Written by Andrew Korybko; Originally appeared at Global Research
The Mainstream Media reported earlier this month on an intelligence bulletin released by the FBI’s Phoenix office back in May alleging that a connection exists between so-called “conspiracy theories” and domestic terrorism, and while there have veritably been some people who hold such controversially defined beliefs and then ended up killing others, it’s anti-American to suspect that people who don’t believe the official narrative about various events automatically qualify as potential terrorists.
***
The de-facto criminalization of free speech is an ongoing trend in American society that’s already pressured a lot of people to self-censor their beliefs in public in order to avoid official scrutiny from the authorities or harassment by their political opponents, but an intelligence bulletin released by the FBI’s Phoenix office back in May and only reported on by the Mainstream Media earlier this month might spread the dragnet even further by de-facto criminalizing the online pursuit of additional information that contradicts the official narrative about various events.
The “secret police” (as they’d be described by the Mainstream Media if any other country’s version of the FBI was being reported on) believe that a connection exists between so-called “conspiracy theories” and domestic terrorism, and while there have veritably been some people who hold such controversially defined beliefs and ended up killing others, it’s anti-American to suspect that anyone engaged in seeking out all sides of every story (no matter how possibly implausible) automatically qualifies as a potential terrorist.
Screenshot of FBI document
Appendix B of the document says that
“the conspiracy theories referenced in this intelligence bulletin have been categorized as anti-government, identity based, or fringe political because they assert selective, malevolent acts either by an allegedly hostile and tyrannical federal government, by racial, religious, or social minority groups, or by political opponents.”
The examples given for each category are “NWO”, “UN”, and “False Flags”; Zionist Occupied Government” and “Islamberg”; and “Pizzagate” and “QAnon”, respectively, followed by a very brief description of each one. What’s so dangerous about these categorizations is that some of them are broad enough to be applicable to practically anyone who’s skeptical about recent events, which in turn could put these individuals on terrorist watch lists and possibly even result in restrictions on their civil liberties, such as their right to exercise the Second Amendment if so-called “red flag laws” are applicable in their state and Big Tech companies inform the authorities that someone was researching or discussing such unofficial narratives online.
For instance, the FBI describes the “NWO” “conspiracy theory” as asserting that “a group of international elites controls governments, industry, and media organizations, instigates major wars, carries out secret staged events, and manipulates economies with the goal of establishing global rule”, which basically summarizes the modus operandi of the American-led neoliberal system.
By the Bureau’s own definition, anti-war dissidents who expressed their belief that the US’ 2003 War on Iraq was launched on the media-driven manufactured pretext of non-existent “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in order to advance American influence in the tri-continental geopivotal and energy-rich region of the Mideast would be classified as “conspiracy theorists” who would then be suspected of being at risk of committing “domestic terrorism”. That so-called “conspiracy theory”, however, has since been vindicated as “conspiracy fact”, though in the contemporary context, those tarred and feathered as “conspiracy theorists” for believing modern-day analogues such as the US and its allies manufacturing fake pretexts to “contain” Russia, China, and Iran might soon be seen as unofficial enemies of the state.
For another perfect example of just how potentially all-encompassing the FBI’s alleged “conspiracy theorist”-terrorist connection is, one need look no further than its description of the “UN” “conspiracy”, which it describes as asserting that “the UN is being used by an evil global cabal to erode American sovereignty, strip away individual liberties, and bring foreign troops to American soil in order to replace democracy with global tyranny.”
None other than the sitting US President himself has publicly questioned the UN’s role in eroding American sovereignty, as have most of his supporters, yet the FBI’s bulletin classifies that belief as a “conspiracy theory” that could potentially indicate a “terrorist” in the making. Many more such examples could be shared about how the “secret police” could easily use the Phoenix office’s definition of “conspiracy theories” to “justify” unethical surveillance of domestic targets for political reasons, which is anti-American to the core even though it’s taken for granted that this is already going on to an uncertain extent. If “red flag laws” are expanded nationwide, then Trump’s own supporters might find themselves forcibly disarmed just for agreeing with him.
The Democrats should be concerned too because they might also find themselves on government watch lists as “conspiracy theorists” just like their rival Republicans if they simply go to the “wrong” website that questions official narratives. That could potentially be Russian international media like RT or even independent/ alternative American online outlets, it just depends on how “conspiracy theories” are defined by internet service providers, which sites they “flag” as “suspicious”, and whether or not the user is being tracked by cookies to link them to that page.
Democrats might not worry too much about having their Second Amendment rights restricted through “red flag laws”, but they could come under other forms of targeted state harassment as well on a selective basis dependent on the “secret police’s” subjective whims. It’s for these reasons that opposition to the FBI’s de-facto criminalization of online research (which builds upon the already de-facto criminalized expression of free speech in many instances) should be a bipartisan issue because it goes against everything that the US purports to stand for.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The FBI which covers up 911 and the psychiatric drug fueled mass shootings has a severe credibility deficit.
“Patrick Crusius was a very disturbed white kid loaded up to the eyeballs on antidepressant medication, some of which have a host of dangerous side effects, including anxiety, aggression, and suicidal tendencies.”
