DOJ: Scott Roeder Is Not a Terrorist

Since we’ve been talking about domestic right wing terrorism of late, I wanted to elaborate on a point I made here. Today, the Department of Justice released a list of all the terrorist-related individuals it found guilty in civilian courts since 9/11. And Scott Roeder, who was found guilty of killing George Tiller on January 29, 2010, is not on that list.

There are two reasons why it might be churlish for me to make that observation. First, the list was released in response to a specific request from the Senate Judiciary Committee in the context of debates over civilian versus military trials for Gitmo detainees, which suggests SJC was interested in a certain kind of terrorist (though, at least in Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich’s response, it seems that the request was not specific to international terrorists). Also, in response to that request, DOJ simply provided a list started during the Bush Administration, and the list was explicitly limited to international terrorists.

The National Security Division’s International Terrorism and Terrorism-Related Statistics Chart tracks convictions resulting from international terrorism investigations conducted since September 11, 2001, including investigations of terrorist acts planned or committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States over which Federal criminal jurisdiction exists and those within the United States involving international terrorists and terrorist groups.

In other words, to develop a list of all terrorists–rather than just the terrorists the National Security Division considers terrorists–it would have to cull out the names of Americans who also engaged in terrorism.

So what would it take, then, for DOJ to consider a guy who stalked a doctor for years, who collaborated with a number of other people engaged in intimidation and violence, and ultimately gunned a man down while he was worshiping at church, a terrorist?

If we find evidence that, in addition to harboring pedophiles, Pope Benedict and the American Catholic Bishops have been intimidating women and their doctors, would Scott Roeder be considered a terrorist (recognizing, of course, there is no allegation that the Catholic Church endorses violence of the type Roeder used)? Or would it take a brown man, involved in the plot, for DOJ to consider this terrorism?

62 replies
  1. BoxTurtle says:

    Terrorist is largely a political distinction. I’m satisified as long as Roeder and his ilk are tried and convicted as murderers.

    Boxturtle (Perhaps I’m too easy)

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m not, because “terrorism” criminalizes some peaceful activities engaged in by brown religious persons, while much more violent activities engaged in by white religious persons are not criminalized.

      • BoxTurtle says:

        I agree with your point, the law is bogus. Which to me means that terrorism charges should be avoided where possible.

        If it’s not right to charge a brown religious person under the law, it’s not right to charge a white religious person. Fix the law, without being vindictive toward people just because they have a political exemption.

        OTOH, a talented prosecutor could put together an indictment of a large portion of the anti-abortion leadership for terrorism, conspiracy, and incitement. Perhaps we should at least take advantage of the law and fix that.

        Boxturtle (That thought is NOT going to help me improve my status when I’m reincarnated)

        • eCAHNomics says:

          I take it you would prefer eliminating terrorism as a distinction from all cases, and just charge the criminal offense? I’m coming to the same opinion, since the WOT is going to be about as successful as the WOD (drugs), which consumes gargantuan resources, while making the problem worse. WRT WOT, the special treatment of so-called terrorists seems more likely to attract more people to terrorism than retard them.

          eCAHN (a colleague, after overhearing a conversation with my boss on an airphone, remarked that I, a female, must have been a pugilist in my prior incarnation.)

          • BoxTurtle says:

            Based on how the distinction is currently applied, yes. I wouldn’t charge KSM with terrorism, I’d charge him with a couple thousand counts of murder.

            Boxturtle (And I wouldn’t have tortured him in custody, so my charges would stick)

            • eCAHNomics says:

              IOW, what’s the matter with the rule-of-law anyhow? I’d like some evidence that it doesn’t work before initiating a whole new system, especially one that eliminates several of the Bill of Rights.

  2. MadDog says:

    I wonder if the lack of DOJ info on “domestic terrorism” is tied to their squeamishness of having to point fingers at the largely rightwing, conservative-based groups harboring these perps, and therefore, at the Repug party whose tent provides them shelter?

