[CreepingDeth]

WND

Tom Hayden, one of the central organizers of sometimes violent, civil disobedience protests at the Democratic National Convention in 1968, is pledging to disrupt this month's Republican convention with demonstrations "1,000 times bigger than Chicago," according to a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, WND's premium, weekly, online intelligence newsletter.

Hayden, the co-founder of Students for Democratic Society, a left-wing group that splintered in the late '60s and early '70s, with one faction resorting to terrorism, is predicting between 100,000 and 1 million protesters will be in New York for the convention beginning Aug. 30.

Hayden said there were at most 6,000 on hand in Chicago in 1968.

This time, he predicted, it will be "bigger by a thousand fold," he told a foreign journalist.

He said many demonstrators were scared off by tough-talking Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. The bigger protest in New York, he said, "influences the character of everything, including the strategy of the Department of Homeland Security."

No permits have yet been issued for any planned demonstrations.

"I think people are entitled to march without a permit," said Hayden, at one time the husband of Jane Fonda and the man who orchestrated her infamous visits to North Vietnam. "When you have a few hundred thousand people on the street you have permission. Nevertheless, the good people seeking permits have to continue doing that because it might happen and they need to lay the legal foundation for a later lawsuit."

Hayden has issued what some interpret as veiled threats if New York does not accommodate the demonstrators.

"The politicians of New York have everything that is necessary to make proper decisions and they will have to live with what happens afterwards," he said. "The worst scenario is the politicians covering their eyes and turning it over to the FBI."

While at the Democratic convention in Boston this summer, Hayden was overheard by two other sources saying he would use Vietnam War-era anti-war tactics to protest Iraq and Afghanistan during the GOP convention.

A Maryland man, meanwhile, is attempting to organize counter-demonstrators to shadow Hayden's protests.

"Tom Hayden's activities (in the 1960s and 1970s) went further then demonstrations to subversive activities corrupting people on active duty, visiting Vietnam," said Roger Hall. "His activities were used to confront POWs with his claims of being war criminals. Some POWs were beaten. His wife Jane Fonda went to Vietnam on his direction, where American servicemen were falsely charged as criminals. He gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Stop evil where ever you can, this guy is evil."

Recently, Hayden served several terms in the California Legislature representing the beach town of Santa Monica.

As WND reported previously, some of the groups organizing protests at this summer's Republican convention – including an anarchist outfit planning disruptions – get funding from a foundation chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the Democratic Party presidential nominee.

Heinz Kerry, worth as much as $1 billion according to some estimates, has directed donations in the millions to the Tides Foundation, a 28-year-old grant-making institution that funds some of the principal groups organizing demonstrations and disruptions of the GOP convention.

The umbrella coalition organizing the protests is called United for Peace and Justice – strongly critical of the war in Iraq. The coalition was sponsored by Ramsey Clark's International Action Center, which was funded by the Tides Center's Iraq Peace Fund and Peace Studies Fund. Clark's group also sponsored International ANSWER. Both groups are run by long-time communist revolutionaries.

Teresa Heinz Kerry's favorite charity has also funded 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.

Mrs. Kerry, working through the Howard Heinz Endowment, oversaw the donation of more than $4 million to the Tides Foundation between 1995 and 2001.

Other groups in the United for Peace and Justice Coalition funded by Tides include 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.

There were reports last week that some of the groups headed for New York have more in mind than waving placards, marching and listening to speakers denounce President Bush.

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.

The Republican convention will be held at Madison Square Garden Aug. 30 through Sept. 2.

New York City police have expressed concern about the way some of these groups have used the Internet to disseminate plans for disruption. Among those messages cited:

"Go to a rifle, pistol or skeet shooting range, spend an hour shooting to saturate clothing with smell of gunpowder, go directly to a New Jersey Transit, LIRR or subway train headed for Penn Station.

"Try to have at least two people on a train in different locations, sit or stand near the doors as the train approaches the station, try to get near police and dogs, loiter as long as possible around the dog, try to pet it if possible.

"If the dog alerts on your scent, do not leave or resist; the situation will cause a major disruption of the train schedule. ... If there is more than one person on the train that causes a dog to alert, you can bet that the train will not be going anywhere for a long time ... neither will any trains behind it.

"It is important that the police call in all possible resources to investigate the situation. ... This will result in the maximum disruption. ... With any luck, Madison Square Garden will be evacuated.

"Rush hours are ideal, the final night of the convention, very good, too."

The SDS guy? Fonda? If this traitor does this, he should spend a few in concrete Hell. Freedom of Speech is speech, not violent protest.

[PacHead]

New Yorkers won't take kindly to these thugs, and they will get their butts kicked I hope.

