The Terror of "Anti-Terrorism"

[Menchise]

quote:

---

A return to McCarthyism?

by Sue Sandlin

Socialist Worker Online

2 August 2002

SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, the Bush administrationÔÇÖs attacks on civil liberties have come at a dizzying speed. Thousands of immigrants were rounded up and deported or detained without appeal. The Feds got increased powers to spy under the USA-PATRIOT Act. And now the Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or "TIPS," is supposed to recruit people to snitch on their neighbors and coworkers.

All of this is leading many people to wonder whether the bad old days of McCarthyism have returned. Named for Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) who led the witch-hunt in Congress, McCarthyism refers to the wave of political repression during the late 1940s and early 1950s that targeted the Communist Party, people in the partyÔÇÖs orbit and left-wing activists in general.

This was the period following the Second World War, when the U.S. had emerged as a world superpower, with the USSR as its main rival. The U.S.- USSR rivalry was called the Cold War, and it produced the biggest arms race in history, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and proxy wars around the world between forces supported by the two superpowers.

At home, McCarthy and his fellow witch-hunters claimed that they were rooting out "communist infiltrators." The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was launched in the 1940s during the Roosevelt administration, and in 1947, it began its notorious investigation of Hollywood.

But the blacklists went far beyond Hollywood, reaching into practically every section of society and having a chilling effect on those who dared to speak out. Lawyers who represented clients before HUAC were themselves questioned, leftists were driven out of trade unions, and teachers were blacklisted from schools. People not only lost their jobs, but some had their marriages wrecked and their kids beaten up at school.

The most horrific case was that of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, rank-and-file members of the Communist Party who were executed in 1953 for supposedly being "atomic spies." Afterward, McCarthy would threaten witnesses called before HUAC with the same fate. The message was clear: "If you stand up and fight back, we can kill you."

The Communist Party in the U.S. was essentially destroyed through this period, and radicals of any kind were driven from the labor movement. The governmentÔÇÖs repressive apparatus grew beyond official government bodies-- and came to include social and business organizations and neighbors turning in neighbors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SO IS this what weÔÇÖre facing now? Are we experiencing a new McCarthyism? With each dirty trick that Bush pulls out of his sleeve, it seems like we might be headed in that direction. But can something as awful and so recently regarded as an embarrassment be re-legitimized?

The first question to ask is why the government is doing this. During every war that the U.S. has entered since the beginning of the 20th century, political leaders claimed that they were protecting freedom and democracy. Yet nothing could be further than the truth.

The reality is that the U.S. goes to war to protect the profits and power of the people at the top, expand its influence and domination around the world and show its "enemies" and "allies" whoÔÇÖs the boss.

Of course, the U.S. government canÔÇÖt just say that theyÔÇÖre waging war to protect the rich. The politicians have to whip up patriotism and convince people that the government is fighting for them. The real war aims canÔÇÖt be exposed. ThatÔÇÖs why itÔÇÖs so important, from the standpoint of the ruling class, to suppress dissent. So every imperialist war launched abroad has been accompanied by a war at home.

All this has been true about WashingtonÔÇÖs "war on terrorism" since September 11. The Bush administration has exploited the tragedy to push ahead on its imperial aims abroad.

Plus, the war has provided the perfect pretext to pursue an anti-worker agenda at home--from giving airline bosses the cover for mass layoffs with cost-cutting "restrictions" on bailout money, to the latest attempt to ban unions from the new Department of Homeland Security.

During McCarthyism, U.S. leaders used the "war on communism" to justify their attack. The hysteria whipped up about "reds" meant that few people questioned U.S. military adventures abroad, like the Korean War. And it meant that U.S. rulers could squash the left wing of the powerful workers movement of the 1930s.

McCarthyismÔÇÖs impact was huge, but it didnÔÇÖt last forever. Growing numbers of people eventually saw the terrible contradiction of "protecting our freedom and democracy" by taking away the right to speak out. Today, McCarthyism is viewed as a horrible chapter in U.S. history.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ASHCROFT AND Co. have been relatively successful in exploiting the September 11 tragedy and whipping up fear of new "terrorist threats" to push through repressive measures. But there are factors that constrain them.

For one, memories of the governmentÔÇÖs past abuses, such as McCarthyism in the 1950s and Watergate in the 1970s, havenÔÇÖt completely faded. And new reasons to distrust the government arise all the time--especially the recent wave of corporate scandals, which politicians are up to their eyeballs in.

