Main Menu

Updates

Donations

Available Books

New World War: Revolutionary Methods for Political Control

Dedication & Thanks


Volume I: Current Political Situation


Volume II: The New War


Volume III: Weapons of The New War


Volume IV: The Coverup


Appendix


Initiatives to Remove Civil Liberties
USA Patriot Act

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 describes domestic terrorism in Section 802 as activities that: “involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State,” as well as acts that “appear to be intended … to intimidate or coerce a civilian population … to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or … to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and … occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

Basically, if you appear to be intimidating a civilian population or government to influence policy, then you are a potential domestic terrorist. Although this phrase may seem like an irrelevant detail, it allows for the targeting of people who are peacefully expressing their ideas.

This act widens the definition of domestic terrorism. It’s an example of how a phrase, or a single word, can be used to significantly expand the scope of potential enemies. The RAND–MIPT Terrorism Incident Database provides a much more vague definition of domestic terrorism. It defines it as: “Incidents perpetrated by local nationals against a purely domestic target.”

The USA Patriot Act focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists, according to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who also says that there have been attempts to pass the provisions outlined in the Act for years, not to prevent terrorism, but to restrict freedom. The act increases the ability of law enforcement to conduct investigations, including the collection of email and internet activity, telephone, financial, medical, and other records.

It legalizes searches through a suspects house or business place without their knowledge or permission. In addition, the issuance of National Security Letters, which allows for warrantless searches, has been made easier. So, the act expanded both the arsenal of tactics that law enforcement can use on people, as well as the scope of people that can be targeted. It was passed in both houses by a large margin.

In his book Unconquerable Nation: Knowing Our Enemy, Strengthening Ourselves, published in 2006 by RAND, Brian Michael Jenkins linked terrorists to those who are against globalization by writing that the two groups will be forming an alliance.

The book Terrorism in Asymmetrical Conflict, written by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), describes terrorists as anti-system actors and mentions that those who are against globalization are part of an anti-system network, thus labeling them terrorists. Similarly, in its Militant Extremists in the United States report of April 2008, the Council on Foreign Relations says that those who oppose the WTO are potential domestic terrorists.

USA Today reported in November of 2004 that according to representatives of the Anti-Defamation League, US Marshals, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, domestic terrorists include those labeled white supremacists and anti-government people, as well as those who oppose corporations.

So, now the description of a terrorist has expanded to include those who are against globalization and corporations. We’ve learned that to battle terrorism the Constitution has been eroded. This is what the groups that are promoting this revolution have stated would be necessary, as we’ve seen.

For instance, there is currently a significant effort underway to limit free speech on the internet and in public. People engaging in lawful, peaceful protests are being punished, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment, which prevents against unreasonable searches or seizures by demanding a warrant or probable cause, is being ignored.

Additionally, the writ of habeas corpus in Article I of the US Constitution, which allows a prisoner to petition the courts, has been removed. Furthermore, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which prevents the military from being used against citizens has been abolished.

In its 2007 Posture Statement, the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) declared: “The global terror movement is broadening in scope to include other affiliated, independent, and emerging terrorist groups.” The new terrorists, says USSOCOM, includes “groups, and even individuals possessing entrenched anti-Western or anti-globalization agendas.”

RAND’s 1999 book, Countering the New Terrorism, says terrorism is developing into netwar, which is an information war, on the level of MOOTW. RAND says that although terrorists will continue with violent attacks, their strategy will shift toward nonlethal ones, or information attacks. “Indeed, terrorism has long been about ‘information,’” RAND explains.

This is yet another expansion of the scope of enemies by labeling nonviolent methods as tactics which terrorists use. “This is the battle of ideas,” agreed the White House’s 2006 Strategy for Winning the War on Terror plan. The terrorism we confront today, it says, originates from “subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation.” “Terrorists,” it continued, “recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories.”

NYPD Report

The report, Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat, was put out by the NYPD Intelligence Division on August 15, 2007. Its intended audience is politicians and law enforcement throughout the country. The report mentions a 4-step process which leads someone to become radicalized.

The process includes a pre-radicalization phase, which is the person’s situation in life before becoming an extremist. Most during this phase have ordinary jobs, live ordinary lives, and have little or no criminal record. They are basically unremarkable.