    After the Repug uproar over DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism (10 page PDF) last year, I suspect the DOJ decided discretion is the better part of valor.

    And note there was no similar uproar over the DHS’s Report on Leftwing Extremism (9 page PDF) that came out at the very same time, but that’s easily explained both because there is not much leftwing extremism to speak of first and foremost, and secondly, there isn’t a political party these days who’d willingly identify themselves with the “leftwing”.

    Shorter story: “When the Ox is gored, the Bull cries.”

    • Kassandra says:

      I’m wondering the same thing. The DOJ is not interested in the tea party violence either, I take it?
      Do they WANT a civil war? or do they think they can prevent one of they mis-name activities like this.
      Remember, these are the same people (and many of them still Bush people) who will not even LOOK into Bush era crimes.
      Seligman’s still in jail in AL

  3. MadDog says:

    OT – Some interesting apparent comments from Philip Zelikow via Josh Rogin over at The Cable:

    Zelikow: Former buddies Tenet and Cheney once ran the war on terror

    They might not be best friends now, but in the years just after 9/11, George Tenet was extremely tight with Dick Cheney, and together they ran the first years of the “global war on terror.”

    That’s according to Philip Zelikow, former State Department counselor and executive director of the 9/11 Commission, who gave a fascinating talk Friday morning at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    “Question: Who was the combatant commander in the global war on terror? Answer: That combatant commander’s name was George Tenet,” Zelikow said, adding, “You could make an argument that his secretary of defense was, in fact, Dick Cheney…”

    • bobschacht says:

      Who was the combatant commander in the global war on terror? Answer: That combatant commander’s name was George Tenet,” Zelikow said, adding, “You could make an argument that his secretary of defense was, in fact, Dick Cheney…”

      This is disinformation: Zelikow has the order reversed. Tenet was the pleaser, Cheney the pusher. Why Zelikow would pin this on Tenet escapes me.

      Cheney has a long history of disgust with the CIA. I don’t think he would kowtow to any CIA head.

      The only rationale that I can think of is that for the year or so after 9/11, Tenet, to secure his position, temporarily became an extremist on torture in order to ingratiate himself with Cheney. We know how well that worked out– Cheney outed one of his agents without so much as a courtesy call.

      So I just don’t understand what Zelikow’s purpose is, in this connection.

      Bob in AZ

      • Sara says:

        “The only rationale that I can think of is that for the year or so after 9/11, Tenet, to secure his position, temporarily became an extremist on torture in order to ingratiate himself with Cheney. We know how well that worked out– Cheney outed one of his agents without so much as a courtesy call.

        So I just don’t understand what Zelikow’s purpose is, in this connection.

        Bob in AZ”

        Actually it is fairly complicated. During that first Camp David meeting Bush had after 9/11, he had called for plans, and the only outfit in Government that had a plan was CIA. They had nurtured the relationship with the Northern Alliance over previous years, and the plan was to reinforce NA in a major way with CIA para-military types — such as Gary Berntsen, the author of Jawbreaker, the name selected for Tenet’s plan. Rumsfeld had no plan on offer that would not take years, require heavy divisions, etc., though he did suggest at the Camp David meeting, invading Iraq. So Bush went with Tenet’s plan, and within 48 hours Tenet had CIA and special forces seconded to CIA on the ground in Afghanistan. And until the end of the battle at Tora Bora, the command of US forces on the ground in Afghanistan went through the CIA. That history ends with the refusal of DoD to block the Pakistani Border, either with Marines, or a batallion of the 10th Mountain Division, which was then at a base in one of the Stan’s north of Afghanistan.

        Zelikow’s version of the Cheney/Tenet story is far too simple. Cheney had two interests — he wanted leadership of Afghani operations pushed over to DoD and Rumsfeld and his crew given that the Taliban had been upended, (Quite unexpectedly) and above all, since at the end of November Bush had approved planning for an invasion of Iraq, he wanted to expend as little as possible on Afghanistan. Cheney’s actions in this particular time period — particularly his work to shift attention to Iraq, also involved taking attention away from searching out al-Quada and Bin Laden.