Even more important, the U.S. today faces an increasingly unstable economy and an increasing gap between rich and poor--the opposite of the McCarthy era of the 1950s, which was underpinned by a period of unprecedented economic expansion.

In the 1950s, most workers could expect to enjoy a better standard of living with each passing year. This was the era of the American Dream. But today, U.S. bosses are demanding that workers tighten their belts at the same time as they give away their rights.

So, for example, when Minnesota state workers threatened to strike in September, Gov. Jesse Ventura denounced them for "playing into the hands of terrorists" and threatened them with jail time.

These contradictions all contribute to brewing anger from below--anger that could undermine support for BushÔÇÖs war at home. Plus, all of the conditions that gave rise to developing social movements before September 11--the monstrous criminal justice system and the ravages of globalization, for example--are still there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE GREATEST lesson to be learned from McCarthyism is the importance of standing up and fighting back.

While the antiwar movement remains small today, there have been important fightbacks and successes--for example, the activists who defeated the University of CaliforniaÔÇÖs attempts to sanction Students for Justice in Palestine, or the academics who organized petitions protesting a blacklist of antiwar professors. And there are signs that growing numbers of people are becoming disgusted with the blatant attacks on civil liberties.

One of the most important things that we can do now is tell the truth--by putting a human face on the innocent people targeted by BushÔÇÖs phony war on terrorism and pointing out the real aims of the U.S. government.

This wonÔÇÖt be an easy fight. The government has powerful weapons in its arsenal. For instance, Homeland Security tsar Tom Ridge recently told the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) that a work stoppage on the West Coast would be a "national security risk"--and issued a vague threat of sending in troops as scabs. Sadly, the threat had an effect--with ILWU leaders shying away from action because of fears of government intervention.

But history tells us that now isnÔÇÖt the time to hide. HUAC did wreak havoc on peopleÔÇÖs lives for a period of years. But these goons were eventually sent packing by the growing civil rights movement--and the free speech and antiwar movements that followed.

What the Bush gang gets away with today depends in part on the organizing we do now. We have the power to stop Bush and AshcroftÔÇÖs crackdown.

---

[ 08-09-2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Guest]

Another liberal crying about liberties being taken away. I haven't lost any that weren't already gone anyway.

She can cry wolf all she wants, but the liberals have cried wolf so many times, the sky is falling the sky is falling, that people just aren't listening to their silly rhetoric anymore. Thank goodness.

The adults are in charge and the children that were are whining. Just as they always do when the candy(political power) is taken away from them.

[Menchise]

Here's another article from that paper...

quote:

---

AshcroftÔÇÖs Big Brother spy plan

A SNITCH on every block. ThatÔÇÖs what Attorney General John Ashcroft wants.

The pilot phase of his Terrorism Information and Prevention System--known as Operation TIPS--is due to be launched this month. The Justice Department wants to recruit 1 million people in 10 cities--and give them "a formal way to report suspicious terrorist activity," as the TIPS Web site puts it. In other words, be a spy.

The 1 million would amount to one out of every 24 people in the 10 largest cities in the U.S.--a higher percentage of informants than even the former Stalinist dictatorship of East Germany had, with its infamous Stasi secret police.

TIPS is an open invitation to racial profiling and scapegoating--against everyone from Arab immigrants to political activists. The programÔÇÖs echoes of George OrwellÔÇÖs 1984 are so obvious that many mainstream newspapers opposed it. Even House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas)--as right wing a Republican as they come--tried to put the brakes on the citizen spy scheme with a provision in legislation forming the new Department of Homeland Security, which passed the House last week.

But Ashcroft isnÔÇÖt giving up. Last week, he tried to calm the uproar with claims that reported information wouldnÔÇÖt be stored in long-term databases. And Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge declared that "the last thing we want is Americans spying on Americans."

But thatÔÇÖs exactly what they want. TIPS is part of the Bush gangÔÇÖs agenda for returning to the days when the governmentÔÇÖs security apparatus had free reign to target anyone they wanted to.

Of course, the Feds donÔÇÖt need to recruit racist snoops. TheyÔÇÖve got plenty of their own. Like the Detroit Secret Service goon who was recently suspended for writing "Islam is Evil, Christ is King" on a calendar posted on the refrigerator of a Muslim immigrant whose house was raided.

