FBI allegedly investigating Peace Activists...
 

Following are two links to the same story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/national/23FBI.html

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...&_mpc=news%2e6

This was like a punch in the gut or a slap in the face to me.

Didn't we learn anything about Civil Liberties during the Vietnam era?

I'm all for protecting our country, but things like this and the so called Patroit Act scare the hell out of me. I think these are huge affronts to the Constitution and the Democracy it represents.

DeltAlum, why does this scare the hell out of you?

Re: FBI allegedly investigating Peace Activists...
 

Do you have something to hide?

-Rudey
--Like were you a gun runner or something?

Plutonium
 

I hope that I'm not putting words in DeltAlum's mouth, but what I think he is saying is, "What's the big deal if someone wants to make a few extra bucks selling weapons grade plutonium at a peace rally?"

Re: Plutonium
 

Funny guy.

And, no, I have nothing to hide, Rudey -- nor did the people from organizations the the FBI investigated during the 60's just because they MAY have disagreed with our involvement in Vietnam. Congress finally had to clip their wings a bit.

Or why they investigated politicians. Or why the administration had the IRS audit potential "enemys."

Every hear of the "White House Enemy's List" under the Nixon presidency? Not that Johnson probably didn't do the same thing.

I think that the Patriot Act has opened American Citizens up to this questionable, if not illegal, scrutiny again.

As I said to James on IM a couple of days ago, Orwell may have been right -- only he missed the timing by about twenty years.

I support law enforcement, but not if it tramples on our Constitutional rights.

That's why we have a Constitution, isn't it?

Because of this kind of thing, as reported by the Washington Post from a discussion about the Watergate Scandal:

"Electronic surveillance presented a threat to civil liberties. Abuse of "national security" and "executive privilege" to thwart the investigation suggested that those concepts needed more precise definitions...(edit)...The willingness of Nixon and his aides to use the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in unlawful or unethical ways against their “enemies” was a reckless exploitation of the bureacracy."

That's why. It happened before, and when offered the climate and opportunity, I think it can easily happen again.

George Bush is not Nixon. This is not Vietnam.

However, some of these groups have been known to do some crazy, sometimes violent and dangerous stuff in their "protests". Who can guess at the FBI's intentions?

Personally, I'm not too big on conspiracies. I'm more inclined to believe that the FBI is not happy with the tactics that some of these folks are using. In some cases, they're bordering on being like these eco-terrorist groups like ELF.

I'm all for peaceful protest. But anything past that goes beyond free speech.

But, if you choose to participate in an anti-war protest do you want your picture to go into an FBI file noting you as a "questionable" citizen or possible "enemy"? If you organize a protest do you want to end up being on a "no fly" list so that you are strip searched each time you fly? (as that article seemed to indicate has happened to some) A training camp for protestors could be simply to educate the protestors so that they don't break the law, but protest peacefully and within expected limits.

I agree with Delt Alum.. scary stuff. They have taken the Patriot Act too far and our Civil Liberties are slipping away.

Dee

Is there a way to read either of these articles without logging into AOL or NYTimes?

It could easily go either way. We should not jeapordize people's lives in the name of political correctness. I'm sure normal peaceful protests are treated fairly. Once they go beyond this to inciting violence, rioting, etc.. I think they are actually a "questionable" citizen or possible "enemy" -- I sure as hell wouldn't want to fly on a plane with a member of the Earth Liberation Front.

This is a very different type of protest. These are not the peaceful, sit-in, put a flower in your gun protesters of the 70's that were so high they could never pose a threat.

The first thing I want to refer to are the violent protests that are taking hold all over the world. Cities are destroyed and police are called out to keep these rioters pretending to be protesters under control. In fact certain organizations hire anarchists specifically for their protests who travel from location to location and only stop once police are able to identify them across a list of very dangerous people. I guess that list shouldn't exist according to you.

The second thing is that as different as a lot of organizations on the left are that protest, they have found something incredibly powerful. That something is to aggregate their protests. In an anti-war rally you will see anti-globalization protesters, you will see environmentalist protestors, and you will see terror defending anti-Israel protesters. When you have the merging of all these causes into one, really is any protest innocent anymore?

