Speakeasy forum

General discussion

DOJ now equating political dissent with terrorism?

by William Finder / August 16, 2004 2:46 AM PDT
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/politics/campaign/16fbi.html?th

(Link requires login to view)


?The unusual initiative comes after the Justice Department, in a previously undisclosed legal opinion, gave its blessing to controversial tactics used last year by the F.B.I in urging local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and antiwar demonstrations to counterterrorism squads. The F.B.I. bulletins that relayed the request for help detailed tactics used by demonstrators - everything from violent resistance to Internet fund-raising and recruitment.?
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: DOJ now equating political dissent with terrorism?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: DOJ now equating political dissent with terrorism?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Actually a careful reading shows that ...
by Edward ODaniel / August 16, 2004 3:14 AM PDT

this is something that has gone on for many years but the NYT is calling "unusual".

It is called INVESTIGATING.

The Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and there is already knowledge that AT LEAST one group funded through "progressive charities" such as the Tides Foundation, Ben & Jerry's Foundation, and the MacArthur, Ford and Rockefeller foundations are planning less than peaceful activites in New York during the Convention.

Some of these protestors include:

The "National People's Action" (NPA), an activist group whose advocacy includes rights for illegal immigrants.
"What distinguishes NPA from other liberal advocacy groups is its tactics. The group often publicizes the home addresses of business and government leaders it wants to shake down and then busing in protesters and schoolchildren (using public school buses) to invade the private property of their victims and intimidate their families."

"Peaceful Tomorrows"

The "Ruckus Society", an anarchist group known for disrupting the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle in 1999 and planning similar disruptions for the New York convention. The group has been training protesters for the GOP convention in the art of sit-ins and blockades.

Ramsey Clark's International Action Center's "United for Peace and Justice" (and a short read of what Ramsey Clark is all about tells the story).

the American Friends Service Committee, MADRE, the Institute for Policy Studies, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild.

Leslie Cagan, "United for Peace and Justice" national coordinator, a long-time communist revolutionary, also runs "International ANSWER", dominated by the Communist Workers World Party. The Communist Party USA is also one of the affiliated groups under the United for Peace and Justice coalition.

According to the New York Daily News, "...fringe elements are hoping to spark major disruptions 'with a series of sneaky tricks ? including fooling bomb-sniffing dogs on trains bound for Penn Station.'

'Internet-using anarchists are telling would-be troublemakers to decoy specially trained Labrador retrievers with gunpowder or ammonium nitrate-laced tablets in a bid to halt trains or even spur the evacuation of Madison Square Garden," the paper reported. "


This is NOT Constitutionally Protected dissent or protest.

The main questions being asked, according to the article you cited, bear this out too:

Interrogations have generally covered the same three questions, according to some of those questioned and their lawyers: were demonstrators planning violence or other disruptions, did they know anyone who was, and did they realize it was a crime to withhold such information.

This is in addition to the Intel that indicates possible or potential terrorist attempts to disrupt the election process. A LACK of action such as is being taken would be criminal.

Collapse -
Re: Actually a careful reading shows that ...
by Dan McC / August 16, 2004 4:02 AM PDT

What's your source for all this? It wasn't in the article that Bill posted.

Dan

Collapse -
I cited several sources.
by Edward ODaniel / August 16, 2004 4:55 AM PDT

Are you incapable of locating them?

Collapse -
Re: I cited several sources.
by William Finder / August 16, 2004 5:12 AM PDT

You didn't supply any sources. All you did was bandy about a number of names. This is a perfect example of the 'First Rule of Political Debate' - "If you can't dazzel them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***."

I feel sorry for those who would sell their birthright for a chance to grovel at the feet of their perceived master.

Collapse -
But I most certainly did...
by Edward ODaniel / August 16, 2004 6:36 AM PDT

supply several specific sources for the information. What I did not supply were direct links.

Sources of funding were stated and they provide info regarding who they provide funds to. "Groups" were named and they provide infor regarding where they get their funding.

Media was cited and being New York media is not difficult to locate with tools such as Google.

Try a search on the following for instance (include quotes) and you will get several hits:
"New York Daily News" with "major disruptions"

You could also try "New York Daily News" with "protest" or several other combinations and find the same info.

Apparently the SECOND RULE is "If you lack brilliance and/or ability to recognize sources when cited and require hand holding, complain when not spoon fed adequately to your personal preferences."