[daimoni]

.

[CreepingDeth]

The RNC convention seems alot shorter. So less time for the little monster to mess up New Yorkers' lives. If anyone uses the 1st Amendment as a shield for violence, they should be severely punished and forced to read the Constitution.

Hey, maybe the guy can bring back the retired Weathermen.

Right, the "Damn, find votes" thing. Can't you liberals EVER get over that?

[djohnson]

So these people think they will get near the convention? Ugg, I knew I should have held my anti-liberal march at the Democratic party convention!

[daimoni]

.

[CreepingDeth]

One of shirts would have been perfect.these Or these.

I would have brought my Metallica shirt and played Damage Inc. really loud. Or Don't Tread on Me. But I wouldn't do that, that violates some noise law or something.

[daimoni]

.

[CreepingDeth]

Dude. You lost. Get the **** over it. It's over. Gore is irrelevant.
And I swear to god I am going get pissed off if anyone who's not a Marxist (and ironically quotes a document for a republic) is labeled a neo-fascist. I'm going to write that report tomorrow and prove you nuts wrong.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by daimoni:
That's right. NYC is a Democratic city... and don't take kindly to radical, right-wing thugs.

Yeah, people keep saying that. (hint: Republican governor, Republican mayor etc.)

Anyhow, it does not matter, because these leftist thugballs will have to deal with the NYPD and others who will be out in force, and they are going to crush them, if the leftist screwballs and violent creeps get too uppity.

[daimoni]

.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Yeah! D00d! It'll be AWESOME! MONSTER TRUCKS! FREE FANNY PACKS!

THEZE COLORS DON'T RUN LOL!!!! etc., etc.

Uh, yeah. TOTALLY.

How old are you, 2?

If the liberals disrupt the way of life or cause damage, they will be dealt with.

How funny would it be if no one showed up for the demonstration?

[CreepingDeth]

It'd be even more funny is he has to deal with the possibility of being next to a guy named Molly.
This guy needs a dose of reality, bad.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
It'd be even more funny is he has to deal with the possibility of being next to a guy named Molly.
This guy needs a dose of reality, bad.

or it might not...

[Millennium]

So rather than simply "making their voices heard", they plan to actually "disrupt the convention"?

Forgive me, but doesn't that cross the line? Free speech is a very different thing from intentionally disrupting a public gathering;the right to freely and peaceably assemble is, after all, guaranteed by the selfsame amendment which guarantees free speech. Protest is one thing; disruption is another.

[CreepingDeth]

Yes. It's just like the Cuban-funded protesters who destroyed property, blocked traffic, and I think even tried to interfere with military supplies.
These people are what cops are made for. Or should be used on.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So these people think they will get near the convention? Ugg, I knew I should have held my anti-liberal march at the Democratic party convention!

You do realize (though maybe you're too young) that the SDS is to the left of liberal? Kind of like neo-nazis are to the right of conservatives.

[CreepingDeth]

Give me two hours, and I will have something for you guys. I'm in the process of writing something. SDS and its fringe group were terrorists. Domestic terrorists. This guy is probably a bigger traitor than Jane Fonda,

[daimoni]

.

[CreepingDeth]

Bush is a traitor?
*Braces for morally relative *********

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Dude. You lost. Get the **** over it. It's over. Gore is irrelevant.
And I swear to god I am going get pissed off if anyone who's not a Marxist (and ironically quotes a document for a republic) is labeled a neo-fascist. I'm going to write that report tomorrow and prove you nuts wrong.

if all your education is offering you is how to grossly mislabel people and mischaracterize their politics, I'd suggest you go right to the Dean, (or principle) and demand your money back.

[CreepingDeth]

1. In High School.
2. There might be one person that's moderate that I've seen. This board in general has some big time socialists. And since socialism generally comes from Marxist theory…

If all your education has given you is an addiction to conspiracy theories and bogus class warfare polices, you need a refund.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Bush is a traitor?

He broke the law to take us to war. What's the legal definition of 'traitor' anyways?

[CreepingDeth]

Law…?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
He broke the law to take us to war. What's the legal definition of 'traitor' anyways?

You mean the fully authorized, lawfully funded, police action? You know, the little vote in congress that gave him full power (in addition to his already emmense power) to lead the military as he sees fit.

What laws did he break?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Law…?

I know, I think I know where this is going, but am looking forward to it none the less.

[CreepingDeth]

Yeah, they're going to make up an imaginary law to pile more **** onto Bush…or worse, say he broke and imaginary International law.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
1. In High School.
2. There might be one person that's moderate that I've seen. This board in general has some big time socialists. And since socialism generally comes from Marxist theory…

If all your education has given you is an addiction to conspiracy theories and bogus class warfare polices, you need a refund.

hehe. when you get a little more life experience under your belt, you might come to realize that the world exists in more shades of grey than you ever thought possible. Or else you'll stay republican.