Ashcroft and the Bush gang exploited September 11 to carry out a witch-hunt. More than 1,000 people, mostly young Arab men, were detained as part of the investigation, and an untold number remain behind bars--but not a single one has been charged with a crime connected to September 11.

With TIPS, the witch-hunters in Washington want to take their attack on our rights to a new level. But the angry response to this latest scheme shows growing numbers of people are starting to question the crackdown. They will come to realize that Ashcroft and his thugs are the real threat--especially if you happen to be of Arab descent.

We have to speak out--and show the Bush gang that we wonÔÇÖt let them take away our rights.

---

Still think they're crying wolf?

[Guest]

The TIPS program is dead, the pilot program never got off the ground.

I was one of the thousands that jumped the DOJ when we heard the rumours of it. We killed it and it will remain dead.

I never said that I didn't care, it's just that if it is truly an infringement, EVERYONE will jump on, not just the liberals. The conservatives were the ones that killed this one though. The liberals whine a lot, but do little, we scream at the top of our lungs and then do something. Which we did, the TIPS program is DOA....

[Menchise]

It has been scaled back considerably, but it's not dead.

[Guest]

Nope, it's deader then a doornail, Armey's bill passed the house and it is going to the senate, and it has the votes. TIPS is dead, Bush may try to back up Ashcroft and veto it, but it will be veto proof, it will have the 2/3 in each house necessary to override the veto.

The Washington Post is throwing in with their scare the crap out of everyone stuff again. They do it all the time. They hate republican administrations, and they especially hate Bush, so will do whatever they can think of to push people against them.

It's not called the Washington Compost for nothing.

Their hearts are in the right place I suppose, but that "Homeland" security, and TIPS, is going just a little too far. If he wants to call it the The domestic antiterrorism department, hey I'm good with it, but this homeland security crap needs to go bye bye!!

We actually somewhat agree on this one Menchise, believe it or not. But the womans article above was WAY over the top....

[ 08-10-2002, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Guest]

Just as this articel is WAY over the top, I find it rather amusing, but it tells me that some of the eurowheenies are beginning to freak out over their irrelevance.

quote:

---

Yes, we need a 'regime change' in this rogue state...

Its government has no majority. It refuses arms monitoring. Its opponents are locked up without trial

Adrian Hamilton

09 August 2002

Internal links

Iraq war could engulf region, Britain warns US

Saddam tries to unite Arab world against 'forces of evil'

Saddam Hussein: God protects Arabs and Muslims

Adrian Hamilton: Yes, we need a 'regime change' in this rogue state...

The idea that a pre-emptive strike could save the world a heap of trouble isn't entirely idle. Think, if Genghis Khan could have been taken out when he was still the leader of just a band and not the whole Mongol race, Europe and Asia would have been saved several million dead and the destruction of much of its civilisation. Remove Napoleon from the scene on his return from his ill-fated Egyptian foray and Europe would have been a different place.

The last century doesn't provide such good examples, of course. To have "changed regime" in Berlin in the early Thirties would have meant overturning a democratically elected leader in Hitler. As for the efforts by the allies to stop the course of the Russian revolution with troops after 1918, the results were disastrous despite having well-armed local allies.

Nonetheless George Bush has done something in the last week to set out the parameters to pre-emptive action. "We owe it," he put it in Maine last weekend, "to the future of civilisation not to allow the world's worst leaders to develop and deploy and therefore blackmail free countries with the world's worst weapons." And he went on to define such enemies of the people as regimes intent on building up weapons of mass destruction, oblivious of international law and UN resolutions, governments who imprisoned their opponents without trial and who could not claim democratic legitimacy at home.

Significantly, nowhere in the series of speeches he made this week did Mr Bush actually name these rogue regimes. But it is pretty clear reading the descriptions whom he must have meant. The government which is spending by far the most on weapons of mass destruction, and is now planning to raise its budget by an increase greater than the total defence spending of Europe, is, of course, based in Washington. Not only is it building an arsenal the like of which the world has never seen, it has unilaterally withdrawn from the treaties designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, and has refused to accept any kind of international monitoring of its chemical or nuclear weapons facilities.

It has a government in power without the legitimacy of a democratic majority, in the hands of a coterie from a single part of the country and clearly aiming at a dynasty of rule. Its rhetoric is one of violent aggression against anyone seen as its enemies. It opponents are locked up without trial or the right to habeas corpus.

