Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 � The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.
The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used "training camps" to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site.
F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and "extremist elements" plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters.
The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption. [P6: Here is the delusion…that monitoring the speech of those who disagree with the Bushistas somehow enhances crowd control. The demonstrators had no knowledge of this "initiative", so it had no impact on their behavior. The demonstrations were largely free of violence because the demonstrators weren't violent.]
But some civil rights advocates and legal scholars said the monitoring program could signal a return to the abuses of the 1960's and 1970's, when J. Edgar Hoover was the F.B.I. director and agents routinely spied on political protesters like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we're going back to the days of Hoover."
Posted by P6 at November 23, 2003 07:15 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2354The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption. [P6: Here is the delusion�that monitoring the speech of those who disagree with the Bushistas somehow enhances crowd control. The demonstrators had no knowledge of this "initiative", so it had no impact on their behavior. The demonstrations were largely free of violence because the demonstrators weren't violent.]Not so. Identifying the dangerous elements allows you to arrest those elements before they can commit worse crimes than forging ID (like using that ID to do something worse.) As a libertarian, I am warry of domestic intelligence, but there has to be a trade-off of some kind there. I've been doing a lot of reserarch on eco-terrorism at work, and the threat from anarchist and marxist groups (the vast majority of the eco-terrorists are actually luddites or hardline communist) is very real.
Yeah, a lot of the things that they ask for (like PATRIOT II) are unecessary, but there is a necessary level. The alternative is for guys like me to respond to the threat vigilante style and start popping hippies.
Identifying the dangerous elements allows you to arrest those elements before they can commit worse crimes than forging ID (like using that ID to do something worse.)
Forging ID? Where'd that come from?
"As a libertarian"...
"threat from anarchist and marxist groups (the vast majority of the eco-terrorists are actually luddites or hardline communist) is very real"
Of course it is a threat. For libertarians. Because apparently libertarians love to stop the government from regulating companies that destory the environment and pay workers poverty wages. Yet if anyone stands up to these companies, suddenly its the job of the government to stop them.
And lets settle with the "eco-terrorists" bull. Or if we are going to just throw the term 'terrorist' around, then how about the government stop these academia-terrorists who keep making me write papers.
[sarcasm]It's those damned left-wingers again. The root of all evil.[/sarcasm]
Of course it is a threat. For libertarians. Because apparently libertarians love to stop the government from regulating companies that destory the environment and pay workers poverty wages.
Actually, we love to stop goverment from regulating. (That's a period.) The rest is just fluff, kinda like the statement "Leftists like to regulate drug production that makes it too expensive for poor people to buy the drugs they need to be healthy."
As for
And lets settle with the "eco-terrorists" bull. Or if we are going to just throw the term 'terrorist' around, then how about the government stop these academia-terrorists who keep making me write papers.
Those professors may be an insidious threat, but they aren't violent. They haven't killed people. The Unibomber has. They haven't burned down forests and houses. ELF has. They haven't crippled blue-collar loggers. ELF has.
Of course it is a threat. For libertarians. Because apparently libertarians love to stop the government from regulating companies that destory the environment and pay workers poverty wages.Actually, we love to stop goverment from regulating. (That's a period.) The rest is just fluff
Valid point.
But I don't see how "Identifying the dangerous elements allows you to arrest those elements before they can commit worse crimes" is not regulating.
dictionary.com: regulate - 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
But if libertarians "love to stop goverment from regulating. (That's a period.)" why can't i take a gun and start shooting people? Under a libertarian state wouldn't I be allowed to do that? And if not, then where is the line drawn? And who gets to draw the line? (those are questions)
"Those professors may be an insidious threat, but they aren't violent. They haven't killed people. The Unibomber has. They haven't burned down forests and houses. ELF has. They haven't crippled blue-collar loggers. ELF has."
But you are equaliting eco-terrorism with anarchists and marxists. Sure, anarchists are scary (and could use to bathe more), but so are disgruntled professors.
And what do you care about the blue-collar loggers? I mean, from a libertarian standpoint, if the ELF were a company and they burned down a few forests and blew up a few SUVs isn't that all part of libertarians free market competition? If they are being more efficient and more productive than the logging companies then shouldn't the logging companies go under? Again, where is the line? (These are more questions)
"I've been doing a lot of research on eco-terrorism at work, and the threat from anarchist and marxist groups (the vast majority of the eco-terrorists are actually luddites or hardline communist) is very real."
We could just as easily say that black people are more likely to committ violent crime because, "hey! Lots of hardcore criminals are black. I guess we should start installing those implants to monitor their movements." (this was sarcasm)
thanks for the warning, phelps, i'm off to the store to pick up some body armor. are you going to be doing any pre-emptive strikes? i need to know whether i should paint my windows black or not.
if i step on your property without your permission, by all means, take your best shot; but if what you are implying is that you'd gladly come down to, oh say an anti-WTO demonstration for example with a rifle in hand to pick off guys like me, then i'm a little confused about what your point is...
in my world, see, i would tend to identify you as a "dangerous element" just for saying that. even though i'd fight to the death to defend your freedom to say it.
and if you think i'm being hyperbolic, that is EXACTLY the level things got to around demonstrations in my town post-patriot act. the police were armed to the teeth, they landed with both feet on peaceful demonstrators who they pegged as "organizers/instigators", the court cases for those they hauled in are STILL crawling along, including close examination of the judge setting a higher bail than for murderers and armed robbers, and meanwhile the taxpayers' money just swirls down the honey-hole...
be careful what dogs you set loose brother, they'll be coming for you next.
