TheAgitator.com
I Can’t Wait To See The File They Have On Radley
Sunday, November 23rd, 2003Up until now I had been, what I consider, very middle of the road when it came to my take on the Bush Administration and the war. As the whole thing started, I saw some very good points as to why war might be necessary, or at the very least desirable. I also, mostly from Radley, saw some very good reasons our war on terror should not be expanded into Iraq. As the situation developed, the anti-war folks became a bit more vindicated in my mind, but I chalked it up to bad information and a rush into Iraq led by the neoCons Bush trusted to advise him. I stopped well short of believing the Bush Administration was the incarnate of evil itself - even as some of my other friends tended to believe that to be the case.
Now we have this story from the New York Times that the F.B.I. has been collecting extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators. I am honestly stunned, but maybe I’ve just been naive. Its been said a lot that this administration uses the rhetoric of “You’re with the President or you are unpatriotic” but to this point that criticism never carried much weight with me. It does now.
Anti-war protesters are not terrorist. Some are smelly hippies and communists, sure, but they are not terrorist. The insinuation that they might be plotting acts against the United States is nothing short of a blatant attempt to put in the general public’s mind that if you disagree with this war, you are in favor of the terrorist. Its so wrong on so many levels.
Now, I’m not going to back down from my statement that anti-war protestors are not terrorist, but I do foresee some criticism that there may be terrorists within the anti-war protests. Accepting for arguments sake that such is the case, the most efficient way of weeding those ‘true terrorists’ out is not by collecting data on all anti-war protestors. Its a waste of resources that could be better spent effectively fighting terrorism. This action is not directed at finding and stopping the bad guys, its all propaganda. The Bush Administration ought to be held accountable for that.
The FBI also reportedly has a file on the Scoiety for Crative Anachronism, under paramilitary organizations (because they have combat training… albeit with wooden swords). This is old news. I’d be astonished if this wasn’t standard FBI practice, instead of (as you put it) a propaganda move by the Bush administration.
Antiwar protestors are not terrorists. The majority are not criminal. But given that British papers are reporting that some protestors actually had to debate whether molotovs were “nonviolent”, one would be hard pressed to argue that there isn’t some criminal element potentially associated with protestors. I’d also argue that I’d rather have the FBI doing preventive work, then have to live with the police response you’d see if some yahoo did hit police with a Molotov.
Mind, there are lines that can be crossed from legitimate investigation into political harassment. But if this is a propaganda move, where are the criminal charges? Where are the signs that this is anything other than an attempt to weed a few bad apples out that may be using the larger numbers for cover?
Craig said:
“I’d also argue that I’d rather have the FBI doing preventive work, then have to live with the police response you’d see if some yahoo did hit police with a Molotov.”
It’s hard to argue with logic like that, because I feel the same way. At the same time, I can’t say I trust this administration’s FBI. That’s why it’s so dangerous to install a divisive figure like Ashcroft as AG to begin with - even when he’s doing his job, people will expect that he’s up to something no good. Considering the power available to keep tabs on political opponents, I can understand why people might be nervous about Ashcroft’s FBI doing this sort of surveillance.
A lot of very reasonable people in this country are truly frightened of this administration and its tactics. Unfortunately, its political wing has waged a constant campaign since September 11, 2001, to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with Bush 100% on every issue as unpatriotic. There’s no room in this administration’s worldview to allow for a loyal opposition. This does little to keep America safe and everything to instill paranoia in the half of the population that doesn’t like the president.
Bryan,
I am with you on this one. I’ve given the Administration far too much latitude to respond to the WTC attacks. Not only have they failed to take decisive action against the Saudi roots of the problem, but they seem to be engaged in some neocon-inspired military adventurism abroad, while trashing our rights at home.
I didn’t vote for the guy (I voted Libertarian), but I was willing to give him some latitude based on his promise to privatize social security, and then to defend the U.S. after 9/11.
In addition to his mishandling of the 9/11 response, Bush has reneged on the Social Security promise, taking us further down the collectivist road with Prescription Medicare.
I never had any sympathy for the anti-war protesters because I never didâand still don’tâbelieve they are revealing their real agenda…to destroy our free capitalist economy. However, the response of the Administration to the protests has been to put mechanisms in place through the Patriot Act that are themselves totalitarian in nature.
So, I concur. It is time to say “Enough!” to Mr. Bush.
Amusingly, that doctrinaire Republican drone Chris Muir has his response up already: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/11-23-2003.gif
Watching the hard-core of the anti-war movement isn’t utterly absurd. Police have found discarded backpacks full of molotov cocktails at US protests, and they’ve been thrown at protests in Greece. So there’s an element willing to use violence.