        Zelikow’s interests have always been focused on the relationship he has with Rice, and Rice is right in the middle of pushing Tenet out of the way after Tora Bora, and moving Rumsfeld and the Iraq plan into primacy.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Not too many, not in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands or Ireland, the currently most talked about countries in Europe with widespread allegations of sexual predation among the clergy.

    • posaune says:

      Nope. (except for the Escriva types).

      Check out:

      The incestuous, abusive relationship hammered out by the Irish Church on its people saw its denouement in the American Church’s scandals of the past decade: the overwhelming majority of predators and victims were Irish Americans (no Italians or Hispanics, note). Many elements in play: a people raised in victimized environments (the Brits, the Troubles, the Traitors (read Yeats Dreaming of the Bones).

      • bobschacht says:

        There is a parallel set of historical abuses by the Catholic Church in the Philippines, exposed by the brilliant Jose Rizal in several “novels.” In his eyes, however, the evil was done by *Spanish* (i.e. from Spain) priests. He wanted not to get rid of the church, but to replace Spanish priests with Filipino priests.

        Bob in AZ

    • Shairdawelth says:

      Further OT:
      While Ted Stevens, James O’Keefe, Roeder and the like are coddled, Don Siegelman, Richard Scrushy, and Gary White are shafted by Obama’s DOJ.

      (O: “My enemy is my friend, and the enemy of my enemy is not.”)

      • bmaz says:

        There is no evidence whatsoever that Stevens, O’Keefe or Roeder were coddled; where do you come up with that? The manifest evidence is that Stevens was overzealously prosecuted, not “coddled”. As to O’Keefe, I really take no position, I would have liked to see a felony, but see nothing to say that it is an unreasonable plea at all. Roeder was convicted of capital murder, what more exactly did you want?

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The “terrorism” card is one the Right, and the current and past administrations, like to whip out to stoke up the base, which has a white, Southern and Mountain West, christianistic character. It’s also largely anti-immigration and anti-immigration reform. That’s one reason a criticism-shy [weak] government would keep publicly discussed “terrorists” limited to little brown foreign non-Christians.

    That propagandistic use of the term destroys it character as a credible category for criminals, domestic or foreign. Besides, these two administrations dislike the notion that those who engage in terrorism are criminals; they prefer to lump them indiscriminately in the sack stenciled “the enemy”, implying that they are somehow soldiers engaged in unrestricted warfare, albeit purportedly illegal ones. That allows them to use extra-legal means to detect, track, detain and punish them, and occasionally charge and prosecute them.

    Roeder is a domestic, homegrown terrorism-using murderer. It’s just that he has thousands of supporters who think did the right thing, that he acted not out of malice, but a kind heart, and the press and GOP refuse to pillory him as a violent criminal.

    Objectively, how Roeder could be anything but a terrorist felon is hard to grasp. He conspired to use and personally committed illegal, extremely violent acts in order to promote domestic political change – the outlawing of a constitutionally protected medical procedure. That he killed one instead of dozens is a matter of luck, his poor planning and execution, and competent police work. The number of maimed and dead would seem to have no bearing on his status as a terrorist.

    • bobschacht says:

      Objectively, how Roeder could be anything but a terrorist felon is hard to grasp.

      I think one of the things that might make a difference is that Roeder was stalking one particular, known, person. Terrorists don’t usually do that. It is usually much more anonymous.

      On the other hand, I remember thinking in late September of 2001, when Bush was temporarily trying to make a distinction between terrorists and other fighters, how long that pretense would last. After all, Menachem Begin was a terrorist, so far as the British were concerned, until Israel became recognized as an independent country. Many other examples could be named. Was Emilio Zapata a freedom fighter, or a terrorist? Figures from the Spanish Civil War could also be named.