Collapse -
Re: I cited several sources.
by Dan McC / August 16, 2004 6:38 AM PDT

Neither dazzled or baffled, thanks. I was most interested in seeing what bunch of kooks would list the ACLU and intimate it would have violent protest activities planned.

Dan

Collapse -
Must have been something else then because...
by Edward ODaniel / August 16, 2004 1:21 PM PDT

no one said or hinted that the ACLU planned any violent protest activies. They were included simply because they plan on supporting the protestors as does the National Lawyers Guild.

Might try not skimming and you won't miss the little things like "AT LEAST one group funded through "progressive charities" such as the Tides Foundation, Ben & Jerry's Foundation, and the MacArthur, Ford and Rockefeller foundations are planning less than peaceful activites in New York during the Convention." which doesn't include either of the above.

Pay attention if you can't pay heed.

Collapse -
YOU should be able to follow local news
by Evie / August 16, 2004 9:22 PM PDT

I'm listening to WABC radio as I type and they are discussing the potential for violence by these radical groups. Mayor Menino of Boston (Democrat) is warning Bloomberg about this kind of crap. Are you aware that one group is advocating sprinkling small amounts of explosives in the subways to tire out the bomb sniffing dogs? How SICK is that??

I didn't see any of your phony accusation that someone was accusing the ACLU of being part of this.

Collapse -
Re: YOU should be able to follow local news
by Marty Lofton / August 17, 2004 7:15 AM PDT

"I didn't see any of your phony accusation that someone was accusing the ACLU of being part of this."

Michael Savage has and is.

Collapse -
Re: YOU should be able to follow local news
by Evie / August 17, 2004 7:30 AM PDT

This is not about what one can find on any media outlet in NYC area, this was about Ed's information and Dan's gratuitous and erroneous response.

I don't listen to Savage often, but he is no fan of the ACLU. However, I would challenge you to find where he has even insinuated that the ACLU is on the level of these radicals in terms of inciting violence during protests.

Hmmmmm..... scratches head ...... now who was it here in SE in times past that used to be a devoted listener of Savage?

Collapse -
Re: YOU should be able to follow local news
by Marty Lofton / August 17, 2004 8:17 AM PDT

I'm not a devoted Savage listener and if you listened enough, you would know that he thinks the ACLU lawyers should go to jail like the trouble makers. He think they are more evil than DE thinks lefties are.

Collapse -
Re: YOU should be able to follow local news
by Evie / August 17, 2004 11:22 AM PDT

Savage is no fan of the ACLU. I'm not either.

You trail away from the issue because you simply cannot support the assertion that Savage has said what Dan is accusing kooks of saying about the ACLU.

Time for a margarita with LOTS of salt on the rim.

Collapse -
Re: YOU should be able to follow local news
by Marty Lofton / August 17, 2004 4:18 PM PDT

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that I agree with anything Dan may be saying. I AM saying that Savage says that the ACLU lawyers should be put in jail along with those protestors who break the law.

Saying Savage is no fan of the ACLU is a gross understatement.

Collapse -
If I don't understand ...
by Evie / August 18, 2004 2:01 AM PDT

... it is because in the flow of this thread you changed course. Ed posted some info on the groups, Dan wanted to know what kooks were claiming the ACLU incites violence, to which you inserted (paraphrasing) that Savage has done that. No he hasn't. He hasn't even incited violence against the ACLU. He just thinks that when they campaign to keep scum on the street, they ought to be locked up along with them when they offend again.

Collapse -
Now, that was...SAVAGE.
by Edward ODaniel / August 17, 2004 8:18 AM PDT
Hmmmmm..... scratches head ...... now who was it here in SE in times past that used to be a devoted listener of Savage?

Devil

Collapse -
Re: DOJ now equating political dissent with terrorism?
by Angeline Booher / August 16, 2004 8:41 AM PDT

I can accept the necessity of being aware of those bent on more than peaceful protest. Government agents cannot be everywhere, so using local law enforcement in a judicious fashion could help notice those who have infiltrated the peaceful groups to aid their terrorist plans. Of course, the magic word here is judiciously.

My hope is that this is different from Hoover's using the FBI as he did, Nixon's gathering of his "enemies list", and the tactics of McCarthy.

The goal of terrorists is to kill as many as possible. Off hand I cannot think of reasons why they would want to be part of protests and demonstrations except to case the area and maybe recruit. Just a thought, but I think a better use of their time would be working with groups like Aryan Nation.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: more than peaceful protest

Hi, Angeline.