[CreepingDeth]

Fortunately, I know that line of thinking leads toward the acceptance of everything and the condemnation of nothing. If everything is grey, then there is no right answer, right choice, right anything.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Fortunately, I know that line of thinking leads toward the acceptance of everything and the condemnation of nothing. If everything is grey, then there is no right answer, right choice, right anything.

That is correct.

By the way, I think it's interesting some of the T-shirts they have at that site you linked to:



What is this, 900 AD? What an insane bitch.

[CreepingDeth]

Explain this one:



Progressive Protester Wear™

[Not sure if it linked. Haas BU-swastika–H]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Fortunately, I know that line of thinking leads toward the acceptance of everything and the condemnation of nothing. If everything is grey, then there is no right answer, right choice, right anything.

and that concept, wrong though it may be, really, frightens you, doesn't it?
the idea that you can't count on black hats to be the villians, and white hats to be heroes really messes with your world view, right?

Here's the deal, the more rigid your thinking, the more absolute you make your delineations between good and evil, the easier you are to control. The only thing someone has to do is tell you that there are 72 virgins waiting for you in heaven if you only give your live to allah as a martyr. Or that God is speaking through Bush.

Be wary.....absolutism is the ring in your nose....what you'll find, though, is that the ones pulling on the ring don't adhere to the same black/white fetters they demand you to.
Why should they? they don't want to be controlled. Note that leaders like Osama don't blow themselves up to earn their way into heaven, and leaders like Bush don't fight on the front lines.

years from now, when this realization hits you, remember this conversation.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You mean the fully authorized, lawfully funded, police action? You know, the little vote in congress that gave him full power (in addition to his already emmense power) to lead the military as he sees fit.

What laws did he break?

The law specifically stated that he had to bring proof of the threat Iraq posed to congress after he had exhausted all diplomatic actions in his arsenal. He did neither. He put a bunch of phony evidence in front of the U.N., yelled "yee-haw" and ran headlong into the biggest quagmire since Vietnam. They called Vietnam a 'police action' too, ya know.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
He broke the law to take us to war. What's the legal definition of 'traitor' anyways?

The definition of "traitor" is simply "one who commits treason". Therefore, we need to go to the legal definition of treason to figure out who fits the legal definition of traitor. Fortunately, the US has a rather clear legal definition. From the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained.

For the record, two definitions from that second paragraph. "Corruption of blood" would mean that the descendants of a person convicted of treason would suffer punishment alongside the accused. The Constitution explicitly forbids this. "Forfeiture" means what it sounds like; forfeiture of assets. The Constitution allows this, but only while the convicted is still alive; should the convicted die then their assets cannot be touched.

Other than these two things, Congress can set the punishment of treason as anything within Constitutional limits (i.e. "cruel and unusual punishment" still applies).

A sittting President cannot be arrested and put on trial -this is also true of Senators, Representatives, and Supreme Court justices- but he can be impeached. This is not the same thing as removal from office; rather, it is a set of legal hearings, similar to a trial but not the same thing. This distinction is actually extremely important. If an impeached President is convicted, the most severe punishment which can be handed down is removal from office. However, because the (ex-)President was impeached, not tried, he can then be arrested and put on trial for the same crime without violating the double-jeopardy prohibition, and anything brought up in the impeachment process can be brought up again.

The setup is somewhat unweildy, but it's yet another part of the system of checks and balances. Sitting government officials are privileged from arrest so that one branch cannot simply have members of another branch arrested at whim; in effect, it is a safeguard against abuse of power. However, the Framers recognized that a sitting official might still become corrupted, and so this system was devised for such an eventuality.

[CreepingDeth]

Another good post by Millennium.
But it's "founding fathers," not framers.

So I guess Bush can't be a traitor then?

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Another good post by Millennium.
But it's "founding fathers," not framers.

So I guess Bush can't be a traitor then?

Well he can be, but there isn't any evidence of that just yet

[CreepingDeth]

Maybe in the Anarchy™ world. He's not a traitor. I can't think of one President worthy of being called a traitor.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
The law specifically stated that he had to bring proof of the threat Iraq posed to congress after he had exhausted all diplomatic actions in his arsenal. He did neither. He put a bunch of phony evidence in front of the U.N., yelled "yee-haw" and ran headlong into the biggest quagmire since Vietnam. They called Vietnam a 'police action' too, ya know.

