[spauldingg]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/na.../23FBI.html?hp (free subscription needed)

I'm sorry, six people hanging out in someones backyard practicing their chant "no blood for oil" or whatever is not a "training camp"

Hey Ashcroft! J.Edgar Hoover called, he wants his mentality back.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/na.../23FBI.html?hp (free subscription needed)

I'm sorry, six people hanging out in someones backyard practicing their chant "no blood for oil" or whatever is not a "training camp"

Hey Ashcroft! J.Edgar Hoover called, he wants his mentality back.

prong two:

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
prong two:

You're calling it correctly, Lerk.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
prong two:

Uh, what's this in reference to?

Anyway. I'm wondering if the more conservative members here are going to try to justify this, or just ignore it.

And I guess one of the reasons I posted this (my first topic starter in this politics lounge) is to maybe find out how to protest this without being labeled a protester: ie, terrorist.

[Developer]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
And I guess one of the reasons I posted this (my first topic starter in this politics lounge) is to maybe find out how to protest this without being labeled a protester: ie, terrorist.

Don't "train" your protest.

But the fact that you have asked here, i. e. that you are using the Internet to organize your protest, is proof that you are a terrorist.

Good luck in Guantanamo.

[spacefreak]

If there is a major protest being planned in open view (on the internet), and an order of 500 gas masks is placed by a group at the same time, you're damn right I want the authorities to be aware of if. If those same groups are openly soliciting and raising a significant amount of money, look even father.

Tear gas is used to qwell confrontations that have escalated to the point of violence. Its use protects people from what could be serious and fatal harm. In the interests of all people, should any group br preparing and planning to take a mass confrontation beyond the tear-gas point, I would like the authorities to be aware, know as much as possible about the event, and have plans ready to immediately respond to such a crisis.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If there is a major protest being planned in open view (on the internet), and an order of 500 gas masks is placed by a group at the same time, you're damn right I want the authorities to be aware of if.

I think the fact that they are anti war protesters means that they are peaceniks, therefore, peaceful. If they are not the peaceful kind then the will not be organizing "in open view." If they are that stupid in their organizing, then they are most probably too stupid to have a succesful non-peaceful protest.

If those same groups are openly soliciting and raising a significant amount of money, look even father.

Protesters are not allowed to raise money? For travel, Sign printing, whatever? And is it illegal to buy gas masks. Heck the govt wanted us to buy them post 9/11 and anthrax scare.

Tear gas is used to qwell confrontations that have escalated to the point of violence. Its use protects people from what could be serious and fatal harm.

So do gas masks. I think it's safe to assume that people who protest a (perceived) violent govt might fear tear gas even at a peaceful protest.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by Developer:
Don't "train" your protest.

But the fact that you have asked here, i. e. that you are using the Internet to organize your protest, is proof that you are a terrorist.

Good luck in Guantanamo.

Where's the smiley? You were kidding, right?

Oh. to clarify, when I said: "maybe find out how to protest this without being labeled a protester: ie, terrorist." I meant the implyed royal "we," not me specifically.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
I think the fact that they are anti war protesters means that they are peaceniks, therefore, peaceful. If they are not the peaceful kind then the will not be organizing "in open view." If they are that stupid in their organizing, then they are most probably too stupid to have a succesful non-peaceful protest.

So do gas masks. I think it's safe to assume that people who protest a (perceived) violent govt might fear tear gas even at a peaceful protest.

You are making a lot of assumptions - ones I do not want the authorities in charge of my well being to make.

[spauldingg]

Yes, I am making assumtions, but so is the govt.

They assume that if you don't like what they are doing you can be investigated, spied on etc...

"authorities in charge of my well being"
Ouch. These authorities are in charge of the well being of their political careers. Nothing more.

the article states: "Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with the police and to resolve any logistical issues," the memorandum continued.

This is just the "authorities in charge of our well being" changing the definition of "protester" into "terrorist". They are defining the terms of the argument in a way that allows them to use the patriot act to back up their attacks on legitimate legal protesters.

