It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Pamphlet: Defenders of the Constitutition to be labeled : Domestic Terrorists

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

FBI Pamphlet: Defenders of the Constitutition to be labeled : Domestic Terrorists


www.cptexas.org

Please see my comments below...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Many of you may have heard of the FBI’s pamphlet on identifying domestic terrorism. Perhaps you saw as I did the black and white copies floating around but wondered if these were simply manufactured on someone’s personal computer. I frankly thought the same when I first saw them and so I wrote to the FBI’s office in Phoenix and received an anonymous and official reply from a nameless individual there.

The tone of the letter I received back was both officious and rude. “Yes” the brochure was printed by them but it went on to explain “the general public was not supposed to see it”. I wonder if that would be a defense to a traffic ticket “Yes officer, I was speeding but you weren’t supposed to see me”.

The letter also went on to assure me that the brochures were never in fact distributed even though I and hundreds of others have seen them which begs the question: “How did I get a copy of this brochure?”

Now a color copy has surfaced and we have it here for all to see.

www.cptexas.org...


Indeed, it appears the FBI campaign against “Constitutional terrorists” has gone prime-time—from the Joint Terrorism Task Force to corporate media neocon shills such as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, the latter who wants to lock up “leftist loons” in opposition to the occupation of Iraq, including filmmaker Brian DePalma and billionaire Mark Cuban.

Finally, it is likely no coincidence O’Reilly characterizes his enemies as “loons,” a noun defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as follows: “One who is crazy or deranged.” And “liberal” Bill Mahr believes those who talk about reality—Building 7 was not brought down by fire alone—are in need of Paxil.

Recall Bush’s “New Freedom Initiative,” a blatant violation of the Fourth and Tenth Amendments, designed not only to test children for inappropriate thoughts—for instance, thoughts inculcated by home schooling parents—but potential dissidents as well. “It will also help the fascists who are controlling our government to keep our dissidents and independent thinkers under chemical restraints just like they’ve done to so many children in foster incarceration facilities,” explains the Fight CPS website. “It will help them break down the will and autonomy of the population, forcing more beautiful souls to become mindless, over-medicated sheep.”

As Dr. Rima Laibow notes in the film “One Nation Under Siege,” it is a distinct possibility the government may one day forcibly medicate the “politically insane,” for their own good as well as society. Bill O’Reilly’s task is to prepare for this possibility right out of the Soviet Union—where dissidents and other “socially undesirable people” were sent to Psikhushka psychiatric-prisons.

But then, as the United States increasingly resembles the Soviet Union, this development is to be expected. After all, former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov were hired by the Ministry of Homeland Security for a specific reason

www.cptexas.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
This is just ridiculous. So now your a terrorist if you defend or make too many references to the US constitution.

I have a shaved head and tattoos, so according to this I am a Nazi, Neo Nazi, or a Skinhead and thus I am a Domestic Terrorist.

Anyone who is not scared yet or does not believe that this type of thing can happen better read this pamphlet.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Soooo, you click on the link 3 times as supported in the above posts, and Whala! Your on the list be cause it is in your history that you visited the link above...I see!



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DisabledVet
 


Well, I don't really understand what you mean. The pamphlet defines domestic terrorism as

groups or individuals operating entirely inside the U.S. attempting to influence the U.S. goverment or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity.


Then it says:

Right Wing Extremists
-"Defenders" of the U.S. Constitution against federal government and the UN (super patriots).
-Groups of individuals engaged in para-military training.

I think it's talking about the kind of people that blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City. If you're not engaging in criminal activities, you're not a 'terrorist.'

Then the rest of your post goes into Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher who have nothing to do with this pamphlet.

This is sensationalism at its best.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Chyort
 


Did you read the rest of it?

If you make numerous references to the Constitution..your a terrorist.

If you claim driving is a right and not a privilege...your a terrorist.

If you support Animal rights...your a terrorist.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by section8citizen
reply to post by Chyort
 

Did you read the rest of it?

If you make numerous references to the Constitution..your a terrorist.

If you claim driving is a right and not a privilege...your a terrorist.

If you support Animal rights...your a terrorist.


I did read all of it, and it only makes the one reference to the Constitution which I cited.

Did you read the rest of "Common Law Movement Proponents" section? And when it says animal rights, I believe it is talking about the ones that get violent.