As with the "free speech zones," I think the DOJ is using the war on terror as an excuse to stifle even peaceful dissent.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: DOJ now equating political dissent with terrorism?
by Dan McC / August 16, 2004 11:00 PM PDT

The goal of terrorists is to instill fear and degrade our way of life.

They've done the first part, now we're doing the rest.

Dan

Collapse -
I presume that this statement...
by Edward ODaniel / August 17, 2004 6:50 AM PDT
"They've done the first part, now we're doing the rest." of yours indicates that you are aware that it "progressive" organizations that are advocating the disruption of traffic and security as being "their part" to "instill fear and degrade our way of life".

You should be ashamed of any association with them rather than aligning yourself with them. We as a nation do not have any need for you "progressives" doing your part by disruption, deceit, and dishonorable political terrorism.

Collapse -
Re: I presume that this statement...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / August 17, 2004 9:47 PM PDT

No, Ed -- it's the current Administration's policies in the name of fighting terorism that are endangering the liberties we hold sacred. We are doing the terrorists jobs for them -- just as they doubtless anticipated. The oxymoronic "free speech zones" are the best example, but just about all of the Patriot Act counts as well. And we won't even talk about patirot Act II, much of which has quietly been mandated by XO after public outcry scotched the direct approach.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
So it's Bush's fault ...
by Evie / August 18, 2004 2:09 AM PDT

... for example, that we need to have dogs sniffing in the subways? And I suppose it is also his fault when tougher measures need be taken when the protestors sprinkle powder to saturate/tire the dogs out rendering such less invasive measures impotent too.

Dave, after 9/11 once the dust settled, there was a whole lot of finger pointing at Bush and his asministration for not conneting the dots. We change the rules so the dots cna be connected (by near unanimous consent of Congress) and now it's Bush's fault for applying them.

Frankly, I would rather have those measures in place in NYC than have my health "protected" by a smoking ban ... probably soon to be extended to the sidewalks Sad

Evie Happy

Collapse -
No Dave...
by Edward ODaniel / August 18, 2004 6:56 AM PDT

it is the "protest groups" who think violence and other indicated activies are legitimate protest who further the goals of terrorism.

Tell me, why do you want "more cops on the street"? If it isn't to reduce crime or criminal activies there is no need for them. If it is they need to be able to investigate intel that indicates potential crime or criminal activies. There is NOTHING anti First Ammendment about this, just typical law enforcement activies.

Aren't you wondering even a little why the Democrits are just now lamenting about this although the investigation started before the Democratic Convention targetting those involved in previous violent or unruly activies as protest or those with known associations with such groups.

The "free speech zones" you whinge about repeatedly have been a fact of life for several Administrations. They came about because assassination attempts were made and unruly crowds are much more difficult to control.

While I do not agree fully with all provisions of the "Patriot Act" I note that it was one of the few really bi-partisan acts in many years AND the more onerous parts have sunset provisions.

Just like not being able to yell FIRE in a crowded building does not infringe on Free Speech, neither does heading off criminal protests (such are not protected by the First not any other Ammendment) and the investigation is intended to do.

Your prior indoctrination and protesting likely is partially to blame for your apparent feeling that illegal activies should be embraced as free speech rather than as the criminal activies that they actually are.

Collapse -
Your presumption skill are astoundingly poor.
by Dan McC / August 18, 2004 1:55 AM PDT

DaveK understood right away what you were unable or unwilling to.

Dan

Collapse -
In other words...
by Edward ODaniel / August 18, 2004 7:00 AM PDT

I was completely correct and it bothers you to see it pointed out.

Lenin and Stalin were "progressives" too and had a colorful term for the people like you they depended on for furthering their goals and agendas.

Collapse -
Re: New York times password
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / August 16, 2004 2:25 PM PDT

(New York Times login speakeasygang; pw = speakeasy)

Collapse -
The knock on the door ......
by RB2D2 / August 17, 2004 12:38 PM PDT
In reply to: New Article

I especially liked this part. Happy

"Meanwhile, history suggests that the way to find out what potentially violent protesters are planning is not to send F.B.I. officers bearing questionnaires to the doorsteps of potential demonstrators. As became clear in the 1960's, F.B.I. monitoring of youthful dissenters is notoriously unreliable. The files that were created in the past often proved to be laughably inaccurate."

And this says it all.

"F.B.I. officials insist that the people they interview are free to "close the door in our faces," but by then the damage may already have been done. The government must not be allowed to turn a war against foreign enemies into a campaign against critics at home."
Sad

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?