Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
I think a distinction Lessbread is trying to draw here, is that the investigation of the anti-war groups was silly because they didnt acctually blow anyone up, or plan to.

That's not true. Remember the Vietnam War? It seems reasonable to believe that anti-war extremists could turn to violence. There was a bombing of a recruiting station that, IIRC, had something to do with the Iraq War.

Quote: The Right Wing Extremists of the famous memo on the other hand, acctually did kill a bunch of people, so its less of a streatch to have the DHS write an intelligance memo on them.

I'm not aware of any plots carried out by returning veterans and secessionists lately. That's not to say the government shouldn't keep an eye out -- but only if it keeps an eye on Muslims and pinkos, too.

Was there anything to tie the various groups that got hasseled to the behaviour of the groups in Vietnam? From what I know of the groups involved its silly to think they were ploting any terrorist attacks, whereas I can think of one right-wing extremist in the last few weeks who went on a shooting spree because he thought his ARs were about to get banned. In my opinion theres a difference between fishing trips on organizations that you have no real reason to suspect, and warnings about groups which in the recent past have caused trouble. By all means, have the government keep an eye on pinkos who could reasonably be considered to be a threat, but not ones who are so ludicriously harmless, as to render the matter a farce.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Was there anything to tie the various groups that got hasseled to the behaviour of the groups in Vietnam?

Yes, we're talking about anti-war protesters with presumably similar mindsets. This memo isn't identifying groups that have caused problems in the past, it's suggesting profiles of people and groups who are allegedly ripe for radicalization.

Quote: From what I know of the groups involved its silly to think they were ploting any terrorist attacks,

What right-wing groups have been plotting terrorist attacks or carried them out? What does this have to do with the memo?

Quote: whereas I can think of one right-wing extremist in the last few weeks who went on a shooting spree because he thought his ARs were about to get banned.

When I first heard about the story, there was nothing to suggest the shooting spree had to do with his fear of Obama (which he may indeed have harbored.) Why are you ignoring the more obvious trigger: that he lost his job and was really pissed off? Judging from the media reports, there has been a surge in murder-suicides that correlates strongly with the economic downturn.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The threat was there with Clinton and it remains with Obama, but nevertheless, Bush pushed the country closer to that dead end more than any President ever has.

Some people claim that democracy inevitably leads to fascism because when it arrives, it can rightfully claim to have been authorized by the people. We'll see how long democracy lasts this century. It has been pointed out that, paradoxically, democracies have an incredibly hard time reforming themselves, if they are capable of doing so at all.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
No, I don't have to. There is a gigantic difference between a pacifist anti-war group and an armed militia group.

The memo referred to the types of people that might be drawn to armed groups or form them. Likewise, anti-war protesters can conceivably be drawn to violent movements as well. How do you know an anti-war group's agenda is peaceful unless you observe it?

DHS released a similar report about leftwing extremists in January (Obtained: Federal Agency’s Memo Warning Of “Left Wing Extremists”). None of the people complaining now complained then. And anti-war protesters have been observed, photographed, arrested before they began protesting and so on for years now. Greenwald nailed it three days ago: The ultimate reaping of what one sows: right-wing edition

Quote:
...
It's certainly true that federal police efforts directed at domestic political movements -- even ones with a history of inspiring violence in both the distant and recent past -- require real vigilance and oversight, and it's also true that the DHS description of these groups seems excessively broad with the potential for mischief. But the political faction screeching about the dangers of the DHS is the same one that spent the last eight years vastly expanding the domestic Surveillance State and federal police powers in every area. DHS -- and the still-creepy phrase "homeland security" -- became George Bush's calling card. The Republicans won the 2002 election by demonizing those who opposed its creation. All of the enabling legislation underlying this Surveillance State -- from the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act, from the various FISA "reforms" to massive increases in domestic "counter-Terrorism" programs -- are the spawns of the very right-wing movement that today is petrified that this is all being directed at them.