Last I saw, he had bad information from the intelligence agencies. Doesn't really matter too much, Saddam needed to be brought down, just made the situation a tad stickier. And the UN can go get smoked, our interests with them aren't going to always coincide. They have their own dirty secrets and back-alley dealings (probably gone awry by our attack), no doubt causing them no end of irritability. The "Oil for Food" program was lining a lot of UN pockets, and now the handout's over, so sad.

"Police Action" is a general term for any time military force is brought to bare without fully declaring war. So, of course they call it a "Police Action". I mean, I suppose we could call it Peanuckle, but that name was already taken.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Maybe in the Anarchy™ world. He's not a traitor. I can't think of one President worthy of being called a traitor.

The one who commited perjury by lying about his taudry, adulterous affair under oath? Now... who WAS that again?

[CreepingDeth]

Nuclear secrets…
Oh yeah, Bubba!
He was probably the slimiest President, but I'm not sure he's a traitor as the Constitution states it.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Last I saw, he had bad information from the intelligence agencies.

Fair enough, but there are a number of reports that the administration went to unusual ends to try and find things to use in their case that made most of the people involved thik there was more to their drive to war than concern for the safety of Americans and our allies. Either way he was supposed to be the president of personal accountability, and he hasn't taken a shred of responsibility for the colossal mistake he made.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Doesn't really matter too much, Saddam needed to be brought down, just made the situation a tad stickier.

Sure Sadaam sucked, but most objective experts will point out that the Saudi regime is as bad or worse than Saddam and Saudi Arabia has actual ties to terrorists and produced the lions share of the lunatics that hijacked the planes for the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. The top brass in the military, former military leaders, members of the foreign service and foreign policy experts all agree that Saddam was dangerous and needed to go, but very few agree with the way the administration did what they did. I also have a big problem with $200 billion being spent to fund this war while they're cutting taxes for rich people back home. The Bush administration set a record as being the only regime in the history of civilization that was stupid enough to cut taxes during a war.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
"Police Action" is a general term for any time military force is brought to bare without fully declaring war. So, of course they call it a "Police Action". I mean, I suppose we could call it Peanuckle, but that name was already taken.

I'd call it a quagmire, personally.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
The law specifically stated that he had to bring proof of the threat Iraq posed to congress after he had exhausted all diplomatic actions in his arsenal. He did neither. He put a bunch of phony evidence in front of the U.N., yelled "yee-haw" and ran headlong into the biggest quagmire since Vietnam. They called Vietnam a 'police action' too, ya know.

Got a specific reference to that law? Thanks.

[Lerkfish]

The way I see it, there are at least two possible acts of treason, of someone in the Bush administration:

1. the outing of two CIA agents. Treason
2. the revealing of states secrets involving military strategy to a foreign national, one whose family was involved in 9/11. Treason.

Howver, what gets mushier are other acts of incompetence or reprehensibility, which although ultimately damage america and puts us at unnecessary risk, are not quite treason.
too many to list, I'm afraid.

Lying to the american people and lying to the UN (and therefore the rest of the world), is evil, but technically not treason.
Invading a country on false pretenses is a war crime, perhaps, but not treason.
instigating systematic torture and abuse of detainees, against Geneva conventions, but not treason.
Murders committed while torturing detainees: capital crime, perhaps.

I think the current administration is evil, and certainly, in my mind, is likely guilty of acts of treason, but I don't think they'll ever get charged for it, nor face any other charges. The truly reprehensible always have an escape plan.

[Zimphire]

Treason

[BlackGriffen]

What about outing the double agent in Pakistani custody? They either put the short term political interests of the administration ahead of the best interests of the United States as a whole, or they were mind numbingly, stupidly incompetent.

The first is treason, and either way somebody should lose their job over it. If Bush doesn't want to hold anyone accountable out of some misguided sense of loyalty, then he should be held accountable.

Yes, I am still extremely pissed over this one.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Treason

believe it or not, its treason to out a CIA agent.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
believe it or not, its treason to out a CIA agent.

How does that correspond with the exact definition of treason as provided for in the Constitution?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Another good post by Millennium.
But it's "founding fathers," not framers.

Both names have been in use for well over a hundred years. I prefer "Framers" for its brevity (half as many syllables, less than half as many characters) but both are accurate. I realize that it has taken on a connotation of political correctness in recent years, but I was using the term well before that happened and I have no intention of ceding it to the terminally-insecure.

Last I checked, the Framers didn't call themselves by either of these names. IIRC they called themselves the "Second Continental Congress". It's not a name you see much anymore.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
believe it or not, its treason to out a CIA agent.

Precedent? I don't doubt that this is a legal possibility, but I've never seen any case which would back it up.