March 27, 2006

Indymedia and Food Not Bombs: Terrorists?

Link: AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Keeping Tabs on the Peaceniks.

More evidence that the U.S. government is justifying surveillance of political dissidence under the guise of monitoring "terrorism" has recently come to light. Early this March an FBI agent's presentation at the University of Texas law school listed Indymedia, Food Not Bombs, the Communist Party of Texas and "Anarchists" as groups on the FBI's "Terrorist Watch List" for central Texas.

On March 8, 2006, FBI Supervisory Senior Resident Agent G. Charles Rasner, delivered a guest lecture before Professor Ronald Sievert's U.S. Law and National Security class of approximately 100 students. Accompanying his lecture was an "unclassified" Power Point presentation titled "Counter-Terrorism Efforts in Texas."

According to UT law student Elizabeth Wagoner's account of Rasner's lecture on Austin Indymedia:

"On a list of approximately ten groups, Food Not Bombs was listed seventh. Indymedia was listed tenth, with a reference specifically to IndyConference 2005. The Communist Party of Texas also made the list. Rasner explained that these groups could have links to terrorist activity. He noted that peaceful-sounding group names could cover more violent extremist tactics."

Wagoner has made a Freedom of Information Act request for Rasner's Power Point presentation.

Food Not Bombs (disclosure: the author used to participate in an Austin FNB group) is a moniker for volunteer-run groups that distribute unused vegetarian food from grocery stores and restaurants for free to the general population. Its name stems from a belief that excessive military spending could be redirected to provide food for the hungry. Indymedia is a decentralized grassroots online media outlet, which provides an alternative to the mainstream media coverage.

A self-described libertarian law student who also attended the class wrote on his blog that this list "got many in class riled up."

Rene Salinas, a spokesperson for the FBI San Antonio field office, said that the FBI "doesn't put people on the Terror Watch List for grins." He said that a group has to act or participate in a group connected with terrorism. He declined to say whether any of the groups Rasner mentioned have connections to terrorism or how terrorism is defined. He did say that the Terror Watch List helps keep different law enforcement agencies informed about suspect characters. Salinas described a scenario where the list could help a police officer who pulled an individual on the list over for traffic violation identify a person that "we might just want to question."

Mar 27, 2006 10:34:20 AM | fascism

1 Comment

Adam Kotsko

What could constitute a greater display of violence toward the state (qua sole repository of legitimate violence) than the suggestion that its violence is illegitimate? Terrorists only want to kill people for certain ends -- these pacifists want to destroy the very foundation of the polity!

Posted by: Adam Kotsko | March 27, 2006 at 01:57 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Profanity and political correctness Of late there have been conversations in these parts involving political correctness and profanity. The conversations have channeled old debates from the culture wars, reenacting on the current stage of the culture of cruelty. So, some think using racial or sexist slurs to be the ultimate in autonomy. Others find them retrograde, dismissive, and inadmissable among those who interact through discussion. Still others find rejections of profanity to be themselves out-moded or childish, premised on crimes or slights that no longer exist and that thus in fact attest to the rejectors' own attachments to racist or sexist mindsets. Is the freedom to insult the ultimate in equality? And, what about when an insult is warranted? If someone behaves in a hostile or offensive way, does that not elicit a response that might justifiably be profane? Is an insult at this point necessarily off base? Might the insult be appropriate? What about when the insults rely on referring to the other person in terms of a sexualized body part? Is that necessarily sexist? And, what if someone comes from a background where this way of speaking is normalized, everyday? Forever marked by a residual Habermasianism, I think that a discursive approach is likely the best way to deal with this. The exchange on Hysterical Blackness is nuanced and appropriate. Now, admittedly, this may well be because all involved recognize from the outset that the initial speech was wrong and that there was an apology. These acknowledgements (which preceded the two posts...
PREVIOUS POST
V with and against Z In The Parallax View, Zizek writes: If The Matrix Revolutions were to succeed, it would have to produce nothing less than the appropriate answer to the dilemmas of revolutionary politics today, a blueprint for the political act the Left is desperately looking for. No wonder, then, that it failed miserably--and this failure provides a nice case for a Marxist analysis: the narrative failure, the impossibility of constructing a 'good story,' which indicates a more fundamental social failure. What, then, about V for Vendetta? Fully admitting to being an ideological dupe, a sucker at the great media teat, I fell completely for the movie and think that here the Wachowski brothers actually do provide such a blueprint. Warning: spoilers. And, actually, the blueprint relies on key elements of Zizek's political theory: subjective destitution, the act, and, rather less fortunately, a messianic element. Subjective destitution: those who do anything in this movie have to give it all up, to become themselves excremental remainders. What is clear is that this isn't voluntarily undertaken--it is violently inflicted. So, V is the subject of experimentation. Evie is tortured. Stephen Fry, the lesbian, and the little girl are all brave and all die. After the masks are distributed, violence breaks out and innocent people suffer. No one said it would be easy. Only after going through the limit, becoming objects, jettisoning the biopolitics in which they are entrapped, do the people as a whole acquire a capacity to act. The distribution of the masks and capes...

Jodi Dean

Jodi Dean is a political theorist.

DSE
The Typepad Team

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments