This is a thread meant to catalogue the crackdown on war-time dissenters. Many of us probably don’t remember the threats post-9/11 either because we were too young or “dead-asleep” (blissfully ignorant). I believe that the current iteration will take us all to very dark place because TPTB aren’t going to let up on, let alone tolerate criticism of their NWO project. Ofcourse, in the event that the project is draped in religious garb, this is how persecution begins…
“Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.”
…..To call Hersh a “terrorist” is not merely hyperbole. Perle’s statement is indicative of the fascistic inclinations of an entire layer that exercises enormous influence within the Bush administration.
It has to be considered in light of the Bush administration’s ongoing attack on democratic rights. This is an administration that has asserted near dictatorial powers in the name of fighting the “war on terrorism.” Bush and other administration officials have frequently spoken of the “home front” in this war. Attorney General John Ashcroft, in testimony before Congress, defended the sweeping curtailments of civil liberties in the Patriot Act passed after 9/11 on the grounds that Bush, as a war-time president, has license to take any measures he deems necessary to uphold national security.
The Bush administration has made a practice of detaining alleged terrorists without charges and holding them indefinitely without a hearing or trial. It claims it has no obligation to even admit that such people have been seized, creating conditions for the “disappearance” of people, as under the Latin American dictatorships of the 1970s.
In the recently disclosed draft of the Justice Department’s Domestic Security Enhancement Act, often referred to as “Patriot Act II,” the designation “terrorist” is extended to domestic opponents of the government. This proposed measure would grant the president or attorney general the power to label someone a “terrorist” and strip him of his US citizenship.
Perle’s statement about Hersh stands as a chilling warning of how these police state statutes could be put to use. Those who challenged the policies of the government, or even the filthy business practices of individual officials, could face being labeled “terrorists” and thrown into a military prison.
The Espionage Act of 1917 was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson (a tool of the bankers who owned the Federal Reserve) after the United States entered World War I (a war caused by the elites, bankers, and other merchants of death). It’s still in effect today.
Brave AI states: “Yes, the Espionage Act of 1917 is still in effect today. While the more restrictive Sedition Act amendments of 1918 were repealed in 1921, the core provisions of the original 1917 law remain part of U.S. federal law under Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 37.
It is no longer used to prosecute political dissent or anti-war speech, but has been applied in modern cases involving the unauthorized handling or disclosure of national defense information. Notable individuals charged under the Act include:
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (1950s, atomic espionage)
Daniel Ellsberg (1971, Pentagon Papers)
Chelsea Manning (2010)
Edward Snowden (2013)
Julian Assange (2019)
Donald Trump (2023, for retaining classified documents)
The Act continues to be a key legal tool in prosecuting leaks of sensitive government information.”
When pointing out that the Lobby was instrumental in pushing for the Iraq War was labelled antisemitism
…Moran’s statements have been denounced as anti-Semitic by the officials of Jewish political and religious organizations and by members of Congress. These critics see Moran’s statements as part of a wave of anti-Semitism–of which Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer’s book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is the crest.
Moran has certainly made his share of reckless and ill-founded statements–some of which have been directed at Jews. Four years ago, Moran said that “if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.” That statement is false and reprehensible. But in this case, it is Moran’s critics who are making reckless charges. And although the controversy may remain confined to the Beltway, it’s no small matter when a politician is accused of anti-Semitism. This kind of charge, if wielded without caution, makes it more difficult for politicians and policy-makers to have a frank and open discussion about American foreign policy in the Middle East.
In Moran’s interview with Tikkun, a liberal Jewish publication, he made several claims about AIPAC and Jewish-Americans that have drawn flack: He said AIPAC was “the best-organized national lobbying force” and that its power rests on the wealth of its members, who can help or hinder political candidates with their contributions, and on the organization and its leaders’ ties to the media. He said that AIPAC was in favor of the Iraq war and “pushed this war from the beginning.” And he claimed that on the Iraq war, AIPAC didn’t represent “the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all.”
Moran had other things to say–much of it having to do with AIPAC’s lobbying on U.S. relations to Iran.
