Casey Goonan's Conviction Serves as a Warning: The Trump Administration's War on the Left
The prosecution and sentencing of Casey Goonan, an East Bay native accused of carrying out summer 2024 attacks in solidarity with Hamas, have shed light on the approach the Department of Justice may take under President Donald Trump. In a grim foreshadowing, Goonan's case highlights the dangers of labeling individuals as "domestic terrorists" and the potential for mass surveillance, financial scrutiny, and disruption to counter terrorism.
Goonan, a 35-year-old doctorate in African-American Studies, was arrested and charged with using an incendiary device after a series of direct actions on UC Berkeley's campus. During his trial, prosecutors claimed Goonan "intended to promote" terrorism, despite the original charges not containing terrorism counts.
The Department of Justice's response to Goonan's case mirrors the approach outlined in National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), an executive order targeting anti-fascist beliefs, opposition towards Immigrations and Customs Enforcement raids, and criticism of capitalism and Christianity as potential "indicators of terrorism." NSPM-7 instructs federal law enforcement to scrutinize nonprofit groups and philanthropic foundations involved in funding organizations that espouse amorphous ideologies, such as support for the overthrow of the United States Government or hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
The government's approach raises concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the targeting of individuals based on their political beliefs. In Goonan's case, prosecutors claimed he was a "domestic terrorist" with no remorse and sought to use violence against law enforcement officers and the federal government. However, Goonan's defense attorney, Sarah Potter, argues that her client is an activist who engaged in arson as part of a one-person direct action campaign, not a violent extremist.
The potential assignment to a Communications Management Unit (CMU), a highly restrictive assignment reserved for individuals with terrorism-related offenses or affiliations, is also alarming. CMUs have been criticized for contributing to the ongoing radicalization of inmates, and Goonan's Type I diabetes and documented history of severe mental health episodes make this possibility particularly concerning.
The case serves as a warning that the Trump administration's war on the left may not be limited to specific groups or ideologies but could potentially target anyone deemed an "indicator of terrorism." As former FBI agent Mike German notes, radicalization theory has been discredited in the past but has been resurrected under the guise of counterterrorism. The theory centers on excising "bad ideas" from the broader political body and neutralizing the voices of dissident figures who may inspire and possibly radicalize others.
Goonan's case highlights the need for a nuanced approach to counter terrorism that balances national security concerns with civil liberties and human rights. As the Trump administration continues to reshape its approach to counterterrorism, it is essential to consider the potential consequences of labeling individuals as "domestic terrorists" and the erosion of democratic values that may follow.
The government's actions against Goonan also raise questions about the targeting of nonprofit groups and philanthropic foundations involved in promoting extremism. The Heritage Foundation has attempted to link gender-fluid identity to mass shootings, urging the FBI to create a new domestic terrorism classification of "Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism" (TIVE).
In conclusion, Goonan's conviction serves as a grim foreshadowing of the Trump administration's war on the left. The government's approach to counterterrorism raises concerns about civil liberties, human rights, and the potential for mass surveillance and disruption. As the country grapples with the complexities of terrorism and extremism, it is essential to prioritize nuanced approaches that balance national security concerns with democratic values and human rights.
The prosecution and sentencing of Casey Goonan, an East Bay native accused of carrying out summer 2024 attacks in solidarity with Hamas, have shed light on the approach the Department of Justice may take under President Donald Trump. In a grim foreshadowing, Goonan's case highlights the dangers of labeling individuals as "domestic terrorists" and the potential for mass surveillance, financial scrutiny, and disruption to counter terrorism.
Goonan, a 35-year-old doctorate in African-American Studies, was arrested and charged with using an incendiary device after a series of direct actions on UC Berkeley's campus. During his trial, prosecutors claimed Goonan "intended to promote" terrorism, despite the original charges not containing terrorism counts.
The Department of Justice's response to Goonan's case mirrors the approach outlined in National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), an executive order targeting anti-fascist beliefs, opposition towards Immigrations and Customs Enforcement raids, and criticism of capitalism and Christianity as potential "indicators of terrorism." NSPM-7 instructs federal law enforcement to scrutinize nonprofit groups and philanthropic foundations involved in funding organizations that espouse amorphous ideologies, such as support for the overthrow of the United States Government or hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
The government's approach raises concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the targeting of individuals based on their political beliefs. In Goonan's case, prosecutors claimed he was a "domestic terrorist" with no remorse and sought to use violence against law enforcement officers and the federal government. However, Goonan's defense attorney, Sarah Potter, argues that her client is an activist who engaged in arson as part of a one-person direct action campaign, not a violent extremist.