The next phase, self-identification, includes a life-changing experience, which the report mentions is one that changes their beliefs and opens them up to new worldviews. During this phase the person may be frustrated with the politics of their government and may seek other like-minded people. The next phase is indoctrination, where the person’s new beliefs are intensified. Finally, jihadization results, where they see themselves as holy warriors.

The process can begin in prayer groups, prisons, schools, mosques, informal meetings, or on the internet, which it describes as an extremist recruitment center. According to the report, the whole process can take as little as a few weeks. And while it takes place, the person will often be engaged in non-criminal behavior.

Thought processes should be identified and interrupted, the report suggests. Although the phases of radicalization are described, the criteria that constitute a radical viewpoint are not explained in detail, leaving it open to interpretation. In addition, the potential terrorists demonstrating these radical views are ordinary citizens with no criminal history, exhibiting subtle and non-criminal behavior.

Whoever actually authored this report made these descriptions vague to include almost any behavior. And they obviously had an understanding of the phased process that commonly occurs when people encounter evidence of this emerging global police state, which drastically changes their worldview, awakens them, and motivates them to educate themselves and others.1

“Where once we would have defined the initial indicator of the threat at the point where a terrorist or group of terrorists would actually plan an attack,” they announced, “we have now shifted our focus to a much earlier point.”

In a section of the report entitled, Outside Expert’s View, Brian Michael Jenkins, a senior advisor to the RAND Corporation, had this to say: “This is the most comprehensive review across national boundaries” and “will undoubtedly become the basis for comparison with additional cases.” He added, “Radicalization makes little noise. It borders on areas protected by the First and Fourth Amendments.” So according to Jenkins, portions of the Bill of Rights are protecting these extremists. He’s obviously implying that in order to deal with them free speech must be limited.

HR1955 (A Law against Thoughts)

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955) was introduced by Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) on April 19 of 2007 in the House, and passed 404 to 6 on October 23 2007. It is basically the proposal of a thought-based law. Its purpose is to deal with domestic terrorists and violent radicalization by creating a national commission to study methods to prevent those who hold radical and extremist belief systems while trying to promote a political, religious, or social change.

The bill had 15 co-sponsors including: Christopher Carney (D-PA), Donna Christensen (D-VI), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Norman Dicks (D-WA), Al Green (D-TX), James Langevin (D-RI), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Daniel Lungren (R-CA), Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), Ted Poe (R-TX), Dave Reichert (R-WA), and Bennie Thompson (D-MS). It was only opposed by Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and John Duncan (R-TN). Although Ron Paul was not present, he expressed his opposition to the bill as well.

To draft the bill, Harman worked closely with the RAND Corporation. According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, RAND appears to have helped her draft it.2 Two weeks before Harman introduced it, Brian Michael Jenkins, a senior advisor to RAND, gave a speech on Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment to Harman’s congressional subcommittee on terrorism. As we’ve discovered, Mr. Jenkins has announced that free speech outlined in the Bill of Rights is allowing the extremists to spread their radical ideas.

In Section 899A, the Act defines homegrown terrorism as: “The use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

It describes ideologically-based violence, similarly, which includes, “the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.”

There are a couple things to consider about these definitions. First, they mention the “planned” use of force or violence. Planning, among other things, includes thoughts. Furthermore, the title ideologically-based violence means violence based on ideas. So this is an idea-based law, or, a law against ideas. “That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it,” commented the Baltimore Sun in its Here Come the Thought Police story of November 19, 2007.

Also notice the phrase “force or violence.” The word “force” does not necessarily mean physical force. For instance, in part 1B of its definition, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition describes force as “moral or mental strength.” According to this, force is not necessarily physical but can mean the use of mental or moral abilities. It further describes force as the “capacity to persuade or convince” in part 1C.

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition defines force as “the capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power.” It is later describe in part 3A as, “intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech,” and “a capacity for affecting the mind or behavior,” in part 3C.

This means that force includes speech and ideas. So using force can basically mean having strong feelings or expressions about an issue. HR1955 would really be a law against certain ideas and expressions. This was acknowledged by the Center for Constitutional Rights, which announced that HR1955 focuses on ideology rather than criminal behavior, threatens the First Amendment, and that the definitions are so broad they could be used to investigate constitutionally protected activities.

HR1955 defines radicalization as: “The process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” Notice how the definition focuses on the process rather than the actual embracement of such a belief system, or a crime committed as a result. In this manner it is similar to the NYPD’s Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat report of August 2007. Interestingly, RAND participated in both of these initiatives.

