According to the FBI and the Department of Justice [justice for the elite] list of ‘characteristic’ behaviors and beliefs of terrorists, I and all of you who may agree with a few of my  posted opinions, are considered  ‘terrorists’ by our government. You don’t have to do anything ‘wrong’; just express disagreement about our government policies, mild or ‘furiously’,  or even just visit this blog, and you are a “sleeper” cell terrorist.

This is all happening during the Obama administration.

Yeap. America, the land of the free, RIP. Long live the dictatorship.

Section of FBI circular to local police   Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Sl...

F.B.I. Said to Conclude It Could Not Have Averted Boston Attack


That’s in the NY Times. This is here, at the Citywide:

1. They admit they can’t avert REAL attacks; but they can ‘avert’ FAKE attacks made by ENTRAPMENT to mentally ill people and then send them for life to be tortured in our prisons.

2. They keep the tyrannical laws to spy and harass the regular citizen even though they can’t “avert” attacks. That’s the working definition of tyranny.

3. Even though they had follow those guys in Boston for MONTHS and “could not avert” the attacks, they continue to spy on your AMAZON online shopping for pressure cookers, and send the FBI and SWAT team to terrorize you with questions about why are you buying a pressure cooker and “what the hell is quinoa”. You gotta read the article  about the pressure-cooker-New York ‘terrorist’. It’s truly MINDLESS. The FBI didn’t know what quinoa is and why that woman needed a pressure cooker for that. They thought quinoa is  some kind of explosive!!

A "terrorist's recipe, with 'explosive' kidney beans and quinoa. DON'T EAT IT. RUN!

A “terrorist’s recipe, cooked on pressure cooker with ‘explosive’ kidney beans and quinoa. DON’T EAT IT. RUN!

Today, our only heroes are Snowden and Bradley Manning. They have given their freedom and lives for US.

What are we going  do now with that gift?