When you cheer on a Surveillance State, you have no grounds to complain when it turns its eyes on you. If you create a massive and wildly empowered domestic surveillance apparatus, it's going to monitor and investigate domestic political activity. That's its nature.
...
I was in Minneapolis and St. Paul during the 2008 GOP Convention and witnessed first-hand massive federal police raids and "preventive" arrests of peaceful, law-abiding protesters and even the violent arrests of journalists, and I don't recall any complaints from Jonah Goldberg or Michelle Malkin. I don't recall Glenn Reynolds or Mark Steyn complaining that the FBI, for virtually the entire Bush administration, was systematically abusing its new National Security Letters authorities under the Patriot Act to collect extremely invasive information, in secret, about Americans who had done nothing wrong. Russ Feingold's efforts to place limits and abuse-preventing safeguards on these Patriot Act powers in 2006 attracted a grand total of 10 votes in the Senate -- none Republican.

Indeed, thanks to the very people who are today petulantly complaining about politically-motivated federal police actions (now that they imagine it's directed at them rather than at people they dislike), the Federal Government today has the power to eavesdrop on telephone calls and read the emails of American citizens without warrants; monitor bank records without court approval; obtain all sorts of invasive personal records, medical and financial, without Subpoenas; and obtain and store a whole host of other personal information about American citizens who have not been accused, let alone convicted, of having done anything wrong. Also thanks to them (and things like the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc. etc), most of this is carried out without any real oversight or safeguards, left entirely to the judgment and good faith of federal officials to wield these powers carefully and for proper ends. And, better still, federal officials can hide behind sweeping claims of secrecy and National Security to prevent courts from scrutinizing what they did and determine if it was illegal (we call that "the state secrets privilege").
...

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: I don't think "incompetent know-nothing" applies to Obama.

I think it does. I haven't seen him say anything original or insightful. He's got some smart people in his administration, but no smarter than those in the Bush administration, and no less corrupt.

Then you haven't been listening or you lack the ability to tell the difference.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Was there anything to tie the various groups that got hasseled to the behaviour of the groups in Vietnam?

Yes, we're talking about anti-war protesters with presumably similar mindsets. This memo isn't identifying groups that have caused problems in the past, it's suggesting profiles of people and groups who are allegedly ripe for radicalization.

Quote: From what I know of the groups involved its silly to think they were ploting any terrorist attacks,

What right-wing groups have been plotting terrorist attacks or carried them out? What does this have to do with the memo?

Quote: whereas I can think of one right-wing extremist in the last few weeks who went on a shooting spree because he thought his ARs were about to get banned.

When I first heard about the story, there was nothing to suggest the shooting spree had to do with his fear of Obama (which he may indeed have harbored.) Why are you ignoring the more obvious trigger: that he lost his job and was really pissed off? Judging from the media reports, there has been a surge in murder-suicides that correlates strongly with the economic downturn.

My opinion of the anti-war groups was that they were not such that a reasonable person would suspect them of being the type to commit acts of violence. Your mileage may vary on that of course, but no evidence for that was found.

When I said groups, I did not mean organizations, or cells, I just meant the right wing extremist section of the population, to include people like Timothy McVeigh, and whoever the poor soul was who recently shot up a bunch of people over his ARs. I agree with you that the economic problems are often the triggers for these people(both of the two listed above were not doing well). Probably lots of people feel as angry as they did. But if you combine extreme right wing philosophy on the government with its philosophy on gun ownership and poor economic conditions, a reasonable person could think that a memo on the subject would not be uncalled for. To my mind its a much more likely idea that we'll see further attacks of that variety then that those antiwar protesters were going to bomb anything, but I suppose your mileage may vary. For the record however, I own quite a few firearms, am fairly conservative, and I didnt support the aforementioned protesters at the time, so I dont think I have alot of bias on this issue.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
DHS released a similar report about leftwing extremists in January (Obtained: Federal Agency’s Memo Warning Of “Left Wing Extremists”). None of the people complaining now complained then.

I'm aware of this. If right-wingers and left-wingers are okay with the other side being targeted, then that's hypocritical. The right-wing is being hypocritical for denouncing this and the left is for not doing so.

Quote:
When you cheer on a Surveillance State, you have no grounds to complain when it turns its eyes on you. If you create a massive and wildly empowered domestic surveillance apparatus, it's going to monitor and investigate domestic political activity. That's its nature.