Again, the pamphlet states that you must be engaged in criminal activites for any of these to apply.

You take little parts of the pamphlet and make it sound like we're all doomed. I mean, come on, have you ever heard of someone getting arrested for just believing driving is a right and not a privilege?

Probably not.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Chyort
 


I would suggest you take a closer look at it.

This makes TWO references to the US Constitution, one you cited which is listed under "Right Wing Extremist" the second is listed under "Common Law Movement Proponents" which states "makes numerous references to US Constitution"

Also under teh same section it states:

"refuse to identify themselves" - Why is this the act of a terrorist? Maybe it is none of your business who I am.

"Request Authority for Stop" - Have you ever asked a cop why you were being stopped? I have. Why is that the act of a "terrorist"?

What exactly is "attempting to police the police"? Would that include video taping police while they tase, beat or torture a person whom they are placing "under arrest"?

Yes sir I have read it all, I suggest you do the same. Your facts are incorrect. You stated one reference to the Constitution, I just showed you TWO. Under "Single Issue Terrorism" it states "Animal Rights" now you claim it means violent... I disagree and here is why.. under the Animal Rights listing it says "violent anti abortion extremism". So if they are talking about VIOLENT protest, why would it not be listed as such when they clearly distinguish that fact on anti abortion protest?

I think it is you who is taking one part and using it to justify that things are not as bad as they are. No I have not heard of anyone being arrested for saying driving is a right and not a privilege, but according to this document that makes you a terrorist. It is stated right there, so why can you not believe it? Now that it is in writing, I would expect someone, somewhere, to get arrested for it.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
And why do you think this is legit?
I have to go put on my hip boots because the BS is getting deep. It looks like a 10 year old made this on his old school computer.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Goes to s how you that the US Constitution

is no more now than a piece of toilet paper.

But Bush himself alluded to that. He wasnt lying, was he?! Sometimes out of the mouths of village idiots some truth comes due to brain malfunction.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by section8citizen
reply to post by Chyort
 


Yes sir I have read it all, I suggest you do the same. Your facts are incorrect. You stated one reference to the Constitution, I just showed you TWO.


Thanks for correcting me, I missed that other reference to the Constitution. However, it still falls under that "Common Law Movement Proponents" which refers to these people.



Under "Single Issue Terrorism" it states "Animal Rights" now you claim it means violent... I disagree and here is why.. under the Animal Rights listing it says "violent anti abortion extremism". So if they are talking about VIOLENT protest, why would it not be listed as such when they clearly distinguish that fact on anti abortion protest?

Well, maybe whoever was writing this accidently left it in. People make mistakes, as you pointed out to me.



I think it is you who is taking one part and using it to justify that things are not as bad as they are. No I have not heard of anyone being arrested for saying driving is a right and not a privilege, but according to this document that makes you a terrorist. It is stated right there, so why can you not believe it? Now that it is in writing, I would expect someone, somewhere, to get arrested for it.


I can't believe it because you have to look at the entire message. You proved my point that you're just looking for little details to sensationalize this entire pamphlet. Yes, it does look bad when you see "lone individuals" listed on it. But, could apply to every single person in the country at one time or another. So, you have to look at the entire pamphlet and see that it only refers to these people commiting criminal acts. However, when I see people start being arrested because they're walking alone I'll say you were right all along.

And, this 'document' has been around for a while, if only in a different form.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
It is just a pamphlet.
Maybe it is from the FBI, maybe it isn't
It is a piece of paper.
It is not law.

Every website I go to about this pamphlet, someone has contacted their local FBI office and gotten basically the same response: Yes, it is a(n) FBI pamphlet and I/we are very upset that it has gotten out. Supposedly written and released after OKC bombing. It reads Starship Trooper to me. I'm doing my part!

Again though, the FBI doesn't make policy and law.. If you are breaking the law, then yes, I hope someone bust you, but no one has made it "illegal" to defend the U.S. Constitution. Just one more list I will gladly be added to if it is true.


~B



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
The threat is still there and implications are scary. I was interested to see though that no one mentioned the part that you are a terrorist if you have a Christian Identity. That is a huge part of the population right there.

The fact that the FBI response was the public wasn't suppose to see it could imply two things. The brochure was created, but they decided it was a mistake and it was supposed to be destroyed.

