Boston to Houston: a right to radicalize?

"As Tamerlan's devotion to Islam became more intense and radicalized, Dzhokhar showed signs of his brother's influence" - The Atlantic Wire, May 5, 2013

"A YouTube account apparently belonging to Tamerlan Tsarnaev gives tantalising hints of his radicalisation before the Boston bombings" - The (UK) Guardian, April 22, 2013

"Rojanksy will speak to the notion that Islamic extremists, and Chechen ties, contributed to the radicalization of the suspected bombers" - programming notes for the April 24, 2013, episode of CNN's Piers Morgan Live [emphasis mine]

Since the horrible events in Boston, last month, it is impossible to browse a news site or watch television news without having the word thrown in your face like a water soaked towel. Guantanamo radicalizes. Middle East politics radicalizes. Islam radicalizes. The Internet radicalizes.

"I think that this is a very difficult challenge when you have individuals who are self-radicalizing, they’re not part of some massive conspiracy or a network," President Obama told a Univision interviewer, Friday.
To that end, Newsweek's Michael Moynihan, in a piece where he uses a pseudonym to explore extremist websites, defines "self-radicalization" as "the process by which those unconnected to organized jihad are lured toward extremism via the Web."

If the online snuff films and photographs of dead children that Moynihan describes are part of the jihadist call to arms, then coming down from the dark cloud of the terrorist underworld can only be countered with an equally potent validation of community and belonging.

"A lot of these videos, they are very emotive," Haris Tarin, of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, told PBS' Bob Abernethy, last week. "These sermons, they use violence and gruesome images to tug at the emotion of young people."

But while the media is scrambling to compartmentalize "self-radicalization" as a behavior in which only a handful of sociopathic, homegrown Islamic terrorists engage, there's one place in the American conversation where radicalization from an organized group gets only minimal attention from the press, as an existential threat. I'm speaking, of course, of the National Rifle Association.

In Houston, this past weekend, the NRA paraded speaker after speaker, who railed against Obama and gun safety advocates with the hateful energy of a radical imam. Through the exhortations of their leadership, the NRA are behaving like American jihadis. Like the terrorist who twists the Qur'an to defend their murderous ways, the anti-government, cultural isolationists of the NRA re-interpret the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights to justify arming themselves for revolution.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE>>>

Back Rooms and Back Doors: The N.Y. Times Torture Story

Rationalizing the Secrets that Define a Presidency
and 'Shock the Conscience' of a Country

Continuing to leave the gashes of my once great country bleeding and unchecked has left a festering wound on the future of our nation. The long-fingered fist of war has crushed thought and trust in this country, and too few have recognized the need for social action against a government that in brazen secrecy "shocks the conscience" of its people.

In 1953, the Supreme Court threw out the evidence, in Rochin v. California, against Richard Rochin and his appeal of a conviction for morphine possession. It seems the cops took him to the hospital and induced vomiting in order to obtain the evidence. The Court said that using evidence obtained in this manner "shocks the conscience" of a society's "decencies of civilized conduct." The "shocks the conscience" test is often applied to cases where there is a question as to whether evidence is admissible or actions permissible under the law.

When the McCain Anti-Torture Bill went through congress in late 2005, there was talk about including the "shocks the conscience" text to the bill, but it never made it. Instead, it was added as part of the record through a maneuver called a colloquy by Georgia Congressman Jim Marshall.

But even the congressman was pessimistic about its application to this bill. In an op-ed piece in the Macon Telegraph, dated December 24, 2005, he said:

"No, 'shocks the conscience' is not the bright line test we would all prefer. One is not possible here as in so many other conflicts between societal need and individual rights. Ultimately appropriate treatment of our prisoners and detainees requires judgment, control and leadership in many different circumstances."

The New York Times today reports that regardless of Congress' anti-torture legislation, regardless of what the Supreme Court said in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Justice Department has issued secret memorandum after secret memorandum to the CIA telling it that its methods are OK:

"[In 2005], as Congress moved toward outlawing 'cruel, inhuman and degrading' treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard."

"Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations,"
S. Shane, D. Johnston and J. Risen,
New York Times, October 4, 2007

If signing statements weren't enough, secret memos redefining the reach and permit of the Executive Branch beyond the law are enough to wonder just which of us our government will go after next. They have created an environment where they are no longer bound by Constitution or law. Naomi Wolf, former editor of The Nation, has written a fascinating book documenting the abuse and abandonment of America's commitment to the rights and ethical treatments of her citizens. In the book, called The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf asserts her belief that fascism is already upon us, that it is only a matter of time before a journalist (or a blogger) is declared an enemy combatant, and after that, there is no turning back.

