Revenge of the 'Waco Gene'

William Norman Grigg writes in LewRockwell.com :

The Regime has made it official that "right-wing extremism" is a threat to Homeland Security.

That political genus is divided into two species – "white supremacist and anti-government groups" – with the latter further differentiated into various sub-species, including immigration reform activists, "disgruntled military veterans," gun rights advocates, members of citizen militia groups, anti-globalists, constitutionalists, "hate groups," and others deemed politically unsuitable by the Regime.

Less than two years ago, Congress enacted – by a vote of 404–6 – the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Its first offspring was an official commission to examine potential content-based Internet restrictions. At some point, it also begat a specialized section within the Homeland Security Department called the Extremism and Radicalization Branch (which we'll call the ERB).

This means that for the first time in American history, the federal government has a full-time intelligence organ devoted exclusively to scrutinizing the political opinions and affiliations of U.S. citizens. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this development as a milestone in our nation's apostasy from its founding as a constitutional republic.

Earlier this month, the ERB's "Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division" issued a nine-page "Intelligence and Analysis Assessment" of "right-wing extremism" for the supposed benefit of state and local law enforcement agencies. That document consists of reheated leftovers from several previous "intelligence analyses" of the "radical right," including the FBI's notorious 1999 Project Megiddo broadside.

The ERB report concludes with the observation that the Department of Homeland Security "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization."

This is significant chiefly because it acknowledges that every "local" police agency in the United States is now a sensory organ, and enforcement appendage, of the Homeland Security State.

~ more... ~

Freedom State

About Freedom State

It’s about sanity. It’s about a quest. It’s about crazy love. When eight mental health home patients wake up to discover that the Nurse is absent, the T.V. is out, and there’s a glass eye made in Rapture, Indiana… they come to the only possible conclusion: the apocalypse has happened. Each takes a role in their society, a finds a new sense of purpose through imagination. Led by their president, a disenfranchised housewife who has decided normal is crazy, they commandeer the facility’s short bus and head out on a mission to save survivors.

FREEDOM STATE
Recommended Serving Size: at least 1
Daily Value: depends
Active Ingredients: Apocalypse (15%), Short Bus (24%), Glass Eye (8%), Mental Health (110%), Diver (7%), Space (80%), Cornbread (10%), Deer head (12.5%), Crazy Love (35%), Clues (25%), Sprinkles (1 %), Edge of the World (11%), Homebase Security (18%), Darwin (3 %), The Machine (14%), Windmill (2%), Army (4%), Houseboat (12%), Polar Bears (2.5%), Holy Water (0.5%).

Manufactured in Portland Oregon.

[ hat tip to Psychedelic Tourist ]

IVAW: Matthis Chiroux's hearing this Tuesday

On Tuesday April 21st an Army administrative discharge board will hear the case of Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, an Individual Ready Reservist (IRR) who last summer publicly refused activation orders in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  The board will convene at 9am at the Army Human Resources Command, 1 Reserve Way in Overland, Missouri, just outside of St. Louis.  IVAW members and supporters will rally outside the hearing starting at 8:30am.

Although Chiroux is voluntary attending this hearing, all other IRR members who have refused activation have not had any disciplinary actions taken against them by the military other then receiving a General or Other Than Honorable discharge from the IRR.  This discharge has no effect on benefits like the GI Bill that IRR members earned through their service while on active duty.  Service members who have questions about the IRR can click here or contact the GI Rights Hotline at 877-447-4487. 

Chiroux, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, refused to participate in what he described as "an illegal and immoral occupation" May 15th, 2008, in Washington D.C., after nine other veterans testified to Members of the U.S. Congress about abuses they experienced during deployments to Iraq. Chiroux also vowed to remain public in the U.S. to defend himself from any charges brought against him by the military.

"My resistance as a noncommissioned officer to this abhorrent occupation is just as legitimate now as it was last year," said Chiroux, adding, "Soldiers have a duty to adhere to the international laws of war described as supreme in Art. 6 Para. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which we swear to abide by before the orders of any superior, including our former or current president."

Following Chiroux's refusal to activate, the military did not contact him until after he and 10 other IVAW members marched on the final presidential debate Oct. 15, 2008, in Hempstead, N.Y. demanding to question then Senators Obama and McCain regarding their war policies and plans to care for returning veterans. After the veterans were brutalized and arrested by police, (one suffered a fractured skull and is currently suing the police for damages) the Army initiated an administrative separation process for “misconduct” as a result of Chiroux's refusal to activate.

"I go now to St. Louis to honor my promises and convictions," said Chiroux. "Obama or No-Bama, the military must cease punishing soldiers of conscience, and we will demonstrate to them why."

Following the hearing, Chiroux and other IVAW members will testify about their military experiences that led them all to resist in different capacities the U.S.'s Overseas Contingency Operation (formerly the Global War on Terror).  The event will start at 5:30pm, and will take place at the St. Louis Friends Meeting, 1001 Park Ave in Downtown St. Louis click here for directions. 
Click here for background information.

~ Source: IVAW ~

Kurd refugee in coma after beating by Igoumenitsa coast guard thugs

Translated from an Indy.gr article :

One more victim added to the coast guard's murderous actions in the country's western ports

On 3 Apr, 2009 in Igoumenitsa, members of the Coast Guard corps critically injured an Iraqi Kurd (eyewitnesses who are undocumented foreigners describe "commandos" wearing blue uniforms and army fatigues). The coast guard asked the illegal immigrants at the scene to leave the port area. They did indeed leave but returned as their intent is to be make their way to Italy. The coast guard was waiting for them and after Arresting Arivan Osman Abdullah, a 29-year-old Kurd, they beat his head against the concrete until he began to bleed internally.

