During the Bush years, the United States government committed some of the most egregious crimes a government can commit. They plainly violated domestic law, international law, and multiple treaties to which the U.S. has long been a party. Despite that, not only has President Obama insisted that these crimes not be prosecuted, and not only has his Justice Department made clear that -- at most -- they will pursue a handful of low-level scapegoats, but far worse, the Obama administration has used every weapon it possesses to keep these crimes concealed, prevent any accountability for them, and even venerated them as important "state secrets," thus actively preserving the architecture of lawlessness and torture that gave rise to these crimes in the first place. Every Obama-justifying excuse for Looking Forward, Not Backwards has been exposed as a sham (recall, for instance, the claim that we couldn't prosecute Bush war crimes because it would ruin bipartisanship and Republicans wouldn't support health care reform). But even if those excuses had been factually accurate, it wouldn't have mattered. There are no legitimate excuses for averting one's eyes from crimes of this magnitude and permitting them to go unexamined and unpunished. The real reason why "Looking Forward, Not Backwards" is so attractive to our political and media elites is precisely because they don't want to face what they enabled and supported.
Constraints on speech are incompatible with a democracy. The Guild’s experiences and documentation at mass demonstrations clearly indicate that domestic anti-terrorism laws and policies and aggressive police practices have had a chilling effect on First Amendment protected speech. Would-be protesters or communities frequently targeted by the police, some of whom might be thinking about publicly exercising their First Amendment rights for the first time, may decide that it is not worth the risk of encountering police violence and possible arrest.
1) Falsely labeling protest rhetoric and political hyperbole as “true threats” to justify aggressive policing and prosecution 2) Using grand juries to harass political activists by imprisoning them, without specific criminal charges, for noncooperation with government investigations 3) Prosecuting leaders and those providing support to activists, often before or during events 4) Labeling, and stigmatizing, activists as “domestic terrorists 5) False statements by police, and laws prohibiting the photographing of police 6) Preemptive actions by police in the absence of illegal activity 7) Repression based on “evidence” fabricated by the police 8) Police-initiated violence and abusive use of less-lethal munitions against civilians 9) Negative media coverage