"The Bush administration has started to use the notion of treason in its Stalinist sense," she says on page 133, "as a weapon designed to harass critics and to frighten opposition leaders."

Blaming the Messenger

Indeed, on CNN's Situation Room tonight, Fran Townsend, the White House Homeland Security Adviser, railed against the published reports, saying, "it is incredibly irresponsible to leak classified information that threatens our national security and the effectiveness of the techniques we do have at our disposal." She implied that the New York Times was to blame for the disclosures of Republicans who actually have a conscience.

Our only salvation is that our national legacy of an open, honest and free society is (for the time being) stronger than the blind loyalty of a few corrupt men who, despite all decency, rationalize their movements in the shadows.

Call to Action

The call to action is once more laid at Congress' door. I'm sorry, Senator Leahy, but the time for civil discourse, of waiting for the White House to deliver documents so that you can come to an "understanding" about what they are doing is long past. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees must file contempt charges against the AG's office and the White House for circumventing the law signed by Bush in December 2005 that said that the US does not torture.

Even now the Executive denies it, using the euphemism "harsh techniques" when they mean "torture." The secret memos, you see, said that despite the law, what the CIA was told it could do was not a violation of the law, even though the law was passed months after the memoranda were written.

We can either stand up to yet another illegal abuse of power, or let our freedoms be swallowed by it. Frankly, I think prison is too good for them. They should not only be thrown out of office, but out of the country as well - them, their children and their grandchildren. Otherwise, they will continue to be the kind of god-driven, self-righteous, greedy, militant opposition that we all dread.

-PBG

Dear Texas Homeland Security Partner

The Ongoing Saga of the Love Between a Government and the State That Made Her

(based on the actual letter from Homeland Security to ranchers on the Rio Grande portion of the Texas/Mexico border)

Dear Texas Homeland Security Partner,

I know that you love the good ole' USA, and you want to support your president and favorite son in protectin' our borders. Seein' as how your land abuts right there at the Rio Grande, I'm remindin' you, in case I forgot to tell you, that, well, we gotta fence off the river. Wall it off, really. Keeps them illegal, law breakin' alien varmints out.

Rememberin' you most fondly,

Homeland Security

xxxooo

...

Dear HS,

I miss you somethin' fierce. Your letter, though, kinda rattled me. I thought we had an understanding. How can this relationship be successful if you won't give me the space to be the rancher that I am and let me water my cattle once in a while? I love you. You know I do. But we talked about this. We talked about our future together, where drones and sensors and radars in balloons would protect what we have forever. We held hands and you made promises. If I can't trust you, where does that leave us?

Your dearest partner,

Texas Rancher

...

My dear T.R.,

I am touched by your devotion, and I know I sometimes take it - and you - for granted. I am looking forward to the romantic border future of which you spoke, but I know what's best for both of us. After all, what's more important to our future than a safe, secure, impenetrable home? Surely not a few measly head of cattle. Surely not some flea bag beasties that just drink and keep migratin'. I'm looking out for our survival, not theirs. Don't you trust me? They don't love you like I do.

Can't wait til we are together again. Meanwhile, here's a little somethin' to show you just how much I care.

xxxooo, Homeland

...

Dear HS,

Please think about what you are askin' me! I'm a Texan, and I have a hard time submittin' to anyone, and no, I don't trust you! But I can't quit you neither. My ranch is your ranch; my border is your border. I know you'll do right by me. Thanks for the generosity of your little, er, gift. But say, won't the rest of the country be pissed that they're not gettin' what I'm gettin'?

I love you more,

Texas

...

Dearest TR,

I knew you'd see what was best for all of us. As for the others, they don't control me. Fact is, they don't control much (heh heh). Guess that won't keep 'em from wantin' to try to take back my recent gift to you. They are nasty that way, never wantin' you to have what you so rightly deserve. We won't let 'em come between us though. Will we? Seriously, I'm askin' you. I mean, we won't. I mean I won't if you won't.

Please?

In glory,

Your Texas Homeland Security Partner

...

Dear Homeland,

You are mine forever, as long as you keep me happy. A cowboy could get used to this. You don't think this makes me a sissy, do ya?

TR

...

Dear Texas,

Your only a sissy if I say so, and I won't call you a sissy, unless... well, you're my good bitch- I mean feller, and I and gonna let anything happen to you or your sweet backside. (Wait. did I say that? Whoa. Don't hit send. Don't hit sen--- shit!)

...

pbg