While the constitution does defend your right to free speech, it also allows the government to act on certain speech. Why is someone who writes a threat to the president arrested?? It's free speech and he is protesting against the president. So why shouldn't a group be monitored if there is a strong possibility that criminal elements will be present??

You are so worried about this but you have no idea how much you are under monitor. For a long time the NSA has monitored every single phone call out there. Cell phone providers have provided access keys to move around encryption to law enforcement. Your internet provider monitors the websites you go to, your employer monitors your computer usage and so much more. One of the solutions I worked on for a consulting firm was a system to monitor employee loyalty based on emails, interactions with staff, and other factors like pay. I have no idea to what level this system is used now but as soon as the groundwork was developed a ton of big name companies asked us to come in and present it to them as well as the original firm. They wanted to flag anyone that could present a risk whatsoever.

-Rudey

Rudey, et al,

Actually, I know a fair amount about the National Security Agency and it's electronic surveilance. Interestingly, I don't have much of a problem with that, because it is a mass undertaking. My problem is when individual people or groups are targeted simply because someone is suspicious that they might not agree with the government.

I'm not talking about the Weather Underground, I'm talking about groups as mundane as the Salvation Army.

Second, I have absolutely no problem with infiltrating terrorists groups -- who are destroying the cities in acts of violence -- not demonstrators.

It is a violent world -- we all know it -- but there are still certain tenants that should not be broken.

I'm afraid some of them are.

As for President Bush not being Richard Nixon, well, I've not been totally impressed with the waffling on things said before and after the war -- and now regarding when Iraq will or won't be self governing, etc.

Of course, it will take a long time (God forbid it should happen) for the casualities to mount to the level of Vietnam, but there are parts of this conflict which are very similar, not the least of which is trying to form a democratic government in a place where not everyone wants one. We've always had trouble with that concept. We believe (I certainly do) that the United States is the best place in the world to live and that our system is the best. Not everyone agrees.

Our military was magnificent in the "set piece" part of this war. They're not at nearly such an advantage in a guerilla type conflict. It was the same in Vietnam.

What is scary is that so many of the things that are happening, and that we are hearing are the same as it was during the Vietnam era. If you will look back at some of the threads from the early part of this war, you will see that I was worried about that then.

Having said all of that, what worries me as much as anything is that our national will will crumble with mounting casualities, and we will force a government on Iraq that is not ready to govern, and then pull out of Iraq and make them take power before they're ready, and that ten years from now, we'll be in the same mess.

It was political implications of Vietnam that in many ways ended both the Nixon and Johnson terms as President. Frankly, I hope that President Bush doesn't buckle to the political pressures.

As for the "non-violent" activities of the 60's and 70's, please don't forget about ROTC buildings being burned to the ground, bombings, etc. I remeber Athens, Ohio with a National Guardsman with rifles and fixed bayonets standing at every second parking meter. I was there.

They weren't nearly as bad, obviously, as the World Trade Center, but people did die or were injured. There were excesses on both sides.

And finally, remember Kent State where several students who were not involved in the demonstration -- and in fact not really in the vicinity -- were killed. I was working as a TV director an hour away from Kent and had friends there.

Our defense is very important, but not at the infringement of our civil rights.

Really, my main concern is this: Organizations like the FBI, IRS, and CIA -- whom I admire most of the time -- can get carried away. Again, it's the old "give them an inch..." syndrome.

I truly hope that I'm over-reacting to this situation -- but they say that history repeats itself and it certainly sounds to me as if that is a possibility in this case.

(I don't know if you can view the threads without subscribing -- but the NY Times online subscription is free)

I won't respond to the first part because the war in Iraq and its similarities to Vietnam do not interest me.

Yes, you can always be afraid of the give them an inch scenario. But on the other hand if you give a terrorist an inch they will want more and pretty soon you'll have suicide murderers guiding planes into buildings.

-Rudey
--What's your solution?

I think perhaps they should interest you, because that's where the danger lies, I think. Had you experienced those times, you might feel differently. But, whatever.