      The difference between a terrorist and a “freedom fighter” is almost entirely a matter of perspective. Sure enough, within a few months, all the careful distinctions Bush was trying to make in late September, 2001, collapsed, and “terrorist” simply meant “anyone we think is a bad guy,” which before long became synonymous with “anyone who resists or opposes what we are doing.”

      And that is essentially where we are today. Except that the category now also includes innocent civilians who got swept up and tossed into Guantanamo, and were tortured needlessly, who now can’t be released because of what we did to them. To Cheney, they’re all “the worst of the worst.”

      Bob in AZ

  5. Swopa says:

    Speaking of photoshop… is the implication of the photo that terrorists are more likely than other people to be Velvet Underground fans? Or Andy Warhol fans?

  6. Margaret says:

    “Not a terrorist”? I suppose McVeigh was just a pyromaniac and Hitler was anti Semitic. WTF?

  7. orionATL says:

    who is a terrorist (and who is not)?

    what is terrorism (and what is not)?

    short answer: whoever the king calls a terrorist, the same shall be a terrorist.

    a terrorist wants to change behavior – by frightening people.

    if a mentally-ill terrorist like reoder kills a person, that person can no longer change their behavior.

    nonetheless, sometimes a terrorist organization – cell, maybe – kills an individual to make the point that their terrorism is to be taken seriously. i’m confident that roeder is as much a hero among the angriest anti-abortion nuts as mohammhed ata is among muslim anti-american gov’t nuts in saudia arabia, et al.
    you’re only a “terrorist” to those who do not approve of your behavior.

    now lets consider the american government-authorized torturerer.

    does the authorized american torturerer behave like a terrorist behaves?
    he/she wants to change behavior.
    he/she will lose the contest with the torturee if the torturee dies.
    so the tortureer’s game is to torture the torturee up to but not surpassing death.

    put them in a very small box for hours with limited oxygen. waterboard them. tell them their families will be harmed. deprive them of sensory experience.

    for what behavior change? to get the torturee to give answers to the torturers questions that the torturer considers accptable.

    so how is roeder (and his supporters and fan club) like a torturerer and like a terrorist?

    he wants docs to change their behavior. he engages in years of harassment of a particular doctor and is supported by the anti-abortion movement in doing so. the doc does not change his behavior, so roeder kills him.

    the tactic works. the clinic is shut down by the docs family soon after doc is buried. terrorism works.

    for years, roeder focused on this clinic as a torturerer focyses ob a torturee. for years, clinic personal would ask for help and receive minimal support from the police/fbi as torturees have received minimum support from the american judiciary.

  8. Peterr says:

    Also, in response to that request, DOJ simply provided a list started during the Bush Administration, and the list was explicitly limited to international terrorists.

    Sorry, but I’m not buying the “but that’s the way we’ve always done it” excuse. (I see too much of that in the church!)

    When last I checked, the Bush administration closed up shop on January 20, 2009. Holder has had a year and then some to change whatever policies he wishes — like how the DOJ counts “terrorists.”

    The purpose for which these stats have been kept is pretty obvious: to show all the doubters about all the dangerous foreigners out there, so that DOD can justify its wars, CIA can justify its drones, and DOJ can justify its warrantless wiretaps. You won’t find a memo stating that purpose, but you know that is exactly why the stats are being kept — and why they are being kept in exactly this manner.

    And not changing this practice with a new AG is hogwash. Ashcroft is gone, AGAG is gone, and Mukasey is gone. Holder has been in office for over a year, and blaming current practices on the Bush administration is garbage.

    When a new boss comes into an office, one of the first things the boss does is look around and see what is going on. “Nice stats you’ve been keeping,” says the boss. “Why don’t you tell me about them? What are they for? Why do you do it like that?”

    If Holder recognized this and decided to continue to keep these political stats in the same way, I can see him justifying it on the basis of not wanting to rock a political boat. I may not like it, but I can understand his thinking. OTOH, if Holder didn’t recognize that these are political stats, DOJ is in worse shape than I thought.

    Right now, I’d bet on the latter. And it pains me to say that.