The potential assignment to a Communications Management Unit (CMU), a highly restrictive assignment reserved for individuals with terrorism-related offenses or affiliations, is also alarming. CMUs have been criticized for contributing to the ongoing radicalization of inmates, and Goonan's Type I diabetes and documented history of severe mental health episodes make this possibility particularly concerning.
The case serves as a warning that the Trump administration's war on the left may not be limited to specific groups or ideologies but could potentially target anyone deemed an "indicator of terrorism." As former FBI agent Mike German notes, radicalization theory has been discredited in the past but has been resurrected under the guise of counterterrorism. The theory centers on excising "bad ideas" from the broader political body and neutralizing the voices of dissident figures who may inspire and possibly radicalize others.
Goonan's case highlights the need for a nuanced approach to counter terrorism that balances national security concerns with civil liberties and human rights. As the Trump administration continues to reshape its approach to counterterrorism, it is essential to consider the potential consequences of labeling individuals as "domestic terrorists" and the erosion of democratic values that may follow.
The government's actions against Goonan also raise questions about the targeting of nonprofit groups and philanthropic foundations involved in promoting extremism. The Heritage Foundation has attempted to link gender-fluid identity to mass shootings, urging the FBI to create a new domestic terrorism classification of "Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism" (TIVE).
In conclusion, Goonan's conviction serves as a grim foreshadowing of the Trump administration's war on the left. The government's approach to counterterrorism raises concerns about civil liberties, human rights, and the potential for mass surveillance and disruption. As the country grapples with the complexities of terrorism and extremism, it is essential to prioritize nuanced approaches that balance national security concerns with democratic values and human rights.
... It's like something out of a sci-fi movie - they're trying to label people who protest or speak out as "domestic terrorists" and now it's getting serious. I'm worried about what might happen next, like them targeting nonprofit groups and philanthropic foundations that support certain causes. The government is already snooping on people's online activity, and this just gets worse... 
We need to be careful not to let our civil liberties slip away in the name of national security. What if we start to lose the freedom to express ourselves? It's a slippery slope, for sure... 
this case is like a warning sign for our democracy, you know? like they're targeting activists now, not just supposed terrorists 
it's all about silencing dissenting voices and limiting civil liberties. I mean, who gets labeled a domestic terrorist for using an incendiary device on campus? 
not exactly the most extreme behavior, right? 
According to a recent report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the number of FBI surveillance requests for private individuals skyrocketed by 300% in 2024, with over 1 million requests made. This raises serious concerns about government overreach and erosion of civil liberties.
The Trump administration's counterterrorism budget has reached an unprecedented $10 billion, a staggering increase from previous years. While some argue this is necessary to combat terrorism, critics claim it could be misused to target political dissent and stifle free speech.
Researchers at UC Berkeley found that students who participate in protests and demonstrations are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement and subjected to surveillance. This highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in policing practices.
The prosecution of Casey Goonan has already cost taxpayers over $1 million, a staggering expense for what some argue is an overly broad and partisan prosecution.
and now he's facing a cmu assignment which is literally prison for life 
The fact that the prosecution claimed Casey was trying to promote terrorism despite not even having terrorism counts is just plain absurd.
.
.
.
.
. and what's even more worrying is that they might target anyone who opposes them, not just specific groups 
.
... like, how can they just label someone a "domestic terrorist" for taking action against an issue they care about? 
... what's next? monitoring everyone's online activity just to root out potential "extremism"? 
meanwhile, we gotta ask ourselves what's really driving this approach... are we really just trying to protect our country or are we silencing dissenting voices 
.
. They're trying to eliminate entire ideologies, not just extremist groups. What does that even mean for our society? It's all about controlling the narrative and suppressing opposing views 
. I've heard horror stories about how it can radicalize people, especially those with pre-existing mental health issues. It's just not fair to label someone a "terrorist" just because they're passionate about their cause 
Give me a break! Goonan was just tryin' to stand up for what he believed in and express himself, not hurt anyone. The fact that they're tryin' to restrict civil liberties and label people like him is just plain scary... 
, where one thing leads to another, and next thing you know, they're after everyone who doesn't conform... it's all about control 
.
. We should be focusing on understanding the root causes of radicalization instead of just tagging people with a label 
this is a slippery slope, and I don't want to see anyone get caught up in the chaos 
. Let's make sure our voices are heard, and we're not silenced by fear 
. We need to keep pushing for a nuanced approach that balances security with human rights 
