Not to go all high school civics, but if the system is working – yeah, a huge freakin’ 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, isn’t that the point of boards like these? Little tougher to do, though, when the other side’s tapping your phone.

Look, I’m not saying the FBI shouldn’t follow-up real leads. I just don’t think Osama’s hiding in the hot tubs of Marin County.

And no, Pete Rose does not belong in Hall of Fame.

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.

next thing you know someone will say that the soviets were behind the vietnam protests!

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.

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…

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.”

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)

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.

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 did—and still don’t—believe 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.

“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.

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?