Or that the brochure was created for future laws that will be passed eventually. They are training FBI now. They could have used Bush's anti-terrorist laws to be able to spy on practically the entire US population. Most people will fall into one of the categories sooner or later.

It does say associated with criminal activity, but it also says suspicious activity. Exactly what is suspicious activity? What about a Bible study? Not suspicious? Hmmm, but someone would come up with the idea that it was being used as a cover for some sort of terrorist activity. Boy do those people have networks in place with all of their church contacts.

What about a person that works at home and stays in the house most of the time? A loner? Not suspicious right? Wait, no one hardly talks to the person, so hardly no one knows him or what he is actually up to. Now the the FBI can assume that he may be making home made chemical weapons.

The other thing is that what is identified in the brochure as terrorists, also should be compared to what is stated in the patriot act. If I remember correctly much of what they target in the brochure is also targeted in the patriot act.

As new laws are passed, the brochure will more than likely be expanded.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by Mystery_Lady]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
It is good to see this being brought to the attention of people once again.
But this is old news it has been on the web for about two years now that I know of.
Here is a link to another thread with the same pamphlet.

I have had the document on my PC of over a year and some of the things could be explained as being possibly on the verge of terrorists or being out right terrorists. I used to have another link saved on my PC with this document but went delete happy a few months ago and cleared up some favorites mistakenly deleting a few I wanted to keep.

Though I do not agree with the parts about mentioning the constitution and such as for the driving being a right and not a privilege I would agree to that because of some of the drivers on the road that need to lose that privilege.


This is not supposed to have made it to the public from my understanding though somehow it did.

Raist



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I'm wondering if there is any way we can see the response from the FBI?

DisabledVet, you have a copy of that, correct? Is there any way that you could scan that and post it here?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I am suprised that the FBI would have spoken to you at all. I have contacted them several times over the years for various research projects and confirmations and I have only heard back from them once. It was a letter that I no longer have- but it was a form letter and I will paraphrase- it was about taxes and a blue covered book supposedly written by the IRS.

The book you mentioned we have no record of at the time of receiving your letter and request for answers to your questions pertaining to a book of which we currently know nothing about. The book you mentioned has not yet been located in the library of congress or the National Public Library so we have concluded our investigation in this matter.

Should wish to pursue this subject....

they gave me a list of forms that I would need to fill out and a set of procedures to continue the subject.

The letter was very standard.

Years later on a trip to Washington D.C. I was denied entry to the Library of congress and to the National library as well which I was escorted very politely out of! I was further told on the presentation of my passport I.D. that to gain entry to these Libraries I would need to apply for a form from- you guessed it- the FBI.

Back to the FBI I go to find out why I was denied entry, I asked for the necessary forms to fill out and I was told I could not have the forms until their investigation was completed- and that I would be notified. This happened 18 years ago!

Last year I was denied the forms again as apparently their "investigation" was still open and pending. I asked how long this investigation would continue and was told they could not tell me but that I was and am free to continue to keep checking.

This book which was official looking became a source for discussion with an acquaintance I am no longer in contact with. It was one of those parties where the controversial subject of taxes came up and he produced this book as a reference to his theories- the book did have in bold letters- NOT FOR PUBLIC VIEWING. And many of us felt it was a hoax- but it was so official in appearance and content that I unfortunately took it to a level that I now regret.

I just thank God I am not on the no fly list- at least that I am aware of!

[edit on 21-11-2007 by dk3000]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I see no reason to believe that that is an official document released by the FBI. I would also point out that the website hosting it would be a bit biased. If it's true it's terrible, but I'm not convinced.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
people will refuse to believe what they cant or arent' ready to accept as truth.

when you observe the way the credit crunch is spreading and worsening thru western markets (actually globally) have you ever wondered that after a stock market crash as well as rising unemployment what the amount of "civil unrest" may be.

when the standard of living drops, the rules of the constitution may not be albe to be applied because of the back up in the courts as well as the amount of time police forces may have to use (which would limit the amount of "disorder" they would be able to "correct" and the ways which they could use to do so.

again it is merely an option, which may need to be implented.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
dp delete

[edit on 26-11-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This has already been discussed, and it is to be considered blown out of proportion as to what terrorists are.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join