I was editing while your were posting, but again I think there is a considerable difference between terriorism and demonstration.

We all have different experiences. I've experienced living on several continents and being in a country immediately after a revolution. But, whatever I'm immature and think I'm always right so this shouldn't matter to the thread.

And your post ignored what mine said. If you'd like, re-read it and address the fact that a lot of protestors are violent and anarchists and include terrorists in their ranks and the fact that protestors have started to come together and at any anti-war protest you will see elements from every other branch on the left trying to get their view across (environment, free-trade, middle east).

Also, I was wondering if you could recommend a solution. Or should we just eliminate this and worry about that when a couple bombs blow up?

-Rudey
--Just wondering.

Well, I don't recall saying anything about immature anywhere above.

There might be some terrorists in some organizations or a peace movement. You call it a fact, but I haven't seen any concrete proof of it.

If I had a solution, I'd be working for the government and making a lot more money than I am now. But I hope that any solution I might come up with wouldn't stretch the limits of any law or of the Constitution. I think some of the present practices do.

On the other hand, I'm sure you're right, because you sig used to say that, so I'll just take it on faith that you're a lot brighter than I am. Then again, I've never claimed to be right on much of anything. I present my opinions and experiences.

However, I do think I'll exercise my right to believe what I think is right, and what I think is over the line.

Terrorists:
So members of ELF do not ever participate in animal rights protests? I guess me saying that isn't proof but common sense so I'll try and stick to facts.

In Seattle what happened?
How much damage was caused there by "protesters"?
Those anarchists who set fires, attacked people wouldn't be considered terrorists?

At a recent trade talk in Miami, police immediately arrested a group of anarchists who they got tipped off to that were staying in an abandoned mansion and preparing for violent actions. Thus the only violence shown were fires, smoke bombs, etc.

Every country in the world checks the names of those entering their country. They even have a ban list - with a great deal of names of people who are self-labeled anarchists (terrorists really). Even on a very basic level, Italy will try and search for certain English citizens if there is a big football game and try to detain them even before they do anything. These people are not sitting in and simply passing out educational literature.

So there just might be violent terrorists at these protests who cause millions of damage a year, are arrested with bombs, set fires, attack police, etc.

Now the fact is that different protest streams are coming together. Miami limited the number of people who could come in but Seattle didn't and had protesters for every cause there. If you have an anti oil drilling protest, there is now a good chance that there will be people protesting for animals and against the war. The majority are level-headed but it can attract the anarchists/terrorists from this large pooled resource of protesters. The little protests help prepare you for the big protests which probably will have more anarchists.

And why do you disagree with this surveillance but not others? Why haven't you said anything about the government having full access to every phone conversation out there? Heck I have surveillance on me - the NASD and SEC would destroy me if I were to violate their rules and I have to constantly submit information for them to know I'm not. But maybe it's because you relate to this more.

So what are you disagreeing with here? You can have an opinion that you don't want the government spying on you. But you can't just say "It is my opinion that there are no terrorists at any protests". You are trying to merge fact and opinion. And while you're entitled to your opinion, maybe it's a bit better to try and offer a possible solution without just tearing it down.

And no you only call me immature and say I always think I'm right on special days. Today doesn't seem to be one of them pops.

-Rudey

That was well put Rudey. You said exactly what I was thinking. Except, for the last paragraph. I think DeltAlum is by far, one of the more level headed mods. Anyways, thanks Rudey. Very good post.

Thanks, sonny.

LOL - at least you have a sense of humour.

And Bethany, DeltAlum knows what I'm referring to and it's not a matter in this thread.

-Rudey

Well if you have nothing to hide then why worry about anything at all I guess.

I mean search my car, search my house, my personal self. If we are doing nothing ilegal than it should not in the least concern us?

The primary argument of those that are in favor of harsher security measures is that the safety of the "american People" overrides anyone's generic civil rights.

People seem to remain unconcerned that those quirky and often inhibitary (at least to government agencies) civil rights are actually what gives this country its basic character. Perhaps even more than the capitalism we practice.

But those arguments are hard for me to counter. When you say that your right for your children to live and be protected from imminent death by terrorists supersedes my right to privacy . . . well its hard for me to argue qualitatively.