He was transported to the Philiaton medical center and from there to the Hatzikosta Hospital at Ioannina, and from there to the Papanikolaou Hospital in Thessaloniki, where he underwent head surgery but he has become a 'vegetable' as he is on life support. According to the doctors he will either die or remain in a vegetative state, in which case some family member of his will have to request for the plug to be pulled on the life support unit.

Pirate Bay operators reject jail terms and fines as 'crazy'

From the Irish Times :

Derek Scally in Berlin

Operators of online file-sharing site the Pirate Bay have attacked as “crazy” a Swedish court verdict sentencing four men connected to the service to a year in prison for aiding copyright infringement.

Hollywood movie studios and other media companies had sued the Pirate Bay for lost earnings, claiming the site enabled users to download copyright films, music and software.

They hailed yesterday’s verdict as an important step in their battle against lost revenues.

Operators of the Pirate Bay rejected the verdict, insisting they did not make copyright material available, but only pointed users in the right direction.

The Stockholm court agreed with the complainants and handed down the year-long sentences for breaching copyright law.

Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde, were also ordered to pay damages of 31 million Swedish kronor (€2.8 million).

“We had to try the question of whether these four men had been acting to help others file-share,” said Judge Tomas Norström.

“That is a crime and it is our conclusion that they were helpful to such an extent that they entered into the field of criminal liability.”

Defence lawyer Jonas Nilsson expressed surprise at the verdict and the level of the fine, but described the ruling as “just the first round”.

“I think this is a clear case for the supreme court,” he said.

The website operators reacted with humour to the ruling, remarking in a posting: “As in all good movies, the heroes lose in the beginning but have an epic victory in the end anyhow. That’s the only thing Hollywood ever taught us.”

In an online press conference Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde, one of those sentenced, said they “cannot and will not” pay the 31 million Swedish kronor fine.

Holding to the camera a piece of paper reading “IOU 31,000,000 SEK”, he added: “Even if I had the money, I would rather burn everything I own and I wouldn’t even give them the ashes.”

The ruling was welcomed by the Irish music industry, which has been seeking to get internet service providers such as Eircom to block websites engaged in copyright infringement.


Pirate Bay reaction

"So, the dice courts judgement is here. It was lol to read and hear, crazy verdict.

But as in all good movies, the heroes lose in the beginning but have an epic victory in the end anyhow. That's the only thing hollywood ever taught us."



The Pirate Bay Verdict and the Future of File Sharing

JR Raphael

Apr 17, 2009

The verdict against the founders of The Pirate Bay is being hailed by many as a triumphant win against illegal file-sharing. The four men involved in the BitTorrent tracking site were found guilty on Friday of being accessories to violating copyright law. A Swedish court sentenced each of them to a year in jail and a collective fine of $3.6 million.
In the long run, though, the verdict may not be as significant as some suggest when it comes to the battle against online file-sharing. Does the name Napster ring a bell?

The Pirate Bay Ruling

As was the case with Napster, The Pirate Bay doesn't actually host copyrighted files -- it simply allows users to post links to material hosted on third-party servers. That's why, incidentally, prosecutors ended up dropping the initial charge of "assisting copyright infringement" and pursuing only a "assisting making available copyrighted material" charge instead.

"The court said even if you are distributed, you are nevertheless encouraging your customers to violate copyright, and we'll hold you accountable," explains Steve Chang, an attorney specializing in intellectual property matters with Banner & Witcoff.
Napster, of course, ended up effectively boarding up as a result of its lengthy court battle (which, by the way, began exactly one decade ago this December). The Pirate Bay, though, isn't going anywhere yet. Its founders have already indicated they plan to appeal, and the case is expected to head as high as the Supreme Court. Many legal experts expect it could be years before a final verdict is reached.

"It took the entertainment industry three years to get this first verdict," a member of the Swedish "Pirate Party" tells The Register . "If they think they're going to make people stop file sharing, then they're living in a fantasy world."

Beyond the Courts

The bigger issue is that unlike Napster, The Pirate Bay and other modern peer-to-peer-oriented networks are far less centralized and simple to shut down. And, even if The Pirate Bay itself were somehow to be shuttered, there are countless other comparable tracking services all over the world. Could they all be targeted and taken down? It's highly unlikely.

But let's take it a step further. Let's say this whole thing plays out in the high court and The Pirate Bay loses. Let's say BitTorrent completely ceases to exist as a result. (Just play along for a minute.) Would that, then, be the end of online file-sharing?

The answer: of course not. Even in that extreme (and extremely unlikely) scenario, little would be accomplished in the grand scheme of things. Technology is constantly evolving. Just as more advanced decentralized peer-to-peer networks sprung up in the wake of Napster's shutdown, new alternatives would surface once again were a site like The Pirate Bay to lower its sails. Already, countless other methods exist for exchanging data with ease, and more will only pop up as the months wear on.

"In the big scheme of things, piracy is always going to happen," Chang says. "The ramification of this [ruling] is possibly providing the next evolution."

The Evolution

That evolution has already begun. Just recently, The Pirate Bay team prepared a new service called IPREDator, set to launch publicly any day now. It allows people to surf the Net more anonymously using a virtual private network, or VPN. Unlike other VPN services, The Pirate Bay promises its IPREDator will keep no logs of customer activity and therefore could never turn user information over to authorities.

"As in all good movies, the heroes lose in the beginning but have an epic victory in the end," boasts a message posted to The Pirate Bay Web site Friday morning. "That's the only thing Hollywood ever taught us."

If there's one Hollywood analogy to be made, it's that this storyline is far from finished. Rest assured, more sequels are on the way.