NYT: F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies

The NYT ^ | Nov. 23, 2003 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[summer]

"What a great opportunity for an act of terrorism, when all your resources are dedicated to some big event and you let your guard down," a law enforcement official involved in securing recent demonstrations said. "What would the public say if we didn't look for criminal activity and intelligence at these events?"

...Critics said they remained worried. "What the F.B.I. regards as potential terrorism," Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U. said, "strikes me as civil disobedience."

I am all for civil disobedience, but not for the kind of violence we saw erupt in Seattle. Also, I do believe terrorists look at these large-scale events with more than passing interest, probably drooling with glee -- so, I am glad our law enforcement is seeing it from that perspective as well.

On a related note -- I am getting really tired of Howard Dean's continuous omission of the liberation of the Iraqui people in his anti-war speeches. Yes, I too am upset by war, in fact, so up set I could not even post on this forum at the beginning of the war. But to forget those who were enslaved by a brutal dictator, and to not give our military and our president credit for helping those people, is just wrong. If the Democrats really think they can win swing voters in this 2004 election by their one-sided anti-war rhetoric, omitting all the evidence of torture and mass graves uncovered in IRaw since America wen in there, these Dems are heading for a loss of landslide proportions next November.

[summer]

I'll try it again, correcting those typos --

"What a great opportunity for an act of terrorism, when all your resources are dedicated to some big event and you let your guard down," a law enforcement official involved in securing recent demonstrations said. "What would the public say if we didn't look for criminal activity and intelligence at these events?"

...Critics said they remained worried. "What the F.B.I. regards as potential terrorism," Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U. said, "strikes me as civil disobedience."

I am all for civil disobedience, but not for the kind of violence we saw erupt in Seattle. Also, I do believe terrorists look at these large-scale events with more than passing interest, probably drooling with glee -- so, I am glad our law enforcement is seeing it from that perspective as well.

On a related note -- I am getting really tired of Howard Dean's continuous omission of the liberation of the Iraqui people in his anti-war speeches. Yes, I too am upset by war, in fact, so upset I could not even post on this forum at the beginning of the war. But to forget those who were enslaved by a brutal dictator, and to not give our military and our president credit for helping those people, is just wrong. If the Democrats really think they can win swing voters in this 2004 election by their one-sided anti-war rhetoric, omitting all the evidence of torture and mass graves uncovered in Iraw since America wen in there, these Dems are heading for a loss of landslide proportions next November.

[summer]

Well, never mind. You know what I mean. I'm out of here... :)

[Dallas59]

I have no problems with Civil Protest...as long as they don't burn my Chevy.

[DoughtyOne]

I suspect what the leftist media is worried about most, is that the FBI will figure out that union funds are being paid to union members to get them on the streets. We have noticed that the same union members seem to show up at different protests in the Los Angeles area. Their printed signs leave little doubt that some their appearances are more than spontanious individual efforts.

[jonalvy44]

rubber bullets!! Crush these civil disobediance proponents while we are at war. They tie up valuable resources...

[Jackson Brown]

"""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."""

I guess this ACLU dweeb means the FBI's VIEW of terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience.

But the anarchists and "extremist elements" come armed. The come to destroy property and hurt police. The ones blurring the line are those groups that engage in terrorism under the banner of dissent...NOT the FBI.

Of course, since the ACLU was founded by an Anarchist after he was released from Jail, it makes sense they can't see the difference.

[bert]

Memo
To: FBI
From: Bert

Subject: Antiwar subversives on Parade

Reference:1) F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: November 23, 2003


Suggest you read reference 1 and cast an eye on the NYT to determine if any of their reporters are engaged in subersive antiwar action.

[rs79bm]

"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."

Get on with it. If you don't like it, then stop rooting against your Country.

[Iris7]

If you can't see that the Iraqi business is the most brilliant piece of statecraft in American history since George Washington sent the British packing, then you have, in my most humble opinion, no basis for your comments other than willful ignorance.

[jempet]

I guess some missed all those "free palenstine" banners at the antiwar protests. Or the arabs that wore all black uniforms , very much like Hamas does. If protesters aren't doing something wrong, they have nothing to fear from the Feds. Terrorists would love to blow that whole crowd up in one move, but the Feds are the ones making sure that doesn't happen.

[LoudRepublicangirl]

I have attended many pro-troop rallies with lefties across the street from us with their usual rhetorical signs about President Bush and how corporations are waging this war, etc. A few of them came across the street to our side and tried to provoke us into a fight. Of course, we restrained ourselves because we were not about to give into their intentions. These people are not about peace.

[tarheal]

This is what the ACLU would rather hear:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has decided not to collect information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to ignore any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum. Furthermore, the Bureau has decided that since a substantial proportion of Americans can't tell the difference between prudent law enforcement and fascist police state tactics, it does not particularly care if fanatics kill another few thousand Americans and Sharia becomes the law of the land. A highly placed FBI source said, "I can't wait to see the looks on the faces of the NOW crowd, ACT-UP, the ACLU, ANSWER, and Al Sharpton when it becomes illegal in the USA for a woman to walk alone on the street, when homosexuality is punishable by death, peaceful demonstrators are arrested and never seen again, and union activity will get you sent to re-education camps."

[Psycho_Bunny]

Dennis Miller summed up these people when he characterized Sean Penn, 'I've never met him but if our paths ever cross, he's going to want to kick my ass for implying he isn't peaceful'.

[Mo1]

"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."

Some one needs to ask the ACLU why they are more concerned with the rights of terrorists then they are of American lives

[WoofDog123]

"
Critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, for instance, have sued the government to learn how their names ended up on a "no fly" list used to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes. "

Is anyone familiar with the background of this claim? I have heard nothing of it, but vividly remember the Clinton admin's tactic of having people audited, i.e. ex-girlfriends, that lady who criticized him to his face over the saudi barracks bombing, etc...

[Free Vulcan]

The ACLU wants the left to be able to engage in violent acts of destruction and assault and have it swept under the rug as 'dissent' or 'civil disobedience'. Saying that destroying private small businesses is protesting govt policies is bunk, it's nothing but pro-Marxist revolutionary tactics against a free market society.

Not that I trust the FBI any more than the leftists, but at least they seem to have given up on the Beezulbubba era focus on 'right-wing' terrorists that that never amounted to more than chasing swamp gas apparitions, and have started focusing on the people who are actually trying to subvert the govt.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred...

Indeed. But one mans blurred vision is another's sharp eye. In a post-911 world it would not be prudent to close our eyes on potential subversion, anarchists, and other possible national security risks. Blurred vision on domestic terrorist threats contributed to 9/11. Never again.

The ACLU, or course, would love to see our society and culture harmed as it furthers their cause. Not me. And not more than a handful of other citizens.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

The face of a garden-variety antiwar protester. This rocket scientist's handlers are usually no where to be found.