Of course there are those who say the country's threats are greatly exaggerated and the rhetoric of world mastery must not be confused with a real intention of using its weaponry in defiance of international law. True, it has a has a history of interfering with and invading its neighbours – Panama, Grenada, Haiti et al. But since the long and debilitating war in Vietnam, it has kept largely to its own region.

Of course it has a peculiarly obnoxious regime, ready to poison its own people with corrupt capitalism and deregulated pollution. But give it time, and pressure from the outside world, and it will pay up its UN dues, rejoin the nuclear proliferation pacts and the Kyoto treaty and start behaving as a responsible member of the community again.

Against this, the hard men of the right would say that time is exactly what the world does not have on its side. Washington has showed itself determined to enforce its hegemony, come what may. It has shown itself ready to use weapons of aerial bombardment that make no discrimination between combatants and civilians, to show precious little remorse when it is guilty of "mistakes".

It is no friend of democracy, having announced its refusal to deal with the only two elected leaders of the Islamic world – Khatami in Iran and Yasser Arafat in Palestine, the latter the only Arab leader ever elected with western observers checking the process. The country has armed and succoured state terrorism and assassination by the Israelis. It has installed the worst sort of warlord gangsters in Afghanistan and, according to "intelligence", been party to upsetting (albeit briefly) the elected president of Venezuela. The world cannot afford to await its next move.

The problem remains the practicalities. Whereas in Afghanistan the allies could rely on a local opposition force on the ground, no such scenario can be relied on in this case. The Spanish speaking minority in the south might be induced to rise up. There could be assistance from Minutemen in the mountains. But the democratic opposition is too defeated and divided to provide much help. The answer could be an "inside-out" strategy using special forces to take Washington and a few key nuclear bases. Provided the rest of the country was left to get on with its business, there would probably be little internal opposition to a seizure of the capital.

That leaves the substantial problem of an "exit strategy". There is no point in a repeat of 1812. But the experience of America in Japan after the Second World War could provide a model. A period of occupation of five to 10 years could provide an opportunity to inculcate ideas of true democracy, with a fair electoral system based on absolute majority, abolition of the death penalty, introduction of unions into hi-tech industries and a break-up of the Zaibatsu, the overweening corporations such as Microsoft, Exxon and General Electric.

Given time, this rogue superstate might then be able to take its place once again among the family of peace-loving nations.

[email protected]

---

ROFLMAO,

What do I say?

YO, bring it on little man!!

We would love to show you all another reason why we have the 2nd amendment!!

[Menchise]

Did you have to bring Iraq into this?

[CommanderJohnson]

The only problem with your idea that we're all going to be oppressed by the government is that today people have much easier access to information (we're in the information age now, remember?), so it'd be much harder to make people disappear, and even harder to make most citizens think that their neighbor is a terrorist. There's no threat there as long as people keep focused on stopping actual terrorists and not getting paranoid...

[Menchise]

quote:

---

The only problem with your idea that we're all going to be oppressed by the government is that today people have much easier access to information (we're in the information age now, remember?), so it'd be much harder to make people disappear, and even harder to make most citizens think that their neighbor is a terrorist.

---

The information age has also made the spreading of disinformation and misinformation easier, which can offset the positive effect.

[ 08-10-2002, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[CommanderJohnson]

Yes, but that makes people much more critical of *any* news they get, thus are much less likely to believe any information saying that their 20 year old white friend that attends a baptist church, has 3 children, and served in the military for 5 years is a terrorist. The information age makes people more cynical, regardless of the disinformation.

[Guest Grayfox]

christ everyones a conspiracy theorist now... careful they might turn the hubble the right way.

gimme a break

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Yes, but that makes people much more critical of *any* news they get, thus are much less likely to believe any information saying that their 20 year old white friend that attends a baptist church, has 3 children, and served in the military for 5 years is a terrorist. The information age makes people more cynical, regardless of the disinformation.

---

That example is irrelevant because people wouldn't have believed it before the information age either, especially if they knew the person.

quote:

---

christ everyones a conspiracy theorist now... careful they might turn the hubble the right way.

gimme a break

---

You can take your own breaks.

[Guest $iLk]

I agree with some of the points in the original article, but this was all I needed to see to almost make me not even read it:

quote:

---

Socialist Worker Online

---

At what point does the 'threat' become so dehumanized, that the FBI can grab any regular Joe off the street and hold him without trial and without access to a lawyer for over a year by calling it "detainment", and accusing him of "engaging in terrorist activity". Terrorist activity will one day be defined as political speech in the United States. The next time a Democrat takes the white house or a super majority in the Senate.

