7 Comments

1. DeAnander:

   In the Bastille, there is no “afterwards”…

   This lengthy article is worth a careful read.

   CCR attorneys also noticed the presence of CMU inmates who had neither links to terrorism nor communications infractions. They fell into three general groups, with occasional overlaps. The first had made complaints against the BOP either through internal procedures or formal litigation, and their placement appeared retaliatory. The second held unpopular political views, both left- and right-leaning, from animal rights and environmental activists to neo-Nazis and extreme antiabortion activists. The third seemed to be Muslims, including African-American Muslims, whose convictions had nothing to do with terrorism and ranged from robbery to credit card fraud.

   The brief reasons given for transferring these prisoners into CMUs varied, but in several cases their designation was based on conduct that had already been successfully managed at other institutions without restricting communications or family visits. The reasons were often vague: for example, that inmates had engaged in conduct while incarcerated to “recruit and radicalize” other inmates. When pressed for specific evidence about such allegations in interviews and FOIA requests, the BOP declined to provide additional information.

   Note that several of the non-Muslim prisoners being moved into nearly-no-communication prisons — the next best thing to the ancient oubliette — were convicted for environmentally-motivated crimes against property, which have been redefined over the last few bad years as “environmental terrorism” or “domestic terrorism.” Other “extremists” have been dropped in the oubliette too, but I want to dwell on this trend towards defining environmental activism as de facto terrorism, and crimes against property (if environmentally motivated, that is) as “terrorist” and hence meriting draconian sentencing. (No draconian sentencing for crimes against other people’s property such as wrecking some farmer’s water system by fracking, for example — only for CAP motivated by certain political beliefs. Therefore we are now implementing the concept of “thought crime,” in which the individual’s belief system determines the criminality of the action, and the same or greater degree of damage inflicted by an individual with Acceptable Ideas is not criminal.)

   Green is the New Red:

   The Red Scare was less about evidence than really great PR. Joseph McCarthy and crew flacked one word so relentlessly, so virulently, that it became a political albatross to hang around anyone’s neck. The true meaning of the word fell by the wayside: communism became a fluid brand to slap on the enemy of the hour.

   Now, Green is the new Red.

   The administration is slowly replacing communists lurking in every shadow with terrorists. And terrorism may become an even better brand than communism for demonizing dissent. In March, six green activists found themselves among the first victims of a new front in the War on Terror, and of an old PR game.

   They were convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges–that’s right, terrorism– for campaigning to shut down an animal testing lab. On June 7, they will be sentenced: two defendants face up to a year in federal prison, and others likely face five to 10 years.

   Did their terrorist campaign involve anthrax? Pipe bombs? A plot to hijack an airplane? Nope. They ran a website. They posted news about the campaign — legal actions like protests and illegal actions like stealing animals from labs — and unabashedly supported all of it. Since the feds haven’t been able to catch the saboteurs, they’re now cracking down on those in the spotlight. Think red baiting, with a green twist.
   (Counterpunch 2006)

   Criminalising Dissent:

   Of course, what we’re talking about here is property destruction with arson being the preferred method. The US Sentencing Commission reports that in 2003 in 82 cases where arson was the primary offense, the median sentence was 60 months (5 years). The median Murder sentence in the US is 15 years; sex abuse 3.4 years; and assault 1.25.

   In these property destruction cases, the government has asked for a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years and some defendants are facing Life-plus 335 years for alleged property damage. Already, Eugene’s “justice” system has seen Jeffrey Luers sentenced to a preposterous 22 years, 8 months for torching three SUVs (which were later restored and sold.)

   Upon issuing the Indictments, Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller both said that eco-sabotage is the government’s top domestic terrorism priority. Gonzales told the press, “The indictment tells a story of four-and-a-half years of arson, vandalism, violence and destruction claimed to have been executed on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front, extremist movements known to support acts of domestic terrorism.”

   Mueller added, “Terrorism is terrorism, no matter what the motive. The FBI is committed to protecting Americans from crime and terrorism, including acts of domestic terrorism in the name of animal rights or the environment.”

   The FBI now ranks both ALF and ELF as the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat according to James Jarboe, FBI domestic terrorism section chief.

