A poll worker in Syracuse posted that the agent who killed Renée Good should be indicted. Five months later, two federal agents arrived with a dossier — and the word terrorism aimed the wrong way
Not very close to. You already are. Whether that will change in November is a different matter. But even that is in question. I have serious doubt that they (the entire wretched cabal, not the senile orange dementor haunting the whitehouse) will let the power slip from their hands after going so far.
A citizen says an agent should be indicted, and suddenly the federal government shows up with her height, weight, eye color, address, and a letter that smells like authoritarian cologne. That is not public safety. That is the state tapping the microphone and reminding everyone the cage has paperwork. The chilling part is not that she had an opinion. It is that the machine treated her opinion like a search warrant without needing one.
. . . not because privacy is comfortable, but because, under a government that has made a public opinion into a search term, the footprint you leave is the file they open when they decide it is your turn.
I am glad you wrote government and not administration, because this is an iteration of the same old rodeo that’s been organized for decades now.
Right after 911 when the government was creating Homeland Security many of us knew that was was too much power and way too little accountability in a government agency.
“For the first time in American history, a federal directive names beliefs — not acts — as indicators of terrorism…” - I’m not sure this is accurate. This same type of classification was done under the Biden administration with the focus pointed the other direction. I mention this because I think it illustrates that these tactics are used regardless of who happens to be at the helm at any given time.
FBI Richmond memo. I’m sure some pedant will argue that an FBI memo is not the same as what Trump signed, but that’s disingenuously missing the forest for the trees.
Good example — and a fair hit on my phrasing, which I'll tighten. But I don't think the FBI/Trump distinction is pedantic; it's the whole point. The Richmond memo was a single field-office intelligence product the bureau repudiated and withdrew within weeks, after the IG found it violated professional standards. It also grew out of an actual weapons investigation of a guy who called himself a "Clerical Fascist" and had Molotov cocktails — so even there, "beliefs not acts" is contestable.
NSPM-7 is a different category of object: a standing presidential directive naming "anti-Christian," "anti-capitalist," and "anti-American" views as terrorism indicia, with an AG implementation memo and a multi-agency mission center built to act on it. One is a flawed staff memo the institution rejected; the other is the institution's stated policy. The honest claim isn't "first time anyone in the federal government did this" — it's "first time a published presidential directive made belief-markers the explicit, standing basis for an all-of-government effort." And notably, Stephen Miller agrees it's a first — he called it "the first time in American history" there's an all-of-government effort against left-wing terrorism. We just disagree about whether that's something to brag about.
The Biden Administration sent agents to people’s homes and work places because of a post on social media? Please do share the details. If they exist. Would love to see it.
Read my comment more closely. It references the OP’s description of a document. Then read about the Biden FBI’s Richmond memo. Both are documents. Both documents categorize certain groups as potential threats based, broadly, on thought based grounds.
But one is an analysis of an actual weapons case by a single office, retracted quickly, and the other is a National Security POLICY memorandum. So, while there is a common thread, the differences are not pedantry.
Sadly, we are very close to being an authoritarian country. Horrible.
Not very close to. You already are. Whether that will change in November is a different matter. But even that is in question. I have serious doubt that they (the entire wretched cabal, not the senile orange dementor haunting the whitehouse) will let the power slip from their hands after going so far.
Yes, it is scary
A citizen says an agent should be indicted, and suddenly the federal government shows up with her height, weight, eye color, address, and a letter that smells like authoritarian cologne. That is not public safety. That is the state tapping the microphone and reminding everyone the cage has paperwork. The chilling part is not that she had an opinion. It is that the machine treated her opinion like a search warrant without needing one.
This Trump government is just really freakingly scary
Indeed.
. . . not because privacy is comfortable, but because, under a government that has made a public opinion into a search term, the footprint you leave is the file they open when they decide it is your turn.
I am glad you wrote government and not administration, because this is an iteration of the same old rodeo that’s been organized for decades now.
Totally agreed, this has been brewing for decades, but the administration is certainly ramping it up.
Because it has the technology that the others didn't have yet but were in the process of developing.
It's a logistical thing, rather than a political one, at this point.
Right after 911 when the government was creating Homeland Security many of us knew that was was too much power and way too little accountability in a government agency.
And, here we are.
“For the first time in American history, a federal directive names beliefs — not acts — as indicators of terrorism…” - I’m not sure this is accurate. This same type of classification was done under the Biden administration with the focus pointed the other direction. I mention this because I think it illustrates that these tactics are used regardless of who happens to be at the helm at any given time.
Can you give me an example, I would love to document this pattern over time.
FBI Richmond memo. I’m sure some pedant will argue that an FBI memo is not the same as what Trump signed, but that’s disingenuously missing the forest for the trees.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/politics/catholic-extremists-fbi.html
Good example — and a fair hit on my phrasing, which I'll tighten. But I don't think the FBI/Trump distinction is pedantic; it's the whole point. The Richmond memo was a single field-office intelligence product the bureau repudiated and withdrew within weeks, after the IG found it violated professional standards. It also grew out of an actual weapons investigation of a guy who called himself a "Clerical Fascist" and had Molotov cocktails — so even there, "beliefs not acts" is contestable.
NSPM-7 is a different category of object: a standing presidential directive naming "anti-Christian," "anti-capitalist," and "anti-American" views as terrorism indicia, with an AG implementation memo and a multi-agency mission center built to act on it. One is a flawed staff memo the institution rejected; the other is the institution's stated policy. The honest claim isn't "first time anyone in the federal government did this" — it's "first time a published presidential directive made belief-markers the explicit, standing basis for an all-of-government effort." And notably, Stephen Miller agrees it's a first — he called it "the first time in American history" there's an all-of-government effort against left-wing terrorism. We just disagree about whether that's something to brag about.
As rephrased, I think it drives the point home much more effectively. I appreciate the discourse and your highlighting of this whole issue.
Thank you for pointing me at the Richmond Memo. I am very interested in tracing the history of these patterns.
The Biden Administration sent agents to people’s homes and work places because of a post on social media? Please do share the details. If they exist. Would love to see it.
Read my comment more closely. It references the OP’s description of a document. Then read about the Biden FBI’s Richmond memo. Both are documents. Both documents categorize certain groups as potential threats based, broadly, on thought based grounds.
But one is an analysis of an actual weapons case by a single office, retracted quickly, and the other is a National Security POLICY memorandum. So, while there is a common thread, the differences are not pedantry.
Indicted, arrested tried and adjudicated to life in prison for cold blooded murder.
Johnathan Ross, WE WILL FIND YOU …