Black Panthers = Occupy = Terrorists?

Some of us remember Fred Hampton. He was a Black Panther in Chicago, a rising personality in the Black Panther Party when he was murdered. He was murdered by a tactical unit of the Cook County's Attorney General's office, in an attack planned and initiated by the FBI.

Dangerous, we were told, shooting back when the police raided, at 3 AM. Actually, a Black Panther, who was on watch, fired only one shot. He shot it reflexively, in his death throes. Fred Hampton was shot four times in the head, while he slept, drugged by an informant.

Hoover had it in for the Panthers. He ordered Cointelpro to go after them regardless of any facts: he was sure they were violent revolutionaries who threatened the nation--uppity blacks with their free schools and their breakfast program for hungry youth in the ghettos.

Now, FOIA's provided to the Partnership For Civil Justice Fund have revealed that the FBI was about to do it again, this time to Occupy activists. Only this time, they were going to assassinate leaders--not that there were any--with snipers! The plot was never carried out, but it clearly was in the planning stages. Why?

This was in 2011, when Occupy was just beginning and was primarily 'occupying Wall Street.' In the memos, they treat the protesters as if they were potential terrorists, or revolutionaries. Hoover, remember, was concerned that the Black Panther Party was going to foment a revolution for radical change.

Did FBI agents in the hierarchy see the Occupiers as similarly threatening? The BPP had been armed; it had emerged, at least in part, from violence in the black ghettos, so guns were to be expected. But the OWS was largely white, even middle class, and except for the black bloc, determinedly non-violent.

Yet, the FBI was going to kill the leaders "via suppressed sniper rifles." Later, it seems clear, there was a nationally coordinated effort, probably at least aided by the FBI, to close down the encampments, peacefully or not.

Again, why?

Occupy popularized consciousness of the extreme inequality of wealth growing in the US. It also protested the bailouts that aided Wall Street and few others. Their ideas were potentially revolutionary, but they had no revolutionary program; they had no program, at all.

Still, the FBI saw them as such a threat that they were going to assassinate the leaders!

Some Occupiers spoke of revolution: we had an activist stay with us for four days too long, but their ideas were for the kind of non-violent change that made sense--unless you felt the wealthy must be defended at all costs.

The FBI plotting reveals which people they're really defending: it ain't you and me. It's America's Roman Senators, the wealthy: Occupy identified them as "the One Percent."

Maybe their protectors are pulling Obama's strings, too. That might explain a lot. In fifth century Rome, miscreants were slowly burned alive--as a warning.

Military vs Police Action

People really do conspire to blow up other people, but the FBI is on the job.

The story, of an Iranian-American caught conspiring to use a hit-man from a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Saudi ambassador in Washington--and anyone else in the vicinity--illustrates an important point.

It's government doing its job, which is protecting people from murder and mayhem. And it didn't do it with troops and aircraft carriers, but with good police work. Given the times, and the propensity to blow up people, whether they are Iranian or Mexican, Arab or Tamil (Tamils in Sri Lanka began the whole suicide bombing thing), we do apparently have to protect ourselves from would-be terrorists.

But it's police work, not the military, which was most effective here. Even with Osama bin Laden, while it was Navy Seals who carried out the assault, what made for success was undercover police/intelligence work, and the use of informers.

But informers can lead down a slippery slope. In the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century, spies were everywhere; they were the only effective policing tools available and everyone informed on everyone: not exactly a democratic or human rights outcome. Democracy had disappeared centuries before, anyway.

Fifth Century Rome was not like contemporary America in many ways, but it presents a picture of the direction in which we may be heading. We live in a dangerous world. Much of that danger has been caused by America, as in unnecessarily attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. American actions have also promoted violence, such as the CIA coup in Iran that brought in the Shah, the Mullahs, and ultimately our would-be bomber. Our meddling in Afghanistan in the 80's to undo the Soviet takeover, and in Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam and so on, each contributed to more violence. But, as I noted above, suicide bombing began in Sri Lanka independent of US intervention.

However, the creation of religion-based states first became legitimate among modern states with Israel (sponsored by the US) and Pakistan (supported by the UK), and then, in reaction, spawned many more, and with it a new, uncivil, international system.

I won't argue that religion-based states were the proximate cause of terrorism, but they did make it more likely: true believers are more absolutist in their thinking, and absolutists will stop at nothing to promote their beliefs. Religion-based states like Israel, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia do appear to spawn terrorists, either in support--as in Pakistan and Iran--or in opposition--as in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Would a more peaceful US deter terrorists? Possibly; between our military and our militarizing police, our response to terrorism doesn't really defeat it; it creates martyrs and sympathizers. One terrorist killed by drone--with "collateral damage--" ten inspired to fight back.

The Occupy Wall Street movement--if it has lasting effect--could enable less coercive policies; that might promote dialogue, instead of police repression or military adventure.