|
|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 15, 2009 13:25:09 GMT -5
www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=87500Hopefully the Obama administration will start coming down on the various law enforcement agencies that carried out crap like this. I'm not holding my breath, though...that's one issue where Obama has been sadly wishy-washy. Moving on past the crimes of the past must, by necessity, include acknowledging and punishing those crimes, Mr. President.
|
|
|
|
Post by MozMode on Mar 15, 2009 14:23:27 GMT -5
Covert surveillance? For a women's group?? WTF?
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 15, 2009 15:18:57 GMT -5
Maybe I missed it, but why are they specifically under surveillance? I reread the article, but didn't see it. I liked the statement about there being no halfway clause in the First Amendment. I'm also not as surprised as I should be by all this, given all the nonsense done in the name of "National Security" Since 9-11.
|
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 16, 2009 18:10:28 GMT -5
From what I could tell from the article, it was because they were vocally against the war in Iraq and participated in protests.
That's it.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 16, 2009 19:25:20 GMT -5
So kinda like when they flagged the Quakers?
|
|
|
|
Post by pdc1987 on Mar 16, 2009 19:39:55 GMT -5
Wasn't Maryland's largest gay rights group also recently labeled a "terrorist threat" or something like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 23, 2009 15:20:23 GMT -5
This strategy is very, very common, especially against groups that have the slightest chance of challenging the status quo. Labor groups get infiltrated often. Green party student groups get infiltrated as well. It's crazy. I don't think it's going to change, though. And, honestly, apart from Big Brother type jail sentences, I don't think much harm ever comes from it, either, because unless you're doing something that would get you arrested anyway, public outcry and confusion tends to inhibit direct action against such groups. It's the gov't's way of keeping their fingers in everybody's pie. Not saying I agree with it. But I don't think Obama can or even would get rid of it. He's likely not even told it's going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 23, 2009 16:19:45 GMT -5
Nixon and Hoover did much the same things during the Vietnam war. Nixon was just too stupid to pass a "Patriot" act to cover his ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 23, 2009 17:24:24 GMT -5
In the past it was even worse: the CIA told many of it's spies to act as agents provacteur. Many of the crazy violent stunts that sometimes occured at protests were not protestor's doing at all; the CIA wanted to kill their popularity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Mar 24, 2009 11:14:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 24, 2009 11:33:25 GMT -5
Yes it is, it's a post 9/11 State evolution of the same practice. I tend to think of the militant anti-abortion groups as terrorists myself based on what I think their activity does to women and the clinics who serve them. But I wouldn't want them labeled as such, even though they are repugnant to me. I sort of get why they would get labeled by that state, even though I don't agree with it, though. They do plant bombs and they do asassinate doctors and they do sometimes assault women, so it's not like there isn't a reason to consider whether they are terroristic in nature or not. But a Ron Paul bumper sticker?!
The article also said the ACLU had gone after one of those "fusion" centers in Texas hardcore. Good for them. I think that's a cause I'll take up. I didn't even know they existed before you posted the link. Thanks for sharing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Mar 24, 2009 12:05:54 GMT -5
Yes it is, it's a post 9/11 State evolution of the same practice. I tend to think of the militant anti-abortion groups as terrorists myself based on what I think their activity does to women and the clinics who serve them. But I wouldn't want them labeled as such, even though they are repugnant to me. I sort of get why they would get labeled by that state, even though I don't agree with it, though. They do plant bombs and they do asassinate doctors and they do sometimes assault women, so it's not like there isn't a reason to consider whether they are terroristic in nature or not. But a Ron Paul bumper sticker?! The article also said the ACLU had gone after one of those "fusion" centers in Texas hardcore. Good for them. I think that's a cause I'll take up. I didn't even know they existed before you posted the link. Thanks for sharing it. Ya, no problem. Reports like these make me wonder what the criteria is to not be spied on by the government. Living in a box perhaps? I agree with you in regards to anti-abortion activists, and I am not entirely opposed to them being monitored as a potential threat (for the very reasons you listed) even if the majority of them turn out to be relatively "harmless" in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Mar 24, 2009 12:13:36 GMT -5
.... Ya, no problem. Reports like these make me wonder what the criteria is to not be spied on by the government. Living in a box perhaps? ..... Simple, being one of those in control. Authoritarians view any dissent against them as dangerous. So the idea that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear is wrong. Authoritarian leaders take it on faith that if you aren't one of them, then you have done something wrong. They just haven't found it yet. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 24, 2009 13:08:06 GMT -5
I'm also sure someone is spying on people in boxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 24, 2009 13:44:05 GMT -5
I've always hated the argument that people refusing to answer investigator questions or being spied on for their beliefs rather than their actions "should have nothing to fear if they've done nothing wrong". By that logic, the fact that they've done nothing wrong means that they've given up their right to privacy.
But then, most of the people supporting government interference like this don't believe in the right to privacy.
|
|