Mark my words... you can slow down the transformation into a 1984 BIG BROTHER style government, but it will happen as long as people are sheep.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Terrorist activity will one day be defined as political speech in the United States. The next time a Democrat takes the white house or a super majority in the Senate.

---

Apart from their rhetoric, I don't see any significant differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. They're both enemies of freedom as far as I'm concerned.

[Commander Elio Jason]

maybe this phrase could become an oxymoron.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Apart from their rhetoric, I don't see any significant differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. They're both enemies of freedom as far as I'm concerned.

---

Democrats rush to screw you over, Republicans are slow about it.

[Guest Grayfox]

quote:

---

They're both enemies of freedom as far as I'm concerned.

---

omg... no way!!! everyones my enemy then... damn my hide for going green party!!!! damn ralph nader and his common sense attitude. damn Marx for not having an analytical mind!!!!!

DAMN THEM ALL I SAY!!!!!!!!!

theyre coming to take me away haha theyre coming to take me away haha hoh heehee...

hehehe POOP!

quote:

---

Socialist Worker Online

---

that IS an oxymoron

go farm a field somewhere

[ 08-11-2002, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

theyre coming to take me away haha theyre coming to take me away haha hoh heehee...

---

Remember when you ran away and I got on my knees and begged you not to leave because I thought I'd go berserk?

Oh crikes what is that song? I used to know it verbatim.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

That example is irrelevant because people wouldn't have believed it before the information age either, especially if they knew the person.

---

Hollywood actors were targetted, and people believed that they were commies. With the information age, people know more about others in general, thus no one would believe Tom Cruise is a muslim terrorist.

As for enemies of freedom, the republicans and democrats, at their endpoint/extreme, will do it in different ways. Democrats will take away all of our guns, preach about helping everyone, then get replaced by a military coup. Republicans will let us keep our weapons, but get a really strong central government and make people who disagree with imperialist policies simply disappear.

Ah, that's why the world needs more people like us around to realize the idiocy of the current system.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Hollywood actors were targetted, and people believed that they were commies.

---

Not many people know Hollywood actors personally, and fearmongering was much more intense during the McCarthy era.

quote:

---

With the information age, people know more about others in general, thus no one would believe Tom Cruise is a muslim terrorist.

---

That's a bad example because you don't have to be Moslem to be a terrorist.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

That's a bad example because you don't have to be Moslem to be a terrorist.

---

Dont start giving me that PC ****. Sure, you can be a Quaker and be a terrorist, but the threats to American civilians are going to come, and would be percieved as coming, from MUSLIM terrorists. The whole point of this thread, I thought, was that the government is going to start violating peoples rights, like under Mcarthy, under the guise of war on terror. My example just proved how it wont be able to work today like it did then, mainly because the population knows and has information stating that the major threat to America IS muslim terrorists, and not people like Tom Cruise. I'm sorta half asleep, so I hope this is coherent, but let me rephrase fast:

You say that Tom Cruise is a bad example because you dont have to be muslim to be a terrorist. I say that due to the current ease of access to information by Americans, no one would believe Tom Cruise is a terrorist because of:

1. All of the info available about him saying he's not.

2. He's not muslim, and the terrorists that are threatening the US are majority muslim. Thus any sort of movement to arrest non-muslims would quickly be discounted as oppressive and ended.

[ 08-12-2002, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

[Põdi]

Hmm, was McVeigh a muslim?

And I think the Independent article was written with tongue shoved firmly in cheek. It's our British sense of humour, it's called IRONY.

Basically, Europe has, potentially, more to fear from Middle East 'rogue states' due to the geographical juxtaposition. However, we see less of a threat than the American administration. Yet, if it came to it, we could handle it ourselves thank you very much. Such states are basically poor, third world nations lacking the resources or the manpower to threaten western civilisation as we know it.

[ 08-12-2002, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Paddy Gregory ]

[Guest]

Maybe this was what they meant by scaling TIPS back :

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/...s/index_np.html

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Gregory:

[QB]Hmm, was McVeigh a muslim?

---

MAJORITY muslim are the terrorists threatening the US. US domestic terrorists aren't a big enough threat to be hyped enough by the government to warrant increases in power. Only Muslim terrorists could be hyped enough for that, and then mainly muslims would be the only ones able to be arrested and condemned w/o rights. There's not as much danger as McCarthy's era.