[voyageur]

If I felt I could trust Ashcroft and his posse to stick to investigating only groups that truly pose a violent threat...

But I don't.

From the article:

" 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. "

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
Yes, I am making assumtions, but so is the govt.

They assume that if you don't like what they are doing you can be investigated, spied on etc...

No, they are not assuming anything. They are preparing for all scenarios, including worst-case scenarios.

They now know (for example) that that a group equipped with 500 gas masks will be approaching a police line surrounding an event. With that information, the authorities can prepare other non-lethal restraint procedures in anticipation that tear gas will not turn away the packs.

Without that information, police and law enforcement officials may be overwhelmed initially, and have to resort to other, more lethal retraint methods in order to control a situation.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
Uh, what's this in reference to?

Several months ago, I had made this post:

Here's just something to stimulate conversation. Here is my pet "conspiracy theory". I like to think about them, even if I view them with a healthy grain of salt...

How would the neocons achieve their goals?

I envision a three prong approach...

prong one: control all three branches of the government, and the intel community. Rumsfeld has already created his "CIA within the CIA" group, and the office of Homeland Security puts everything under the purview of Tom Ridge. More and more power controlled by less and less people.

prong two: quell with extreme prejudice the rights of citizens to protest by removing their access to due process, paving the road for political prisoners, like there used to be in South Africa. Sure, now its "suspected" terrorists, but how long until its anyone who disagrees with the administration? without access to legal counsel, the outside world and being held indefinitely and executed without trial, the US will have the ability to "disappear" citizens who are vocally antiadministration, and there won't be any way to prevent it since it will all be done in secret, with no protections.

prong three: rubber stamp the middle east, and then the world, in the US image. with prongs one and two in place, prong three will proceed without interference.

I know I'm extrapolating a bit, but you have to admit, everything is heading in this direction.

now, how will we know this plan is in place, or working in the coming days?

--elimination of civil liberties, weakening the ability of the citizens to stop the juggernaut
-- reshaping of the present character of the checks and balances system (like trying to stop filibustering), in such a way to advantage the executive branch over the other branches.
-- More and more "disappeared" people, along with executions in Guantanamo.
--

Also look for:
-- scenario: Bush loses the popular vote, again, and wins the electoral vote, but the chasm is wider, making it obvious the electoral college has been manipulated.
-- the rescinding of the two term presidency.
-- the permanence of US bases in Iraq as a base of operations, with the dropping of the MOAB on Syria or Iran, to "make a strong case" for submission to the US.


anyways, you get the idea.
Keep in mind, I'm just freeforming this, but I also think at least some of it is probably accurate, as far as strategy.
Feel free to discuss it, tear it apart, come up with your own, etc.

Although I can simplify it more than I did several months ago:

prong one: control the government
prong two: control the people
prong three: control the middle east

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No, they are not assuming anything. They are preparing for all scenarios...

I'm an agreeable type, I'm even tempted to give you that one...if this was just an isolated case. From covering the statue of justice to hyping patriot II around the country on our dime, this guy has given absolutely no evidence that he understands the bill of rights.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[spauldingg]

Hey lerk, One of the reasons I rarely post here is because you always articulate so well what I believe. Maybe I should just chime in with one of these:

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
prong one: control the government
prong two: control the people
prong three: control the middle east
prong four: ????
prong five: profit!

[finboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
prong two:

I got your prong two right here.

[finboy]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
I think the fact that they are anti war protesters means that they are peaceniks, therefore, peaceful.

Man, you've been bamboozled.

I think if folks look deep into the parent organizations sponsoring the "grassroots" peace movement, they'll see socialists, Maoists, watermelons (greens who are pink on the inside) and pro-Palestinian groups linked to terrorist. The boards of the groups sponsoring the events in Britain during the past few weeks certainly qualify, but you won't read about it in The Guardian.