    • eCAHNomics says:

      Oh Holder recognized exactly what is going on, and made a deliberate choice to retain the powers of the prior admin to demonize the political targets of whatever the scare-du-jour is.

    • bobschacht says:

      And not changing this practice with a new AG is hogwash. Ashcroft is gone, AGAG is gone, and Mukasey is gone. Holder has been in office for over a year, and blaming current practices on the Bush administration is garbage.

      But of the thousands of DOJ employees, how many have been appointed by Obama or one of his appointees? 1%? 2%? The head may be new, but the arms, the legs, the muscle memory, and the reflexes are still old. And in the head, perhaps only the frontal lobe is new; the parietal lobes, the hippocampus, the amygdala, etc. are holdovers from the old cadaver. The “reptile brain” has not yet been updated.

      Bob in AZ

  9. TalkingStick says:

    Of course Roeder is a terrorist. He was as an individual supported and abetted by organizations that mingle on As far as I am concerned Randall Terry is an organizer of a terrorist organization.

    That said I think this is very dangerous territory that could close the doors of a police state on our civil liberties. Personally I would rather US citizens be excluded from this designation unless they are closely associated with enumerated terrorist organizations. (The first persona TIA detained was a US citizen, a woman who was an official in an environmental organization.)

    Better to treat them as common criminals for now. The danger the Tea Baggers pose is they are beginning to openly call for insurgency and with a few deaths could indeed force oppressive measures that would influence us all.

    The first priority any society has is for order and we have already seen what the people have been willing to sacrifice in the way of civil liberties. Let us pray those of us who are sane will not be provoked into pressing for more.

    • emptywheel says:

      Great comment. Thanks.

      I agree, in general, with it. But part of my point is NOT that the standards on US citizens should be lowered, but that the First Amendment rights of brown citizens–and even non-citizens who happen to do laundry for terrorists–ought to be higher rather than lower.

      • TalkingStick says:

        I realized but did not acknowledge it. And I certainly agree this abuses always fall on those that don’t look like th folks in charge.

        We mostly here, posters and lurkers, seem to agree that the whole idea of applying a nationalistic war designation to the Al Quaeda has been disastrous in so ways that cannot be counted.

        Yes, Limiting and hopefully rolling that back rather than expanding

  10. Bluetoe2 says:

    Now who is really surprised that this guy isn’t considered a “terrorist.” The Obama/Holder DOJ doesn’t recognize the war criminals in the last administration so why would they consider 1 white assassin as a terrorist?

  11. orionATL says:

    some terrorrists, like roeder’s anti-abortion group, may want to change individual behaviors in a specific sub-group of society, in this case abortion docs.

    ( never forget that the anti-abortion march, with its pervervid rhetoric expressing concern for “innocents”, was tailor-made advertising for our society’s new phenomenon of “commercial” churches, that is, churches created as for-profit businesses to enrich pastors, family, and associates.)

    other terrorists, such as al-quaeda, seej to change government behavior = the policy set by
    a society’s highest officials.

    al-quaeda began with the purpose of getting the u. s. out of a holy land to muslims- saudi arabia.

    but al-quaeda is a gossamer organization with little but a small top organization of professional revolutionaries (think che guevara) including the wealthy ben-ladin.

    al-q relies on others to do its work.

    it got “lucky” in yemen, kenya, and tanzania probably because they are such relatively poorly governed states.

    in the u.s., al-q again relied on others, in this case mohammed ata, who with other relatives had been waging war on the world trade center for a decade.

    with richard reid, underpants bomber, et al they have pursued this same strategy, find an angry goof-ball and sic him on the u.s. if we (al-q) get lucky we’ll get a lot of attention. if our goof-ball fails, and all have so far, we get lots of press.

    • TalkingStick says:

      Just a ticky point, Roeder was clearly obsessed with abortion. However the denizens encompass the whole white Christian Identity spectrum. And in my view the core of the anti-abortion anti-contraception movements are racial and aimed at control of the seed.