Or if you disagree that the USA as a nation state has been definied by its Civili Liberties, and believe that they are basically just antiquated ideals that should be cast by the wayside in our effort to protect our children . . . well again, what acceptable response presenting my right to privacy and not being hassled by government agencies is there to make?

After all there is an assumption of trust between human beings and most especially in our instritutions isn't there?

The idea is that if we give blanket powers to government agencies to protect our children, they will not in anyway use these powers in ways not intended by the framers of the law.

Further that people entrusted with these powers will be imbued witha superior sense of fair play and won't make mistakes or manipulate the statutes to achieve their objectives.

If these things are true, then maybe we shouldn't be worried about losing civil liberties?

I admit to being a simple person and perhaps these arguments are too sophistacted for me.

All I know is that people since the beginning of time and in whatever part of the world remain people.

All I know is that many nations that have developed a "secret police" or something with that power have come to regret it.

I know that humans can be fallible, manipulative and petty. I know that power structures lend themselves to corruption and abuse.

I know that law is a tool and that the way that tool is used is determined by the capabilities and ethics of the people that use it.

Stepping down from my rhetorical high horse, it might be very naive to assume that there won't be abuses in a system that disregards a lot of civil liberties that we take for granted.

The capacity ot technology to track our lives is currently unsurpassed by any epoch of history.

Can anyone imagine how such massive files, centrally gathered could be used in unethical ways?

Maybe not today, tomorrow, but how do we guard against the abuses of ten years from now or more?

Then we will have a new population of people that will see these laws ina different light than the people handling them now. People that are somewhat restrained by having been trained in a system that has fully enforced civil liberties.

Even thoough that current system has led to such corruption as beating confessions from innocent people. Has anyone forgotten Illinois?

Can you imagine the excesses that can be perpetuated under the aegis of a system that has a certain disdain for civil liberties?

Sorry got to cut this short lol . . . got to go . . .

But Damn, you are all a lot more trusting of your fellow man given power than I am as well as maybe less a student of history and human nature.

We have created a state of war with no War DEclaration. We have created a state of emergency with no end and no limits . . can anyone cite some historical prescedents?

I'm with James & DeltAlum on this. I think James hit the nail on the head.... I just don't trust anyone to use that power fairly & consistently. People make mistakes, and people like power.

My mom is one of those people who says "I don't have anything to hide... if it's going to protect me...". But I think the principle is critical, and once we pass that line, it's hard to turn back.

When I was a freshman, I attended two meetings of the College Democrats on my campus with a couple friends. After that, we decided we just weren't that interested and forgot about it.

My junior year, George Bush came to campus. I didn't even want to go see the man. But one of my friends did. She called to get tickets (there was limited seating). She had been placed on a "black list" by the College Republican chapter which was partially responsible for bringing him to campus. Because she attended 2 meetings of the College Democrats 2.5 years beforehand. We found out we were all on that list. Even though none of us were active College Democrats and I know that myself and at least one other person was registered "independent" at the time. Even though I didn't want to hear him speak, I was pretty peaved about that.

So what if I participate in a peaceful protest next week to protect some local wildlife. The local law enforcement, following the prompts of the FBI, take my picture. They assemble a profile on me. Nothing on there except a couple traffic accidents. But in two months I'm flying to Wisconsin for a fraternity meeting. It just happens there is a protest planned in a nearby city in Wisconsin. I head through security and I'm flagged as "no fly". I may or may not be allowed to make my trip. Because of my previous actions, even though I was supposedly "protected" by the law.

And if any law enforcement has record of me EVER saying anything against a specific polititician, despite my "free speech", I'm in trouble because they now have an entire dosier on me. Because I might be a threat.

Do I think the above will happen? Not likely. Do I think it *could* happen? Yes. And that's why DeltAlum & James & myself are scared by this news.

So how exactly did you totally ignore the first part of your post and just to the last part? :P

Mobile companies have provided law enforcement with the ability to open up any encryption since the beginning.

The NSA has been picking up phone calls for a very long time. I can't remember when it started but it's been quite a while.