   (Also CP 2006)

   Connect the dots. Big Ag is feeling the heat from the Food Reform (or Real Food) movement. They’re on the defensive, and like all big authoritarian criminal orgs their first concerns are (a) to shove their most active critics into the oubliette and (b) to protect the secrecy of their operations. A first-degree felony to photograph a farm without consent? Hello? What exactly is going on there, that they are so afraid of the camera? Could there be a clearer or louder admission of guilt? A phone call to a boughten political representative — maybe a few phone calls from the top meat processors and CAFO operators — and it can become criminal to take pictures of their operations to document their own breaches of law and ethics.

   What have they — all the extractive industries — got to hide?

   Answer: a lot. Big Ag could be held accountable for many disease outbreaks, massive animal suffering, food poisoning, food adulteration and standards violations, false advertising, labour abuse, destruction of topsoil and reckless pollution of waterways, for starters. And what they have to lose: a near-monopoly market with huge margins, control of about 96 percent of the public’s food-buying dollar (only about 4 cents goes to the farmer these days iirc), and of course their tie-ins with other large business mafia like the petrochemical industry.

   What we are seeing is the beginnings of royal privileges for large business concerns: it becomes lese-majeste, a crime, to speak ill of them or subject them to any scrutiny by the “little people.” This is a dangerous trend to say the least. It’s an attempt to prevent information from reaching the public, by hypercriminalising direct action and maintaining a secrecy screen around physical plant.

   They *really* don’t want us to know what we’re eating.

   They want to make it a crime for anyone to bring back a candid unauthorised photograph to show us how our food is produced.

   And that should worry us all.

   What next? Will Google Earth coyly blur all aerial views of factory farms and feedlots?

   22 March 2011, 8:35 pm

2. Henry:

   Garden as If Your Life Depends On It–Because It Will

   http://counterpunch.org/laconte03302011.html

   30 March 2011, 1:14 pm

3. Stan:

   Good snag, Henry!!! I’m facebooking this one, and giving it its own thread.

   30 March 2011, 4:25 pm

4. Henry:

   Good idea. Well worth it.

   I forget if these have been posted here before, but here go two more good sites:

   http://onestrawrob.com/2010/12/evolving-suburbia/

   Institute for Local Self-Reliance:

   http://www.ilsr.org/

   31 March 2011, 12:42 am

5. Henry:

   Hmmm, perhaps I should re-post these on the separate thread you made. I’ll go ahead and do that, and hope it’s ok.

   31 March 2011, 12:43 am

6. Stan:

   Totally okay. (-:

   Thanks again.

   31 March 2011, 6:40 am

7. DeAnander:

   The Future Big Ag Imagines

   Punjab, India [...] in the 1970s became a poster child for industrial agriculture. Huge gains were recorded, especially in wheat production. But according to a 2007 report put out by the Punjab State Council for Science & Technology, “Over-intensification of agriculture over the years has led to water depletion, reduced soil fertility and micronutrient deficiency, non-judicious use of farm chemicals and problems of pesticide residue, reduced genetic diversity, soil erosion, atmospheric and water pollution and overall degradation of the rather fragile agro ecosystem of the state.”

   According to De Schutter, “Climate change and environmental destruction are the most important factors behind recent spikes in food prices. Pushing agriculture methods that accelerate this is a recipe for disaster.”

   Here at home, the experience of American farmers demonstrates the effectiveness with which industrial agriculture can destroy the social and economic fabric of rural communities. Across the heartland, a few farms have prospered and consolidated the land from the many farms that have failed. Once autonomous farmers became workers on factory farms, or left home for the city. In the third world this pattern would likely be repeated. Small farmers would become day laborers, or move to the already swollen urban slums.

   Third world farmers who hang onto their small pieces of land could face the constant threat of financial ruin if they follow the path of industrial farming. India is experiencing an epidemic of farmer suicides resulting from farmers borrowing money for pesticides, fertilizers, high-yield seeds, and the digging of wells. If a crop fails, or spoils, or the price of that crop takes a sudden dive, or the well runs dry — any of these all-too-common occurrences can initiate a debt spiral that many farmers can’t find their way out of. Since 1997, over 200,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide.

   Worth a read — a good overview of the cost of stubbornly clinging to von Liebig’s errors.

   1 April 2011, 12:54 am

Leave a comment