  12. orionATL says:

    talkingstick @25

    you’re right.

    i’d say we do not need ANY officia “terrorists” list organized by
    our government.

    the “no-fly” list, with its innumerable follies (a child) and political abuses (congressman john lewis) is a fairly benign (except to those falsely fingered by our gov) example of what happens when govt is allowed to concoct a terrorist list.

    guantanamo is a far more malevolent and socially destuctive example of the same phenomenon.

    as i have tried to suggest above, terrorism is a term with a lot of connotations and little useful denotation.

  13. TalkingStick says:

    How long can the Catholic church endure in the developed nations? As you indicate it is becoming impossible to separate the systematic abuse of children at the hands of priests as unexpected disconnected incidents. Along with the oppression of women it now must be considered deeply imbued in the fabric of the church as it is today.

    I loved seeing the nuns come forward to express opinions in opposition to the Bishops. I wonder could they redeem the church?

  14. orionATL says:

    talking stick@32

    thanks for the clarification.

    when ew first brought this up, i thought of the white supremacists but didn’tknow how to include them in a comment since they have not showed up in our media for awhile.

    i assume southern poverty law council would inform me, so maybe i need to go visit.

    if you have any examples, cases, or stories you can share, please do.

    its the only way folks like me learn what’s really going on in
    our society.

    • TalkingStick says:

      SPLC is a really good source. The most comprehensive non-profit source in the country as far as I know. You can get on their mailing list also. They put out regularly an intelligence report newsletter..

      If you can stand it go to the stormfront dot org web site. I am not posting it as a link because I don’t want there to be an easy trackback to FDL One group that has a representation here locally is the National Alliance. They seem to specialize in white supremacy and anti-Semitism. They are the ones who posted the letter on our church door for our ethnic Jewish pastor celebrating a Sedar. Also Eric Rudolph was a near local boy and as you know hid out in the mountains for many months with local support. He was of course on the anti-abortion kick also. The KKK continues in some existence locally also, the last rally not too long ago. They really blend into the prevailing right wing GOP crazy talk..

      Other than the awful garbage my good substantial citizens of the community neighbors and friends send out in their emails; My personal experiences are mostly from the beginning of the Afghanistan Iraq wars when I was attending a local Unitarian Church and became involved in anti war protesting. The Bush administration was open in saying the denomination is a suspect organization — like the Quakers I belong to some of the non-profit peace and anti-nuclear organizations also. And it is in that association I became familiar with the government spying and strange system of designating potential and real insurgent activities.

  15. orionATL says:

    talkingstick @35

    a letter on the church door?

    that would make me furious, a bit apprehensive, and determined to find out who intruded so malevolently on my worship commumity.

    which seems to have been exactly your response- a very courageous response in a community.

    as for eric rudolph, he was from the quentessential emotionally disturbed family which found solace in christian fundamentalism.

    rudolph caused a lot of grief in birmingham and before that atlanta.

    like roeder, like underpants bomber, like most of the young men al-q inveighed into the sept 11 plot,

    rudolph was emotionally disturbed.

    in fact, the emotionally disturbed young male seems to be the preferred weapon of terrorists groups of every stripe and nationality.

  16. TalkingStick says:

    a letter on the church door?

    that would make me furious, a bit apprehensive, and determined to find out who intruded so malevolently on my worship commumity.

    There were threats which we and the law enforcement agencies took very seriously.

    Yes Rudolph and the other guy are I believe typical recruit ground troops. But I promise you many of these groups are mature organizations that have been around for many years, I suppose forever. They are extreme and on whole outside mainstream life but they do blend with the current environment of hate resentment, racism, gun worship et al.. Beck preaches much of what you see on their websites. And not a few members of Congress sound the same way..

    I used to laugh at them and pay no great heed knowing any sane person would not take them seriously.

    Then Newt Gingrch became speaker of the House and then we had 8 years of it just getting crazier.

  17. fatster says:

    What? Where did the wikileaks – cryptome article go? I was just getting settled into it and now it’s been 404’d.

