Chris Hedges-Jeremy Hammond Exposed US Gov Plan to Criminalize Democratic Dissent

Chris hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, gave an excellent interview that no one should miss. I would 100% advise watching the entire video if you can. But for those that can't, you will find the complete transcript at my link. And as many of you may now be familiar, Jeremy Hammond is presently sitting in jail for hacking into Stratfor which provided email proof of much government wrongdoing.

This video is quite concerning to me, for it represents so much of what has gone wrong in our country. Once Americans are deemed terrorists, the military is permitted to seize citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military facilities. Right now, the government is pushing to have anyone who dissents labeled a terrorist.

One of the people that the US tried to falsely target as a terrorists was Alexa O’Brien, a content strategist and journalist. Alexa co-founded US Day of Rage, an organization created to reform the election process. Stratfor officials tried to link her to Islamic radicals and jihad websites. This threatened Alexa with unconstitutional detention.

Now you knew Obama would come into this. You see, Judge Katherine B. Forrest made a ruling partly because of the Stratfor email leaks that the plaintiffs had a credible fear, and so she nullified the law that allowed American terrorists to be held by the military without due process. This, decision was overturned by an appellate court when the Obama administration appealed it.

Folks, I am a tad under the weather tonight so please forgive this sub par thread here. If anyone could add to this it would be appreciated. I just felt this couldn't be missed. I will try to polish this up a tidge right now. And I would like to find the specific emails that apply.

Now, this was quite a significant dump, because it illustrated two or three very chilling things about the security and surveillance state, first of all that there was no division between corporate spying and government spying. It was seamless, including the same people going back and forth. It was from that dump that we realized the extent to which the Occupy movement was being spied upon and infiltrated and monitored and followed. And we also found from those email exchanges that there was a concerted attempt on the part of security officials, both inside the government and within the private security contracting agency, to link, falsely, nonviolent dissident groups with terrorist groups so that they could apply terrorism laws against these groups.

a

And when I sued Barack Obama over Section 1021 of the National National Defense Authorization Act, which permits the U.S. military, overturning 150 years of domestic law, to seize U.S. citizens who "substantially" support--that is not a legal term, it's not material support, it's an amorphous term--"substantially" support al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or something called associated forces--again another nebulous term--hold those citizens in military facilities without due process indefinitely, part of the email exchanges were entered as evidence in my case.

And those email exchanges showed that this private security firm, along with government officials, was attempting to link a group called U.S. Day of Rage, founded by a journalist and activist named Alexa O'Brien, who was one of my coplaintiffs, with al-Qaeda. And why were they trying to link that group with al-Qaeda? So that they could employ the draconian terrorism laws against nonviolent democratic dissidents. That all came out from Hammond.

HEDGES: Well, not when they shred the Constitution and violate our most basic right to privacy. Not only that, remember that we now know from this information they are actively working to criminalize democratic dissent. That's a crime. It should be a crime. And whatever crime Jeremy Hammond committed is nothing, pales in comparison to the crimes that are being committed by the state. That's the point.

Hedges: Jeremy Hammond Exposed State's Plan to Criminalize Democratic Dissent

We know about the military-industrial complex and now with Stratfor--and its revolving door of intelligence professionals--we see the new up and comer: The Intelligence-Corporate Complex.

Excellent sourcing here and a very important piece. At this point, sadly, it's just a clearer glimpse of what is and what's coming.

The octopus is in place and the curtain is being drawn back for the big reveal: We R the Big Brother Mother, All Ur Patriotism Are Belong to Us, Muah-Ha-Ha!

Considering that there were so many flags of support for your article, but only 1 post I decided to make a post. If even the ATSers so afraid of posting to your thread imagine the support one could expect from the main stream population. The problem as I see it is that everyone knows that you are right. That's why they will give you a flag but not post! Rule by terror! People who once would have gone out and burned flags(which I don't agree with) or bras are now afraid to speak up for fear of being put in a concentration camp! Our new motto can be "America home of the sad".

Chris Hedges is one of the most important journalists of our time. He writes about what many journalists are now legitimately too terrified to even acknowledge between the lines. I unashamedly have a growing hero worship for him.

People should be wondering why it is that it was such big news when the STRATFOR hack happened but almost no one knows about the person responsible being found guilty and sentenced to ten years in prison? Even worse , almost no journalists or publications of any kind talked about what was found... only independent journalists such as Hedges. Worse still, even fewer of those want to talk about that what was found should have us in the streets.

By the way, wikileaks released the entire file the other day in protest of Hammonds' sentencing.

If more people aren't willing to stand up and speak out against the criminality of this corrupt US government, TPTB have already won... and don't ever make the mistake of thinking they'll be magnanimous in victory.

They might punish you if you speak out against them... but they'll punish us ALL if you don't.

elouina


One of the people that the US tried to falsely target as a terrorists was Alexa O’Brien, a content strategist and journalist. Alexa co-founded US Day of Rage, an organization created to reform the election process. Stratfor officials tried to link her to Islamic radicals and jihad websites. This threatened Alexa with unconstitutional detention.

The Stratford story needs a little more attention for me anyway, to understand this fully.


Was Stratford maliciously hacked for simply investigating a possible connection between O'Brien and jihadist?