Section 899D recommends the creation of a Center of Excellence consisting of behavioral experts to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic root-causes of such radical thoughts and feelings. The Center would then educate federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security officials on methods to identify and deal with those exhibiting such beliefs.

Section 899B says that it’s critical that methods be developed to counter the thoughts and feelings of these domestic terrorists, because such thoughts pose a threat to homeland security. And in Section 899E, we discover that this would be an international effort.

HR1955 was mostly ignored by mainstream news. Representative Kucinich, however, one of the few congressmen who voted against the bill, had this to say: “It really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest. … This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us.”

On August 7, 2007, the Senate version of the bill (S1959) was introduced to the senate by Susan Collins (R-ME), and co-sponsored by Senator Norman Coleman (R-MN). It is currently pending in Senator Joe Lieberman’s Homeland Security Committee. If the bill is enacted, it will amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Free Speech on the Internet Under Attack

The RAND Corporation has mentioned that the extremists and terrorists are more interested in keeping the internet up than taking it down, because it allows them to disseminate their views and mobilize forces. Therefore, free speech disseminated via the internet is also under attack.

On February 5, 2008, the director of the FBI, Robert S. Mueller stated that groups of self-radicalized, homegrown extremists operating in the United States will be increasingly spreading messages of violence using the internet. According to Agent Mueller, these groups are not officially connected to foreign terrorist organizations but are inspired by their hateful message.

The USSOCOM, SIPRI, and NYPD Intelligence Division publications all mention that terrorists are using the internet to communicate, recruit, train, and gain financial support. HR1955 similarly portrays the internet as a conduit for the promotion of radical ideas to United States citizens, including a broad and constant stream of terrorist-related propaganda.

The White House’s Strategy for Winning the War on Terror report had this to say about the internet: “The ability of terrorists to exploit the Internet and 24/7 worldwide media coverage allows them to bolster their prominence as well as feed a steady diet of radical ideology, twisted images, and conspiracy theories to potential recruits in all corners of the globe.”

On November 6, 2007 C-Span broadcasted the House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on Terrorism and the Internet, which was chaired by representatives Jane Harman (D-CA), and Dave Reichert (R-WA). It included the former director of the RAND Corporation and an advisor from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who linked 9/11 Truth sites to terrorist groups.

Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center accused these sites of promoting conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 being an inside job. “These falsehoods and conspiracy theories” agreed Bruce Hoffman, former director of RAND, “have now become so ubiquitous and so pervasive that they are believed.”

The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, led by senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, released a report on May 8, 2008 called Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.3

It mentions that terrorists and other extremists are using the internet as part of a comprehensive messaging campaign to recruit followers into a global terrorist network. There is a growing number of radical homegrown extremists in the US that identify with terrorist objectives, said the report. The internet is used by the extremists to communicate and gain information on destructive tactics.

The internet also functions as a virtual extremist learning center for those seeking information on the extremist ideology. Some of this information is produced by organized extremist groups while other material is created by individuals.

The finding cites the August 2007 NYPD report, Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat, as an excellent example of how regular people become radicalized into a terrorist ideology. It also warns that these groups and individuals may not be part of a known terrorist organization.

Testifying at the US Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on October 30, 2007, the Assistant Commissioner of NYPD’s Intelligence Division, Lawrence Sanchez, called the internet the most important factor in the radicalization that is occurring in America. According to Sanchez, it provides guidance for those seeking to adopt extremist beliefs.

MIAC Report

The Missouri Information Analysis Center’s Strategic Report of February 20, 2009 distributed to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, warned officers of possible encounters with conspiracy theorists who claim that law enforcement, the military, and federal agencies are being used by an elitist group to set up a global dictatorship called the New World Order.4

The conspiracy theorists, according to the MIAC report, claim their 1st and 2nd amendments are being altered or removed, and that because the federal government is not following the Constitution it is no longer valid. The report focuses on identifying people exhibiting certain characteristics and labeling them members of a dangerous militia movement which hates law enforcement.

It is similar to the Phoenix FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force report and the Virginia Terrorism Manual which basically link militias and defenders of the US Constitution to terrorists.