  18. TalkingStick says:

    Jeez! I am glad I went to bed when I did. The speculations get a little bizarre late evening. Maybe something to do with recreational substances? :-)

    Marcy I really appreciate your good reporting on the shadow world. It is so critical to keep shining light where “they” don’t want it to go.

    No way I can add much information to that. But reading the this thread this morning I am again struck with how getting distracted by really meaningless terminology we can lose a country.

    Terrorism/terrorist we all have at one time or another noted, until recently in this country, simply a term descriptive of a complex of behaviors and not a political designation.

    Now as a result of George Bush making it the object of a war, it’s application now may be a death sentence. Remember jJust recently the US (NSC I think) has acknowledged a US policy to detain and or assassinate anyone, citizen or not, on simple suspicion of aspiration to commit violence against the US.

    Common usage of the term has come to indicate Al Quaeda. But we have seen it expanded more broadly to Jihaad which encompasses those not directly connected to Al Quaeds. As Marcy suggests there is willingness among the people and public officials to extend it on the basis of religion and skin color.

    Enter into our awareness the various homegrown militia, survivalist, anti-abortion and identity groups all who use or advocate the use of acts of terrorism. And then the lone single issue perpetrators, Kasinsky and McVey. etc.

    With Bush having elevated the term to national enemy status we get lost in distracting discussions of just what to call these domestically grown “terrorists..” There is also the question does terrorism just refer to people or include property? etc. And so the questions arise.

    It really is going to take the vigilance of those patriots who monitor the shadow world to keep our government form simply applying the word to any person a cop or a soldier thinks looks or is acting strangely.

    Words and terms do matter.

  19. TalkingStick says:

    I might add my personal brush with this was being associated with a couple of religious denominatin groups that have for years been holding annual demonstrations at the nuclear sub base in St. Mary’s Ga and the School of the Americas, whatever they call it now. We all became objects for surveillance and I guess potentially for assassination. .

    • bobschacht says:

      …annual demonstrations at the nuclear sub base in St. Mary’s Ga and the School of the Americas, whatever they call it now.

      I have an uncle who was jailed for several months for participating in one of the latter demonstrations, I think.

      Bob in AZ

      • TalkingStick says:

        Yep. We are designated as enemies of the state when we peacefully protest at DOD facilities.

        Some twenty of our Grannies got arrested about a year ago for filling up a recruiting office demanding to be allowed to join up in place of our grand children.

        As the conversation has gone on the boards at FDL toward forming a political opposition movement and activism we must be willing to accept activism ain’t for sissies.

  20. orionATL says:


    if memory serves, the u.s. military’s school of the americas was were american military taught central (and south) american military leaders “counter-terrorism” tactics.

    i would assume those tactics included terrorism and torture, though i don’t recall for sure.

    the inhumanity of what was being taught by american military was the basis of the protests ypu mentioned.

    i seem to recall a particularly courageous rc priest as a protester.

    • fatster says:

      A few specifics are here, e.g.

      “Between 1946 and 2001, the SOA trained more than 61,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. A number of them became notorious for human rights violations, including generals Leopoldo Galtieri, Efraín Ríos Montt and Manuel Noriega, dictators such as Bolivia’s Hugo Banzer, some of Augusto Pinochet’s officers[1][2], and the founders of Los Zetas, a mercenary army for one of Mexico’s largest drug trafficking organizations, the Gulf Cartel.[3][4] Luis Posada Carriles was educated there in 1961, although he never graduated.[5][6][7] “

  21. orionATL says:

    rev roy bourgeois.

    jan 25, 2010

    is the rev bourgeouis a terrorist (to the u.s. military)? mightt he be put on a list perhaps with you or i?

    one quote from the press release:

    …”the soa/whinsec, a military training facility fir latin american security personnel, made headlibes in 1996 when the pentagon released training manuals used at the school that advocated



    and execution…”

    want to bet that cheney- rumsfeld first learned about the use of torture from the reagan admin’s adventures un central america in the 1980’s?

Comments are closed.