– American ‘wild, wild West’ needs taming, but politicizing cold-blooded murder is not the way –
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/465827-shooting-walmart-dayton-politicized/
“James Holmes … killed 12 people and injured 70 in a Colorado cinema in 2012, after starting an antidepressant 17 weeks prior. Professor David Healy interviewed Holmes prior to his 2015 trial and concluded, “I believe if he hadn’t taken the Sertraline [antidepressant], he wouldn’t have murdered anyone.”
Professor Healy estimates that 90 percent of school shootings taking place over more than a decade were linked to antidepressants.”
– A PRESCRIPTION FOR MURDER –
https://www.cchr.org/newsletter/volume3/issue3/a-prescription-for-murder.html
“August 5, 2019 – Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement regarding demands for new gun control, including so-called “red flag” confiscation laws:
This morning, President Trump stated that “Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks,” called for “real bipartisan solutions” that will “truly make America safer and better for all,” including ‘Minority Report’-style “tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike,” and so-called “red flag” legislation.
It is also being reported that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has cut a deal with Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT) on legislation that President Trump “seems very supportive” of. Firearms Policy Coalition and our members are not.
FPC has been and remains strongly opposed to so-called “red flag” laws, also known as “Gun Violence Restraining Order” (GVRO) or “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) statutes.
FPC also remains strongly opposed to expanding federal criminal statutes, including but not limited to those mandating “universal background checks”.
These proposed laws do not increase access to mental healthcare or improve public safety. They rely on expanding federal powers through further abuse of the Commerce Clause and are unconstitutional, as well as dangerous.
FPC Policy Positions on “Red Flag” Confiscation Order Laws
Red flag laws stand for the proposition that gun owners can have their rights and property taken from them – by force – on the basis of allegations without the government having even reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause or constitutionally sufficient adjudication.
If the government does not have probable cause for an arrest or search warrant, a material basis upon which to subject a person to a mental health evaluation, or even “reasonable suspicion” to support the detention of an individual, then the government surely has not met its burden for taking away a person’s fundamental, individual rights and lawfully-acquired property.
So-called “red flag” laws require a respondent to hire expensive attorneys and spend thousands of dollars to defend against a petition, petition for or litigate appeals, and restore rights and recover seized or surrendered property, shifting the burden of the “red flag” scheme to the individual.
Most “red flag” respondents are unlikely to have the resources to engage specialized legal counsel, and thus “red flag” laws will disproportionately impact the poor. And even if they could afford to hire legal counsel, and even if they ultimately prevail, their attorney’s fees and costs are almost certainly nonrecoverable.
Firearms and ammunition are valuable personal property. But the interest at stake here is far more substantial than the deprivation of mere possession of such property: “[T]he right to keep and bear arms” is “among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3042 (2010).)
By establishing statutory and regulatory schemes that prohibit an individual’s possession of firearms, and in some cases even require the seizure of firearms and ammunition,“red flag” laws strike at the core of the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630 635 (2008).)
“Red flag” orders and their underlying statutes also drive a stake into the heart of our Nation’s fundamental principles. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (U.S. Constitution, amendment V.)
Indeed, “red flag” statutes often contain no notice requirement at all, and even where “red flag” laws provide that notice may be given, most do not require that the respondent be actually served with notice. For example, in California, “red flag” orders may be issued against someone who is completely unaware of the existence of a petition, let alone a hearing or an order. And even if a “red flag” order is issued, they are not required to be personally served on the subject unless “the restrained person can reasonably be located.”
Worse, some “red flag” laws even provide for secret ex parte proceedings. That means a petitioning law enforcement officer or person may present their arguments to a court without the subject of the petition being present—or perhaps altogether unaware of the petition and hearing on the future of their rights and property.
And under some “red flag” laws, a court can even “consider any other evidence of an increased risk for violence” including (but not limited to) “[e]vidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons.” In other words, if a person recently exercised their fundamental, individual Second Amendment rights, that in and of itself could be construed as “evidence” that they are an “increased risk for violence” and thus should have a “red flag” order and property seizure warrant issue against them.
If a person is an actual threat to themselves or others, or engaging in criminal activity, then there are thousands of existing federal, state, and local laws by which families, friends, or law enforcement can more appropriately and effectively respond to those facts and circumstances.
Moreover, “red flag” laws do not improve access to mental health care or address the important issues of untreated or under-treated mental illness. And “red flag” laws may even discourage or serve as a deterrent to those who might otherwise seek mental health treatment or counseling.
Red flag firearm prohibition and confiscation laws are unconstitutional, unsound, and dangerous policies. They should and must be opposed – not rewarded with millions of taxpayer dollars. FPC will grade all votes on federal “red flag” legislation, publish legislative history, and distribute this information to our members, supporters, activists, and the public.”
– Firearms Policy Coalition Issues Policy Statement on Calls for “Red Flag” Laws, More Gun Control, and President Trump’s Remarks –
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-red-flag-laws-trump-remarks?utm_campaign=805_all_three_prs&utm_medium=email&utm_source=firearmspolicycoalition
“The de-facto criminalization of free speech is an ongoing trend in American society…” And Danish society