Factor in that the mainstream support is basically gone, ie that most of the people who marched against invading Iraq aren’t marching anymore while polls show rising support for the whole Iraq action, and you have a situation rather like the anti-abortion movement years back. They kept losing “in the system” and some of those folks decided to go outside it - through bombings and shootings.
This isn’t a hunt for existing terrorists, it’s a watch for potential new terrorists. I think it makes sense.
Radley has repeatedly referred to 9/11 as governments worst failure–if they don’t investigate ever possible source what do they do? Who should the FBI investigate? How do you determine who might be a threat? It’s easy to critize when you don’t have any responsibility, but how about some positive suggetions? The generalization about the Saudi’s has some merit, but do you think Osama might have intentionaly used Saudi’s to cause problems? What nationality was Timothy McViegh? In dealing with a complex situation is easy to say what’s wrong, but let’s hear what we should do. How do we deal with the “Saudi problem”? Do we make them withdraw their investments in the US?
Jason says: It’s hard to argue with logic like that, because I feel the same way. At the same time, I can’t say I trust this administration’s FBI. When has the FBI ever been trustworthy? When Hoover was in charge? Hah! When Cliton was president? Hah! (see Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. etc). The FBI has always worked as a domestic intelligence agency, gathering info on anyone they thought suspicious (like John Lennon and MLK Jr.)
Unfortunately, the FBI’s mandate is to investigate/stop domestic terrorism (even though they stink at that job), so we’re in a bit of a quandry here. The government has a duty to protect its citizens from attack (including by domestic terrorists). The groups that perpetrate domestic terrorism run in the same crowd as the anti-war protestors (like ALF, ELF, etc.), so by getting into the orbit of the anti-war protestors, they can learn more about the domestic terrorists. Also, many of the anti-war protestors are what the Soviets called “useful idiots,” being duped by other groups that are definitely anti-west/capitalist/America.
So, where do we draw the line on the FBI spying on Americans? I don’t know, myself. If we tell the FBI to stop investigating anti-war protestors, then we lose a valuable tool in finding out more about the leaders of these groups (and the ones that are likely to cause real harm)…but then we wind up investigating people exercising their 1st Amendment rights. It’s a tough nut to crack, but Bryan Westoff (the writer of the piece we’re all commenting on), never defines what he thinks “effectively fighting terrorism” means.
And if anyone thinks that today’s anti-war movement doesn’t have its origins in the anti-capitalist/west movement, read this article here that links ANSWER to the Wobblies (Worker’s World Party)
What’s the alarm over this? The F.B.I. is collecting information on violent protestors… so what! Everyone knows that some protestors have violent intentions (remember the Seattle riots?). These hardcore protestors are actively working to overturn our government and destroy our way of life. These people SHOULD be watched. The F.B.I. is not saying that if you disagree with the war, you support terror. You’d have to be pretty paranoid to get that out of the article. The F.B.I. is not collecting information on ALL anti-war protestors; that’s a pretty lame straw-man argument. Libertarians want our government to prevent terror, but they howl that our government is being tyrannical whenever it does anything designed to stop terror.
Andy says: “When has the FBI ever been trustworthy? When Hoover was in charge? Hah! When Cliton was president? Hah! (see Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. etc). The FBI has always worked as a domestic intelligence agency, gathering info on anyone they thought suspicious (like John Lennon and MLK Jr.)”
I don’t know that the FBI has ever been trustworthy. I doubt I’d claim it even if they were. I think the key to improving the trustworthiness of the FBI, though - if such a thing is to be done - is having a professional AG in place. “Professional” is the last modifier I’d place beside John Ashcroft’s name. Sure, the FBI is a huge department in a huger bureaucracy, but having a professional AG would at least set the standard that there will be consequences for ill-conceived actions.
Bob says: “What’s the alarm over this? The F.B.I. is collecting information on violent protestors… so what!”
Actually, aren’t they collecting information on all protestors? The article just says they’re collecting information on “antiwar demonstrators.” That implies a group larger than simply those who may be violent, unless the assumption is that EVERY protestor may be violent. The article also says that “The memorandum discussed demonstrators’ “innovative strategies,” like the videotaping of arrests as a means of “intimidation” against the police. And it noted that protesters “often use the Internet to recruit, raise funds and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations.” Come on! Videotaping arrests “intimidates” the police? Seems to me that all videotaping arrests does is discourage police who might otherwise do so from abusing protestors who have been subdued.
Bob goes on to say: “Libertarians want our government to prevent terror, but they howl that our government is being tyrannical whenever it does anything designed to stop terror.”
