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.