Article

2003-11-23 Home Front

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-11-23 00:21|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It's that eeeeeevvviiillll Ashcroft! Bwahahahah!

Posted by Frank G 2003-11-23 8:54:07 AM|| 2003-11-23 8:54:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 antiwar demonstrators

Read: lefists

anarchists and "extremist elements"

Read: Leftists

civil rights advocates and legal scholars

Read: Leftists

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union

Read: Leftist

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."

I thought the ACLU LURVES gay folks. I guess that only applies to 'certain' gay folks, eh?

Posted by badanov 2003-11-23 8:56:20 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-11-23 8:56:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 There is a certain amount of necessary monitoring of all political groups. This discourages funds coming in from foriegn governments to unregistered agents.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-23 10:48:40 AM|| 2003-11-23 10:48:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Maybe you have to break eggs to make omlets but don't be dismissive of the critics. If the current administration does abuse power it will make all the harder to convince the public at large to support a real crackdown against Islamist if necessary.

Posted by Hiryu 2003-11-23 1:42:26 PM|| 2003-11-23 1:42:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Hiryu, the FBI has been pretty effect without being heavy handed so far with respect to AQ. They have busted several cells without a general roundup of Arab American citizens.
I agree that as long as there isn't Saudi money being funneled into the anti-war movement, the FBI should keep its hands off in most respects. Terrorist training would be the exception. A bombing campaign does not qualify as non-violent protest. Certainly the right wing group should be stomped upon if they engage in terrorism as well.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-23 1:55:46 PM|| 2003-11-23 1:55:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Hiryu, a backpack with pipe bombs in it was found at one of the pre-war "peace" rallies. A "peace" activist was going around California loosening the bolts on transmission tower legs. Numerous people in the "peace" movement were threatening to sabotage military bases during the war.

St. Corrie of IHOP was a "peace" activist; her type permeates the "movement". There's much, much more danger from them than most people would like to think.

(As for Hoover -- is there a GOOD biography of him? One that looks at what he really did, not what the leftists imagine he did.)

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-23 2:23:09 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-23 2:23:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 A point completely obscured by media indoctrination over the last 40 years:
"Civil disobediance" is, by definition, illegal and therefore a legitimate subject for investigation (to say nothing of the increasing trend toward outright violence among the peace hypocrites).
Romero apparently wants blanket immunity for the anti-war movement, another example of an imaginary right creating a privileged class.
The "training camps" mentioned are run by the Ruckus Society, and financed by none other than the (Ted) Turner Foundation.
Along with the usual Orwellian blather about non-violence (ie disruptive intimidation), their homepage includes this interesting admission:

In most countries the Global Justice Movement is led by the communities most affected by corporate globalization (primarily low-income communities of color). However in the US and Canada, the Global Justice Movement appears to be dominated by young white people from middle and upper-income class backgrounds.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-11-23 3:43:24 PM|| 2003-11-23 3:43:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 AC, what you say is true, but our society has come to tolerate "sit-ins" and other forms of non-destructive civil disobedience. A bunch of kooks handcuffing themselves naked in front of Food Lion to protest half-off leg of lamb is not worth the FBI's time. That said Molotov Cocktails are not acceptable. Rock-throwing is assualt. Destruction of property and petty vandalism is not free speech.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-23 7:29:33 PM|| 2003-11-23 7:29:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Just look at the recent BBC report where BBC reporters infiltrated the demonstrators (hard to believe the BBC of all orgs did this). They reported that the protestors were trying to determine whether throwing petrol bombs (molotovs) was a violent act. The problem with a mob is that it descends to the worst possible element in it. Next there will be debating that throwing grenades is not really violent.

Posted by capt joe 2003-11-23 8:22:16 PM|| 2003-11-23 8:22:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Peace protestors that arrive with ski masks or plan on using petrol bombs are not intending a peaceful protest. If the protestor organizers refuse to do anything about the violent folk in their midst I have no problems with the FBI doing it for them.

Posted by ruprecht 2003-11-23 9:06:11 PM|| 2003-11-23 9:06:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 (As for Hoover -- is there a GOOD biography of him? One that looks at what he really did, not what the leftists imagine he did.)

Sorry RC, but Hoover got a tough deal. He came into office right when the publics over-spending back-lashed into the Great Depression and was completely over-shadowed by Roosevelt in later years. Sure, he directed all humanitarian aid during WW2, help make the FBI an effective law enforcement agency, and took part in the creation of the Hoover Dam. ( Originally called the Boulder Dam. It was the single greatest construction project of the Depression. )

Hoover was a great President. But he was also the fall guy.

Posted by Charles 2003-11-23 9:26:57 PM|| 2003-11-23 9:26:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 That was Herbert Hoover.

Posted by BOBB 2003-11-23 9:41:11 PM|| 2003-11-23 9:41:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Hey Charles--why don't you ask ANYONE who lived during that Republican Depression what they thought of that fat-assed Chamber of Commerce hack also known as Herbert Hoover? A chicken in every pot!? LOL And now he's been transmorgified into the Hoover Institute that churns out imcometents like Condi Rice to perpetuate their idiocy--Gimme a break Charles--you are one dumbass MoFo

Posted by NotMikeMoore 2003-11-23 11:54:04 PM|| 2003-11-23 11:54:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Hey NMM--are you one of the "imcometents" from the Hoover Inst.?

Posted by LeftEnd 2003-11-24 12:10:36 AM|| 2003-11-24 12:10:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 So, not michael moore, politely challenging the LLL orthodoxy makes one a "dumbass MoFo," you speak for everyone in their 80s and 90s, Condi Rice is "incometent," and the Hoover Institute propagates idiocy. All this is according to your unsupported opinion; and you will call us names if we dare to disagree. Yet you probably deny that you're an authoritarian.
BTW, you need to quit throwing around terms of logic until you can get some clue as to their meaning.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-11-24 4:34:39 AM|| 2003-11-24 4:34:39 AM|| Front Page Top

08:07 B
04:34 Atomic Conspiracy
01:58 Atomic Conspiracy
00:18 Lizzel
00:16 LeftEnd
00:10 LeftEnd
23:55 LeftEnd
23:54 NotMikeMoore
23:51 Rafael
23:35 NotMikeMoore
23:24 NotMikeMoore
23:20 NotMikeMoore
23:13 NotMikeMoore
22:52 capt joe
22:48 capt joe
22:45 capt joe
22:45 rkb
22:33 Chuck
21:41 BOBB
21:33 J
21:26 Charles
21:17 ruprecht
21:12 ruprecht
21:06 ruprecht