When fighting an enemy who seems tough to defeat because he is difficult to understand, the common way to gain ground is to be more like your enemy. This way you wear down his advantages until the playing field has been leveled. You may win the war, but will you the same you after you do? The measures “designed to stop terror” (I don’t see much “design”) only bring us closer to having a state that brings terror upon its citizens “for their own good.”
Tipping Point
Bryan Westhoff has changed his mind about the Bush administration. From his own words: Up until now I had been, what I consider, very middle of the road when it came to my take on the Bush Administration and…
Jason–again you haven’t offerred a alternative–you just find fault–How would you fight terror?
Tom -
First a question - does the fact that I haven’t immediately offered a solution while pointing out a problem mean that what I’ve said isn’t true? Why do we Americans insist that anyone who points out a problem come prepared with a fully-indexed-and-researched plan to wipe out that problem or go home? (This is what’s happened to our political candidates - in place of qualifications, they now have ream after ream of plans.) Some people are good at fixing problems with a plan but not identifying the problem in the first place, and vice versa. And then some people just point out the problem before fully thinking through a plan. Finding fault isn’t really what I’m doing when I say that something is wrong - “fault” implies blame, and when I talk about issues of importance to the security of my country, blame is the last thing I want to place. I don’t find fault - I point out problems, because I care about my security (and yours and every other American’s).
Second - as to my “solution” for fighting terror, I’d have to say that the basis of it would be a) reviewing the claims the enemy makes as to why it has grievances with us, and b) reviewing the possibility of addressing some of those claims. Regardless of the lack of authority of terrorists to speak for certain groups of people, some of the claims on behalf of those they do not truly represent are bound to be legitimate. Separating the legitimate grievances from the illegitimate and taking steps to rectify what can be rectified, without compromising our interests, would be a good start down the road of showing everyday people that terrorists only serve their own needs. If you take away the support of the little man, terrorists have no one else left to turn to.
I don’t want to build Rome in a day; all I’m asking for now is a good start. But if we keep going the way we are right now, we won’t even get that.
this is insanity!
next thing you know someone will say that the soviets were behind the vietnam protests!
Kill ‘em all, let god sort them out…
The organizers, and many of the attendees, are very suspect. There are definite ties to international communist and anti-capitalist groups. While a lot of the dupes who do attend are non-violent and non-threatening, the intent of the organizers (A.N.S.W.E.R., etc) warrants attention, and these organizations do need to be watched closely.
To the 9AM anonymouse: Just as “suspect” as protesters are anonymous posters. Not everyone who attends a peace rally is a “dupe.” Some people will attend a rally to show their resistance to policies without worrying about who sponsors the event. You may be right in saying that the intent of the organizers deserves scrutiny, but you could at least say so without tilting your hand to reveal your bias (and with revealing who you are). You might be a little more credible then.
Geez, whatever happened to small government, leave people alone, stop the nanny state? FBI spying on innocent civilians is just about the most egregious abuse of power Washington is capable of, but you’d get more unanimity out of this group complaining about a smoking ban.
If you really think spying on innocent civilians is “just about the most egregious abuse of power Washington is capable of”…. oy vey.
Compare that to, oh, I don’t know…
– Property seizure laws that don’t require a conviction
– Staging massive, unnecessary armed raids in order to have budget-enhancing photo ops
– Selling arms to an enemy in order to finance a revolutionary group against the will of Congress
– Allowing false convictions to stand in order to protect informants
and on, and on, and on…
I’m not saying that this isn’t possibly bad, nor that investigations of people that are political enemies of the current administration aren’t potentially ripe for abuse.
But mindless exaggeration like saying the FBI having an undercover agent sit in on some planning sessions is as bad as anything Washington has ever done (let alone if you defined what they are capable of by skill and power, as opposed to past experience of willingness) just makes you look foolish.
Excellent examples of government abuse all, but Iâll stand by my characterization, thank you. In what is supposed to be participatory democracy, the use of state resources to support Hoover-esque monitoring - and the inevitable intimidation that follows - of political rivals (as opposed to true enemies of the state) is the ultimate abuse, the betting in baseball, if you will. Sure, it happens all the time. And sure, there are more graphic individual tragedies. But this is the one that pierces the heart.
Not to go all high school civics, but if the system is working â yeah, a huge freakinâ if, I know - there is always the hope, however unlikely, of building some kind of coalition to repeal bad legislation or stupid policies. I mean, isnât that the point of boards like these? Little tougher to do, though, when the other sideâs tapping your phone.
Look, Iâm not saying the FBI shouldnât follow-up real leads. I just donât think Osamaâs hiding in the hot tubs of Marin County.
And no, Pete Rose does not belong in Hall of Fame.
ssaa