But I don't see how "Identifying the dangerous elements allows you to arrest those elements before they can commit worse crimes" is not regulating.dictionary.com: regulate - 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
Keep reading: "A governmental order having the force of law. Also called executive order." That means that it isn't a true law, but instead the fiat of the executive branch. That is the regulation that I am talking about.
But if libertarians "love to stop goverment from regulating. (That's a period.)" why can't i take a gun and start shooting people? Under a libertarian state wouldn't I be allowed to do that? And if not, then where is the line drawn? And who gets to draw the line? (those are questions)
Because shooting that gun infringes the right to life of the people you are shooting at. No, you wouldn't be allowed to do that in a libertarian state. The line is drawn where your bullet intersects someone else's property (including their body.) The rule of law draws the line.
"Those professors may be an insidious threat, but they aren't violent. They haven't killed people. The Unibomber has. They haven't burned down forests and houses. ELF has. They haven't crippled blue-collar loggers. ELF has."But you are equaliting eco-terrorism with anarchists and marxists. Sure, anarchists are scary (and could use to bathe more), but so are disgruntled professors.
And what do you care about the blue-collar loggers? I mean, from a libertarian standpoint, if the ELF were a company and they burned down a few forests and blew up a few SUVs isn't that all part of libertarians free market competition? If they are being more efficient and more productive than the logging companies then shouldn't the logging companies go under? Again, where is the line? (These are more questions)
Eco-terrorism is equal to marxists and anarchists. I care about blue-collar workers because they are human and have human rights (like the right to life.) Burning down forests that ELF doesn't own isn't competition -- it is a violation of property rights. If ELF wants to go out and buy all the logging companies and shut them down, go for it. They have that right. They don't have the right to vandalize. I'm not sure what your definition of efficiency is; as far as I know, ELF has never supplied any lumber. Again, the line is the rule of law.
"I've been doing a lot of research on eco-terrorism at work, and the threat from anarchist and marxist groups (the vast majority of the eco-terrorists are actually luddites or hardline communist) is very real."We could just as easily say that black people are more likely to committ violent crime because, "hey! Lots of hardcore criminals are black. I guess we should start installing those implants to monitor their movements." (this was sarcasm)
Nope. But we can say that since black people are more likely to commit violent crimes, then we should put more police in black neighborhoods. I'm surprised that P6 lets this many straw-men get built. I guess he has a lot of confidence in my ability to defend myself.
We could just as easily say that black people are more likely to committ violent crime because, "hey! Lots of hardcore criminals are black. I guess we should start installing those implants to monitor their movements." (this was sarcasm)
i personally think strawmen are cute - i'm into the anorexic type; But if that argument was a strawman then he certainly needed to go to the bathroom and start vomitting some conditionals, i.e., "this was sarcasm."
But, since you don't like my strawmen (or sarcasm, whichever) we can stay in the realm of political discourse. But let's also play fair. No post-modernism. In other words, this statement is simply false: "Eco-terrorism is equal to marxists and anarchists."
You're reducing three subject-positions into one overdetermined symbolic construct. You simply cannot do that. Each involves its own antagonism that are not present on the same discursive field.
Roughly put, you cannot equate environmental discourse with historical-materialist discourse and rights-based "libertarian" discourse. Yes, i know i'm generalizign marxism and anarchism. But the funny thing this shows is that you are almost attacking yourself by combining marxism and anarchism.
Let's remember that anarchists are modern libertarians up to the point where modern libertarians overdetermine economic hegemonies (the term 'libertarian' was borrowed from anarcho-syndicalist writings, but we won't get into that 'property' issue).
On the other hand, a number of marxist theorists are also guilty of overdetermining economics (hidden in the form of class antagonisms.) So, those who now call themselves libertarians are strickingly similar to a combination of marxists and anarchists. Dropping that into your equation makes modern libertarians eco-terrorists?
Yes I know i did some fancy footwork here, and crossed so many discurisve planes.
But that's my point. That's why you can't do that. But let us,please, drop this disagreement because clearly you think you have enough evidence to support your generalization, and I disagree and despite rhetoric, we aren't going to agree. So lets focus on the real issue:
Okay, first i'm not finding the definition you provided on dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regulate
Either way, the definition you gave:
"A governmental order having the force of law. Also called executive order."
Does not not answer:
"how "Identifying the dangerous elements allows you to arrest those elements before they can commit worse crimes" is not regulating. "
Its cute that executive orders are also regulations; i think the original definition i gave did not exclude this.
"dictionary.com: regulate - 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law."
But how does this make "Identifying the dangerous elements allows you to arrest those elements before they can commit worse crimes" not regulation? Are you saying that executive orders are the only thing that qualify as regulation? Or do are you saying that libertarians only use 'regulation' in this sense?
How, also is a right to life not a regulation? I know i'm setting myself up here for a brutal assault. But I really want to know. Because is not a 'right to life' a principle? And if this principle is maintained by an authoritative body is it not a regulation?