Oh good God, everything is upside down in this country. Justice is now "just us" not freedom for all for "free for (the taking)". Judges that enforce this type of corruption are just as bad as those making the laws. They already passed some act making it a criminal offense to protest near Federal buildings. They've pulled up the drawbridge, filled the moat with alligators and are now waiting for the peasants to storm the castle.

People are afraid? They should be. This farce of a government is looking for any threat to it's power and will do whatever it takes to end it. Those of us pissing and moaning on the internet are no bother to them, that's the only reason we can still get online and say these things. But that too will end soon as control of the internet is the final hurdle in their push for global dominance. Failing that they'll just shut off the power - it would have the same effect.

Kudos to Hedges for sticking his neck out. I support him 1000% and we all should. He's still trying to work within the legal framework of our Republic which is the only way until that too is made impossible. We reach that point, well nothing short of complete chaos could remove these parasites from the system.

This just shows what despicable measures they are willing to take to end dissent. Evil doesn't play by any rules except its own.

Hey Obama, your dark side is showing.

reply to post by Logarock

Hammond stressed that he had not benefitted personally in any way from the Stratfor email release, that exposed surveillance by private security firms on activists including Anonymous members themselves, Occupy protesters and campaigners in Bhopal, India involved in the push for compensation for victims of the 1984 industrial catastrophe. “Our main purpose in carrying out the Stratfor hack was to find out what private security and intelligence companies were doing, though none of us had any idea of the scale of it.”

The Guardian emphasis mine

Wikipedia has an overview of what was discovered though I don't think it has been updated with anything Wikileaks released the other day (Only part of the file was released originally).

Basically the hack exposed several tentacles of the beast, mainly how interconnected corporations are government are in regards to the surveillance state.

reply to post by Kali74


Hammond says he was pointed to Stratfor by a man that turned out to be an FBI operative. That looks to me like Hammond was being used as a tool for the FBI to knock out some competition.

I came upon a journal a few years back, staffed by all sorts of folks including academics, expert in the areas of geopolitical interest being covered, that was a bit expensive for a working man not to mention off limits to the general public. It to served the press and any other interested organization. This sort of information is priceless to anyone that wants to educate themselves outside what is otherwise available on the news stands on any given area of interest.

The fact is there is a 2nd and 3rd tear information out there gathered by all sorts for advisory purposes. Strafor is just one of many, many players whatever their rank.

I had a trial subscription to Strafor and spent far to little time reading it. I found it very good and most often not in line with what one gets in most available rags. Much thicker. Made your average news paper look like outhouse material. And it was available to the general public for an on lie subscription.

I don't see a whole lot of crashing down here with these Hammond "revelations".

reply to post by Logarock

Hammond says he was pointed to Stratfor by a man that turned out to be an FBI operative. That looks to me like Hammond was being used as a tool for the FBI to knock out some competition.

Sabu (the FBI informant) wasn't always an informant. He was one of the original founders of Lulzsec. Lulzsec had a warning system in place to inform other members if they'd become compromised, Sabu sent that warning...Lulzsec knew exactly when Sabu could no longer be trusted. The Stratfor hack happened before the FBI caught Sabu, the foreign attacks at Sabu's suggestion happened after he became an informant. Talking about being influenced by an informant is part of legal defense strategy, remember the FBI etc... is not supposed to coerce anyone into doing anything illegal, just observe.

The FBI has no interest in taking down any private intelligence firms, why would they?

You want to defend Stratfor because you like what their newsletters revealed to you? I suggest you look deeper at how they came to their information, can you actually stomach that? What motivated them to publish what they published... do you really want to have been manipulated? Is it enough for you that they were publishing things no one else would, it got you excited enough not to care? Do you also support Blackwater, cuz who cares how things are done as long as they get done?

reply to post by Kali74


What's more important here is that you understand how fast you jumped down my grill. I wasn't trying to defend Stratfor really but wasn't going to be a coward by not mentioning I had taken it for awhile. Thanks for supporting free and open conversation in order to see something in full measure.

Now you say that this FBI informant was made so after the fact but that's not what is clearly reported. And one has to wonder why Hammond would continue certain operations after the compromise warning was given. Why? Because it sounds like BS. I am just telling you what it sounds like not taking sides.

reply to post by Logarock


I'm not going to apologize for having principles that I won't compromise and this is something I tend to have a strong reaction to.

What I'm saying about Sabu are things I've read on pages that tend not to exist on the net for too long, this is something that I've become afraid to do... anyway that's all a side issue. Look into the hacked emails. I no longer have a link to them but I'm sure you can find them.


ETA I think there's a few threads on ATS about them.

Kali74
reply to post by Logarock

 

I'm not going to apologize for having principles that I won't compromise and this is something I tend to have a strong reaction to.

I don't mind strong principles and reaction but you superimposed your feeling about Stratfor onto someone that simply said they took Stratfor on line on a free trial offer.

reply to post by Logarock


You didn't simply state that you had partaken a free trial. It sounded more like you didn't want your opinion of them to be wrong.

reply to post by Kali74


It's against the law for journalists to cover stories which threaten state interests. All seasoned, professional journalists know this (key: professional, because "journalism" is a profession whereas the pursuit of truth is a calling).