Early last month, an e-mail from someone involved in extremist politics warned of what he believed to be an attempt by those wicked people in the White House to frame or at the very least to seriously embarrass those engaged in his favourite pastime, which amounts primarily to proselytising to the converted in a weekly podcast.
Interestingly, this "black ops" campaign, if that is what it is, is being directed against "extremists" of both the far right and the far left.
When allegations of this nature come from "hatemongers" and "radicals", they are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but what about when they come from a lawyer who acts for a network of reporters and activists who monitor government misfeasance worldwide?
Here is the story
complete with 20 minute plus video.
Those with long memories may recall something called COINTELPRO. This was the FBI's counter-intelligence program, a rather amateurish attempt to disrupt so-called extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. The FBI's COINTELPRO files have now been declassified and placed in the public domain
Although the COINTELPRO program has achieved legendary status, it was as stated rather amateurish; for example, in spite of claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that so-called radical and convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal
was targeted by it. There is though a new kid on the block; this article from the website of self-publicist Alex Jones was published 3 years ago
, but in view of recent revelations on the other side of the Atlantic, Mr Jones doesn't sound quite as paranoid
as he used to, his 9/11 "truth" nonsense
In June this year, Channel 4 screened a documentary
about the work of a secret unit of undercover Metropolitan Police officers that had infiltrated groups involved in peaceful if at times inconvenient protest and activism. It was clear from this that at times the powers-that-be are not content simply to monitor "radicals" but to get their hands dirty.
How credible is the suggestion that some latter day COINTELPRO unit perhaps authorised by someone in the State Department could be attempting to frame or at least embarrass people involved in activism of which the US Government disapproves?
Miscarriages of justice are far more common than is generally believed; the latest high profile case is that of Jeffrey Deskovic
who spent nearly 16 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit.
If the Philadelphia Police would browbeat a 16 year old boy into confessing to a murder and then suppress exculpatory evidence allowing the real killer to go free, is it really so unlikely that someone higher up the food chain would frame political activists for a far less serious (yet shameful) crime in order to discredit them in the eyes of their "radical" audience?