Countries prevent certain people from coming into their country after monitoring their behavior.

People are monitored after they are released from jail and rehabilitated.

The NASD watches me like a hawk.

There are cameras in department store changing rooms.

Your work most likely monitors everything you do.

Hoover had files on anyone and everyone. Martin Luther King had a file on him.

-Rudey
--So what's the difference? All can be abused.

That's what worries me.

Don't worry, be happy.

-Rudey

Rudey - have you ever heard this before: Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it?

There are SOME similarities, though I think the overall nature of the conflicts are very, very different. But I think Delt raises some important issues to ponder, some of which I agree with, some I do not, but it's good to be able to debate such issues freely, is it not?

"Those who forget history, are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana

I'd like to add this one by a brilliant little man: "He who cannot draw from 3000 years is living hand to mouth." Try it out next time you're at a bar. It impresses people.

I don't understand what your post has to do with mine? Now how about I turn this around on you and say we'll face another 9/11 because we chose to "refuse to learn the lessons of history." And I pointed out certain things. Did I say that he had no right to "debate such issues freely"? Nope, don't remember that.

-Rudey
--Goethe was his name, and unreturned love was his game.

Rudey, of course there is going to be another 9/11. Or something similar. Here or somewhere else. And we won't be able to counteract it because we always fight the last war. We make administative changes that may have prevented the previous disaster. Planning for the next one is a lot more difficult because the enemy will always work around the procedures we put in place.

ITs normal for people to be reactionary and come up with "we have to do SOMETHING policies" they aren't necessarily the right actions.

When someone's children do something bad the knee jerk reaction is to yell, or punish, or spank, or whatever. However, they may not be the most effective or necessary responses.

A lot of these security measures come under the "We have to do something" category of emotional excess after any tragedy.

As far as the prior ability of the government to keep tabs on me and everyone else. Well I have always been against that. What can I say. I don't want them invading my privacy. I am not sure what we can do about it. In fact I am almost sure that in todays environment you would be considered subversive for trying.

So to sum up. Somewhere somewhen a whole mess of people are going to die whether we become as strict as a totalitarian state or maintain the freedoms that used to make us who we thought we were.

If you really want to stop attacks, its not going to be through defense it will be through offense. And I am not sure a normal democracy can do that to the enemy. Its easier to terrify our own citizens.

I see
 

Yes, by your logic, we should also free people from jails. They actually have a movement for that. Nobody is saying throw everyone in jail - but they're saying some people should be in jail.

And I didn't see a thread on previous surveillance plus you asked for precedence so I'm not sure why you're brushing it off with a "I never liked surveillance to begin with" now.

-Rudey
--You realize there is a middle road?

Re: I see
 

The jail issue might be seperate. I would say if they are innocent of the crime they should be released.

As far as the middle road. Sure there would be. Habeus corpus has been suspended before and there have been some scholars that have pointed out that some security measures were self correcting after the a war was over.

The problem people are seeing now is that we have security measures inplace but no official war or state of emergency, just an intangible promise that there will be future attacks on Americans.

In other words people see these laws not ending, but instead being added to.

Again. I have no idea what we can do with it.

I don't brush off the surveillance issue, I have never liked it and again don't know what to do about it. I have a reasonable expectation of attaining some success in life and I certainly don't want to jeapordize it by appearing on some some list or in some file.

Re: Re: I see
 

So what great men have had success stolen from them through a list?

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: I see
 

I'm a little brain dead today. But I would return the question . . . Do you know of anyone or any time period where blacklisting oror some such has hurt people?

Re: Re: Re: Re: I see
 

Yes quite a while ago. The only blacklisting I can think of now is if you really do something to anger someone and he is influential.

-Rudey
--Oh also at places that deliver food, you can get blacklisted.

Could somebody please copy and paste the text of the news article into this thread so I can read it? It looks interesting, but I don't have New York Times or AOL membership, so I can't read it!

Tigerlilly,

John has asked that we not post copyrighted material since we don't have permission for its use.

The subscription to the NY Times Online if free. I read it daily.

Whoops. Good to know.