If you want to protest the war, great, but if you're doing it as a cover for anti-government activities, prepare to be investigated.

I don't have a problem with it. The US justice system is riddled with checks and balances, and we aren't going to have a repeat of the Hoover years any time soon. At least not with the pocket media on the case. We will, however, see more FUD about Big Brother, etc. Heck, last I checked many of the folks behind the scenes in peace groups were in favor of government control. Just not THIS government.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
Man, you've been bamboozled.

I think if folks look deep into the parent organizations sponsoring the "grassroots" peace movement, they'll see socialists, Maoists, watermelons (greens who are pink on the inside) and pro-Palestinian groups linked to terrorist. The boards of the groups sponsoring the events in Britain during the past few weeks certainly qualify, but you won't read about it in The Guardian.

If you want to protest the war, great, but if you're doing it as a cover for anti-government activities, prepare to be investigated.

I don't have a problem with it. The US justice system is riddled with checks and balances, and we aren't going to have a repeat of the Hoover years any time soon. At least not with the pocket media on the case. We will, however, see more FUD about Big Brother, etc. Heck, last I checked many of the folks behind the scenes in peace groups were in favor of government control. Just not THIS government.

you have certain, intimate knowledge of the peace activists' politics? Better be careful which one of your rightwing friends you brag about that to....

[Spliffdaddy]

Peace activists, by and large, are certainly NOT Republicans.

Which tells you all you need to know about peace activists.

[jbartone]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Peace activists, by and large, are certainly NOT Republicans.

Which tells you all you need to know about peace activists.

What are you trying to say?

EDIT: Hell, don't even bother answering.
I'll probably get some stupid response.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by jbartone:
What are you trying to say?

Well, if we turn it around, he seems to be saying "Republicans, by and large, are certainly NOT activists for peace.".

Do I read that rightly?

And, if so, does that tell us all we need to know about Republicans?

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Peace activists, by and large, are certainly NOT Republicans.

Which tells you all you need to know about peace activists.

how true...how true...!

[soiled.panties]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Peace activists, by and large, are certainly NOT Republicans.

Which tells you all you need to know about peace activists.

I suggest you go to a rally. You might be surprised. It's not all punks with gas masks. Most (98%) are people that look just like you and me. They put the freaks on TV. Normal folks don't sell ad's.

[einmakom]

Peace is not just the absence of fighting.

Peace is normalized relations, trade, diplomatic considerations, and travel.

Peaceniks are those who mis-define peace as the absence of fighting and will do everything including rolling over and dying in order to achieve such.

Peace is achieved by responding to threats on your terms, not someone else's. Peace is achieved by not being bullied. Peace is achieved by one side deciding that the costs of the fight are either already too great or will be too great to withstand.

In this way, despite what other users may say, the current US administration is working towards peace. Peace is hard-won.

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Peace is achieved by responding to threats on your terms, not someone else's.

"Peace is the most powerful weapon of mankind. It takes more courage to take a blow than give one. It takes more courage to try and talk things through than to start a war." - Mahatma Ghandi

[spauldingg]

This really isn't a repub/dem deal. It's a govt weilding power deal. I'm shocked that republicans blindly support this and other ashcroft actions, considering they (correctly, IMHO) believe in the get the govt out of my daily life philosophy.

And when Finboy says

if you want to protest the war, great, but if you're doing it as a cover for anti-government activities, prepare to be investigated

Nothing in the article or quoted memo suggests that they are only investigating protesters who are engaging in anti-govt activities. In fact how can they know which tiny minority of them are anti-govt activists unless they investigate all of them? Imagine if previous democratic administrations investigated you just because you protested their, say, universal health care plan, or something.

And how far do these investigation go? The article suggests ways for local police to deal with large groups of protesters. I've lived in many cities in several countries and I know that some police are much more zealous than others, especially when getting "suggestions" from above.

