It turns out that among the crowd of paramilitary officers without name badges, many from the Department of Homeland Security, established after 9/11, were primarily engaged in terrorism. More specifically, the officers were from the department’s Customs and Border Protection agency, which is supposed to “safeguard America’s borders” from dangerous people and materials.
“These tactics include deploying unmarked federal agents in an apparent effort to evade transparency and accountability, snatch street people for no apparent reason for apprehension, and use life-threatening ammunition to harm peaceful protesters. These actions are out of control – they are more reflective of the tactics of a dictator-led government, not the government of our constitutional democratic republic, “they wrote, adding that” they chillingly reminded autocratic governments that they ‘disappear’ to critics. and opponents. “
In Egypt, where anti-government protests are essentially banned and enforced disappearances are not uncommon, thousands of people were detained in rare protests last year calling for the resignation of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. The human rights group Amnesty International said more than 100 detainees were under the age of 17, of which dozens faced charges for being members of terrorist organizations.
In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan openly describes anti-government protesters as terrorists, and many have been jailed under anti-terrorism laws, along with journalists, academics, and human rights activists in the past two years.
And earlier this month in Hong Kong, a 23-year-old pro-democracy protester became the first person to be prosecuted under China’s new national security law, widely seen as a way for Beijing to take over the powers of the semi-autonomous city. . Tong Yong-kit was accused of inciting secession and terrorist activities under the law, accused of ramming his motorcycle against a group of policemen.
China also uses its anti-terrorism drive far beyond the protests. It has used a secessionist movement and episodes of political violence in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region to justify the detention of more than 1 million people belonging to Muslim minority groups in “re-education camps,” according to estimates by US state departments. And several humans. rights groups.
It would be easy to fire the US president who screams “terrorist” like Trump just like Trump, but his calls to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization show that he has an appetite for new anti-terror laws to stifle dissenting voices.
Trump blamed Antifa, short for antifascist, a free-based movement with no formal leader or headquarters, for acts of violence amid largely peaceful protests. There is no legal instrument in the US to designate entirely national groups as terrorist organizations, but Trump continues to insist that he will ban the group.
Who is a terrorist?
Counter-terrorism laws have been problematic in many parts of the world, and the problems often stem from the fact that there is no agreed international definition of what a terrorist is. In Turkey, academic activists and human rights defenders who consider themselves supporters of President Erdogan’s exiled rival, Fethullah Gulen, have been jailed under terrorism laws. In Russia, a journalist critical of the country’s lack of civil liberties was recently convicted of justifying terrorism.
After the September 11 attacks, the UN Security Council passed a resolution urging its member states to design and update laws to adequately address terrorism. But they left it to individual countries to define terrorism.
What followed was a series of anti-terrorism laws that, in many countries, have been criticized for being so broadly defined, sometimes deliberately, that they essentially legalize abuse of government power. In some cases, the definitions are so broad that, instead of targeting only ideologically motivated people who pose serious security threats, they also allow governments to target their critics.
The Philippines, for example, has just passed an anti-terror law that UN chief human rights Michelle Bachelet urged President Rodrigo Duterte not to sign, saying it blurred “important distinctions between criticism, crime and terrorism” and that he needed “Safeguards to prevent this misuse against people involved in peaceful criticism and advocacy”.
Definitions have been a major problem since 2001, Conor Gearty, a professor of human rights law at the London School of Economics, told CNN.
“What you had was that the UN was saying ‘Come out and fight terrorism and we will let you decide what terror is.'” And that was just a gift to authoritarian regimes, “he said.
While the image in the US may not be as grim as in places like China, Turkey, and Egypt, the events in Portland, as well as a previous crackdown on protesters outside the White House recently, are just the latest signs. that Trump is looking to those countries for inspiration, said Gearty, who describes Trump as an “authoritarian wannabe.”
That should concern Americans, he said.
“What Americans should also be concerned about is the apparent support for this from the grassroots and the absence of very important voices opposing this,” he said.
The country’s security apparatus not only lacks vocal opponents of the crackdown seen in Portland, but some of its largest members are suddenly taking an active part, despite being supposed to be independent of domestic politics.
On Monday, Acting Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli retweeted videos and images of Portland, describing the situation there as “terrorism.”
The nation’s top military officer, Gen. Mark Milley, apologized after criticism of his appearance with Trump in a photo shoot outside a church near the White House. Police used rubber bullets and pepper spray shells to clear protesters just moments before to clear the way for the president.
A pre-electoral bet
Trump has promised to step up his Portland focus, saying in an interview with Fox News on Thursday that he could send up to 75,000 federal agents to other cities in the United States, in what he calls “Operation Legend.”
He argues that these cities, all with mayors who are Democrats, have been invaded by criminals, particularly as anti-race protests continue. He has criticized local leaders and the police for not taking a hard line against crime.
But critics say Operation Legend is a wild re-election speech by Trump to project himself as the country’s president of law and order before the November vote, one seeking to paint his Democratic rival, Joe Biden, as anti-police.
What could easily happen is that these protests are transforming from an anti-racism movement to a larger anti-government movement, according to Luis Schiumerini, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.
Schiumerini is a co-author of a recent study on protests in Turkey, Brazil and Ukraine, and looks at how aggression by security forces can trigger “violent protests.”
“There is a clear pattern in many countries. Protests can start little by little, demanding something in particular, but when there is an attempt to suppress them with so-called ‘less lethal weapons’, such as rubber bullets and tear gas, instead of repressing protests grow, and often turn into mass movements, “said Schiumerini.
There are many recent examples. In Iran, protests that began last year against a fuel price increase that were met with great force turned into broader anti-government protests for months. Peaceful protests against an extradition bill that started in 2019 in Hong Kong quickly turned into more aggressive pro-democracy protests after police used rubber bullets and tear gas against protesters.
Experts said that in Trump’s case, he could be triggering such an escalation in hopes that a divisive event will evoke a strong backlash from his base.
Whether this will work in Trump’s favor at the ballot box will depend in part on which side is more violent and which side appears to be more reasonable, Schiumerini said. Voters will also assess whether the president’s actions are reducing or exacerbating violence, he said.
“Trying to brand protesters as terrorists is something that we constantly saw in our study, especially in the case of Turkey. However, in order for the government to benefit from this, it is very important to turn to public opinion to represent the protesters in a negative way. ” he said.
“The success of that depends on how protesters behave. The label of being a terrorist becomes more compelling when the behavior of protesters can be described in a similar way.”
.