The indicators outlined in the MIAC report that officers are told to look for consist of bumper stickers that are against the New World Order, Federal Reserve System, Internal Revenue Service, FBI, CIA, ATF, or the United Nations. Campaigns stickers for parties that promote the Constitution are also listed. Additional clues they’re told to observe include anyone displaying an upside down US flag.5

The report also lists the possession of films such as Zeitgeist and America: Freedom to Fascism as evidence that an officer is dealing with a violent militia member. “You are the enemy,” the report warned the officers. “The militia subscribes to an anti-government and NWO mindset, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers.”

The People Are the Enemy

In order to combat the extremists who are spreading the conspiracy theories, RAND suggests a closer cooperation between civilians and the military. On September 19, 2005 it was reported by The Nation that through the JTTF, the military, federal law enforcement, and local police are aggressively targeting potential domestic terrorists.

Likewise, articles by MSNBC, the ACLU, and Democracy Now, explain that the US military, including the National Guard and Army, are working with local police, the FBI, and other federal agencies to conduct surveillance on US citizens suspected of being potential terrorists.

Reuters also mentioned that the military will be waging the War on Terror domestically, in its March 3, 2009 story, Bush-era Memos Saw Rights Limits in US Terror War. “Constitutional free-speech protections and a prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure could take a back seat to military needs in fighting terrorism inside the country,” it described. In its Military Expands Intelligence Role in US article of January 14, 2007, the New York Times similarly noted an aggressive expansion by the military, CIA, and FBI into domestic intelligence gathering.

“The FBI hasn’t just monitored environmental and anti-war rallies in Colorado Springs,” announced the Colorado Springs Independent on December 8, 2005, “the agency also has opened official counterterrorism cases in connection with the demonstrations, using a definition of ‘terrorism’ that is so vague it could fit almost any crime.”

The Drake University chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild came under scrutiny by the FBI after it organized a protest in November of 2003 at the Iowa National Guard Headquarters. In 2004 the JTTF monitored protesters throughout the country that were planning to appear at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

In 2004, the Fresno California Police Department monitored a local group peacefully protesting the war in Iraq as part of the JTTF. The California National Guard conducted surveillance in 2005 on the Gold Star Families for Peace.

People in Missouri who were planning to attend the DNC in 2004 were attacked by 24/7 surveillance. Regarding their experience, Denise Lieberman, former ACLU legal director in eastern Missouri stated, “the subpoenas and surveillance were not [intended] to get information but to harass and intimidate them.” Even the Washington Post reported in January of 2009 that antiwar and defense contractor protesters in Maryland, New York, and Colorado, have been labeled white supremacists and potential terrorists and placed under surveillance.

“In an ideal future,” says RAND, “free speech should be protected as a public good and a personal right.” “However,” they add, “the protection of all forms of free speech may create permissive conditions.”

This pattern is unfolding all across the country. “The US military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11,” mentioned MSNBC on December 14, 2005, “which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.”

“Newly leaked Pentagon documents,” revealed Democracy Now on December 15, 2005, “have confirmed the military has been monitoring and collecting intelligence on anti-war groups across the country.”

As we’ve seen, the description of terrorism has expanded tremendously. According to these official reports, the terrorists now include people using information attacks, those promoting conspiracy theories, and anyone using the internet to spread radical ideas. The terrorists are also peaceful protesters and those who oppose globalization. Prior to becoming terrorists, most of these people had ordinary lives with no criminal record. However, they experienced a life-changing event which altered their worldview.

In 2006 Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who either speaks out against government policies, or is thought to have donated to a charity that is categorized as a terrorist organization.6

Identified, Isolated, and Destroyed

Steven Metz and James Kievit mentioned in their article, The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War, that a revolutionary technology had been designed specifically to address this new global enemy.

To destroy the new enemy, an irregular approach is used, which has been called the asymmetric, indirect, or attrition-based approach. Rather than quick physical destruction, the goal is the psychological collapse of the enemy.

A protracted method of inflicting frequent physical and psychological pain over a long period of time is used to break the enemy’s will. The Department of Defense’s Effects Based Operations report described it in this manner: “For such a foe, the focus is not on targets but on actions that are directed toward political objectives and that revolve about the opponent’s will and decisionmaking structure.”

It continued: “In short, the approach to warfare is … directed at shaping behavior. … The effects-based strategy is conceived and executed as a direct assault on an opponent’s will.” The report also mentioned how pain would be inflicted relentlessly on what it described as a “victim” over a long period of time. The specific methods which are used to inflict this pain include nonlethal weapons (NLW) and tactics, biological/chemical weapons, and psychological operations (PsyOp). They leave no visible marks.