[swrate]

I am shocked at the way Republicans treat democrats in the US.
I havent noticed as much nastiness from the "other side"

(same way they treated Europeans of Euro-wheenies because the majority was against war in Iraq)
Also, the lack of tolerance, complete ignorance, and lack of respect from most Republicans towards Islam.


I wonder if its not the beginning of an era of oppression for different people, the ones tooo much to the left, Muslims or minorities.
I am anxious that the situation may become like in Germany when the Nazis were "stamping" the Jews.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Peace is not just the absence of fighting.

Peace is normalized relations, trade, diplomatic considerations, and travel.

Peaceniks are those who mis-define peace as the absence of fighting and will do everything including rolling over and dying in order to achieve such.

Peace is achieved by responding to threats on your terms, not someone else's. Peace is achieved by not being bullied. Peace is achieved by one side deciding that the costs of the fight are either already too great or will be too great to withstand.

In this way, despite what other users may say, the current US administration is working towards peace. Peace is hard-won.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)

I'm not a Christian, but it seems that the administration that believes that God is on it's side needs a reminder. I mean, this is part of the doctrine and teachings that they pay lip service to at every opportunity. I see some disparities here. Do you?

So far, that's Jesus and Ghandi over in the "peacenik" camp. Who do we have over on the "Gentlemen, the missiles are flying!" side? A show of hands please...

[petehammer]

A Republican is someone who wants to prevent a anti-war protestors from buying or wearing gas masks yet simultaneously wants the freedom to buy and carry a concealed handgun.

At least, in Crazyworld

[Developer]

Why are anti-government activities illegal anyway? I can understand in a dictatorship, but in a democracy?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Developer:
Why are anti-government activities illegal anyway? I can understand in a dictatorship, but in a democracy?

Anti-*constitutional* activities are illegal in Germany, too.

Political opposition, of course, is tolerated and encouraged, but if an organization's purpose is supected to be express abolishment of the constitution or governmental structure in itself (such as with Neo-Nazis), or existence and operation outside the constraints of said bodies (such as Scientology), it is placed under observation.

-s*

[Developer]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Anti-*constitutional* activities are illegal in Germany, too.

Anti-constitutional yes, but what was mentioned here was anti-government.

Originally posted by finboy:
if you're doing it as a cover for anti-government activities, prepare to be investigated.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
I meant the implyed royal "we," not me specifically.

You've got it backwards. The pluralis majestetis (royal "we") refers only to yourself.

You meant the regular collective "we".

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Developer:
Anti-constitutional yes, but what was mentioned here was anti-government.

Correct, of course.

I meant to clarify the distinction between anti-government and anti-administration. For all intents and purposes, the former is used to refer to the latter on these forums.

And I concur:

Prong two.

-s*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Peace is not just the absence of fighting.

Peace is normalized relations, trade, diplomatic considerations, and travel.

Peaceniks are those who mis-define peace as the absence of fighting and will do everything including rolling over and dying in order to achieve such.

Peace is achieved by responding to threats on your terms, not someone else's. Peace is achieved by not being bullied. Peace is achieved by one side deciding that the costs of the fight are either already too great or will be too great to withstand.

In this way, despite what other users may say, the current US administration is working towards peace. Peace is hard-won.

ahhh..yes.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

have these become the republican motto?

[thunderous_funker]

The role reversal of our most conservative forum members imploring us liberal skeptics to trust the government to know best is both entertaining and chilling...

As for "anti-govt" activities. Some friends and I are planning a massive anti-govt action on November 5th of next year. Mark it on your calendars so you can take part.

[spauldingg]

Are there any right of center people here who don't like this recent move. I find it hard to believe that moki of zimph even, would think this is a good thing. Just askin'.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The role reversal of our most conservative forum members imploring us liberal skeptics to trust the government to know best is both entertaining and chilling...

As for "anti-govt" activities. Some friends and I are planning a massive anti-govt action on November 5th of next year. Mark it on your calendars so you can take part.

done and done.

Strange how I thought this snigly little detail was important when they sneak in patriot II, (see patriot II thread)