As previous evidence has shown, isolation is one of the principles of this new war-form. So, because peaceful protesters are now being labeled terrorists, these statements should be a concern to all people who value freedom.

The US Army Command and General Staff College mentioned in its May 22, 2003 report, Deterring and Responding to Asymmetrical Threats, that these enemies have been able to avoid attacks so far due to safe havens provided by international laws. However, that will be changing according to the report, which explained that these groups and individuals will be hunted down and attacked.

The report sites the work of the Tofflers, who tell us that the primary obstacles to this new society are those resisting globalization. Then, after linking these resisters to terrorists, it had this to say: “The only solution is to eradicate the entire organism.” Essentially, they will be locating and destroying these resisters.

These new enemies depend on the public for support, agreed General Caldwell. They depend on the sanctuary and safe haven provided by local populations who furnish them with services and resources. They will be denied sanctuary anyplace on the planet, according to these sources.

In its Unconventional Warfare manual the US Army also stated that these new enemies will basically be hunted down, isolated, denied critical services, and attacked. This will occur amid numerous noncombatants, in densely populated urban areas. It will happen all over the planet, in your cities and towns, anywhere “pockets of resistance remain.”

“We have formally acknowledged our battle against terrorism,” proclaimed the National Research Council (NRC). They then tell us that it will be critically important to isolate individuals who live among the civilian population. The NRC then mentioned that NLW will be used to accomplish this.

The White House’s 2006 Strategy for Winning the War on Terror says that the DOD will be eliminating all safe havens for terrorists. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1373, the US and its allies will be denying sanctuaries to anyone labeled a terrorist all over the planet.

“We will direct every resource at our command—every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, and every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war—to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.”
—George W. Bush, Address to the American People, September 20, 2001

The USSOCOM’s 2007 Posture Statement tells us that PsyOp and civil affairs will be the primary methods to detect and eliminate the underlying causes of extremist belief systems. These methods will be used to erode extremist ideologies.

In his Non-lethal Weapons to Gain Relevancy in Future Conflicts article, appearing in the March 1, 2002 issue of National Defense, Dr. John B. Alexander said that terrorists who live among the civilian population in densely populated cities around the world will be identified and attacked with NLW. “Tactically, the United States must find, fix, isolate, and destroy terrorist cells … and hostile command and control networks as quickly as they are identified,” says the US Army. “The only solution is to eradicate the entire organism...”

According to Metz and Kievit, in some cases the technology will be used for executions under conditions which offer plausible deniability. Similarly, in its 1995 report, Non-Lethal Technologies: Military Options and Implications, the Council on Foreign Relations suggested that in a covert war against a global enemy, secrecy must be used to preserve the effectiveness of these new weapons and to create confusion as to the source of the attacks.

In his 1970 book Between Two Ages, Trilateral Commission cofounder Zbigniew Brzezinski mentioned that new technology, including electromagnetic weapons, would be available to the leaders of developed nations for conducting secret warfare, of which only a small number of security forces would be needed.

Sources

Endnotes

1 Although this report seems to have originated from the NYPD that used the RAND Corporation for an "outside expert's view," RAND most probably drafted this report, while the NYPD put their name on it.

2 In all likelihood, the RAND Corporation completely drafted this bill too and Mrs. Harman simply signed her name to it.

3 The New York Times on May 25, 2008 revealed that Senator Lieberman tried to get YouTube to remove videos he finds offensive, in the article Joe Lieberman, Would-Be Censor.

4 The MIAC report was sent to the independent media outlet Prison Planet by concerned police officers. It's available at www.prisonplanet.com. Prison Planet announced in their March 13, 2009 Police Trained Nationwide that Informed Americans are Domestic Terrorists article, that the MIAC document reflects the situation occurring nationwide where people are being harassed, arrested, and labeled as terrorists for distributing 9/11 Truth material, or displaying certain political bumper stickers. Both the MIAC report and Prison Planet's coverage of the unfolding tyranny are consistent with the reports in mainstream media shown in this chapter.

5 Section 176, Chapter 10, Title 36 of the United States Flag Code, says that this is exactly what should be done when the country is in peril. See www.usflag.org.

6 In its, Supreme Court Says President Can Detain People without Charge, article on March 7, 2009, USA Today reported that the president can detain people without charging them for a crime.