I fully agree.

Quote: Then you haven't been listening or you lack the ability to tell the difference.

You're right, I haven't been listening. I've just been reading Obama's teleprompter feeds. Tee hee hee.

In all seriousness, I'm having difficulty seeing the difference. Obama's administration is pumping billions of dollars into an industry they are associated with. This is equally egregious to what the Bush administration did, minus the war. The Bush administration ran up absurd levels of debt, a trend which began with Reagan and probably had earlier roots, and the Obama administration is poised to multiply that.

The result: Bush and Obama will be remembered for destroying our nation, on top of whatever else Obama screws up in the next 4-8 years. The world is becoming much more competitive as the East rises and the West declines. We are numerically inferior and have serious systemic problems all throughout our society. Worst of all, our leadership is blind to it, because it is too busy doing the bidding of the elites.

This is a fun time to be alive thanks to the rapid pace of change in the modern world. What could be more interesting than watching the decline of one civilization and the rise of another, and to be aware of it?

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
My opinion of the anti-war groups was that they were not such that a reasonable person would suspect them of being the type to commit acts of violence. Your mileage may vary on that of course, but no evidence for that was found.

So your argument is based purely on emotion? I haven't met any anti-war protesters or right-wingers who I felt would be violent types. So what? I have met clueless idiots on both sides.

Quote: When I said groups, I did not mean organizations, or cells, I just meant the right wing extremist section of the population, to include people like Timothy McVeigh, and whoever the
poor soul was who recently shot up a bunch of people over his ARs.

So why were you trying to get me to link Vietnam protest groups to anti-war groups when the designation "extreme left-winger" suffices as a categorization? Timothy McVeigh has about as much to do with returning Iraq vets and Ron Paultards as Bill Ayers and Cindy Sheehan.

Quote: But if you combine extreme right wing philosophy on the government with its philosophy on gun ownership and poor economic conditions, a reasonable person could think that a memo on the subject would not be uncalled for.

What about left-wing philosophy on the government? Strong, expansive government. Government regulation of media. Political correctness and social conditioning. Social "justice" and self-loathing. Not to mention the equally appalling history of left-wing policies: gulags, re-education camps, purges, and economic "policies" formulated based on notions of what is socially "just" rather than "economically sound." It's just as bad as the history of right-wing philosophy.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
My opinion of the anti-war groups was that they were not such that a reasonable person would suspect them of being the type to commit acts of violence. Your mileage may vary on that of course, but no evidence for that was found.

So your argument is based purely on emotion? I haven't met any anti-war protesters or right-wingers who I felt would be violent types. So what? I have met clueless idiots on both sides.

Quote: When I said groups, I did not mean organizations, or cells, I just meant the right wing extremist section of the population, to include people like Timothy McVeigh, and whoever the
poor soul was who recently shot up a bunch of people over his ARs.

So why were you trying to get me to link Vietnam protest groups to anti-war groups when the designation "extreme left-winger" suffices as a categorization? Timothy McVeigh has about as much to do with returning Iraq vets and Ron Paultards as Bill Ayers and Cindy Sheehan.

Quote: But if you combine extreme right wing philosophy on the government with its philosophy on gun ownership and poor economic conditions, a reasonable person could think that a memo on the subject would not be uncalled for.

What about left-wing philosophy on the government? Strong, expansive government. Government regulation of media. Political correctness and social conditioning. Social "justice" and self-loathing. Not to mention the equally appalling history of left-wing policies: gulags, re-education camps, purges, and economic "policies" formulated based on notions of what is socially "just" rather than "economically sound." It's just as bad as the history of right-wing philosophy.

My argument is based on what a hypothetical reasonable observer would think would be an excessive action, in this case the investigation of a harmless antiwar group. I'll admit its somewhat subjective(one persons harmless group could be another persons terror cell until you investigate I suppose), but I don't think you'll find many people who were aware of the group in question who didn't think this was silly.

I don't know that a memo on right wing extremists excludes a memo on left wing extremists(I see lessbread linked one, but I didn't read it). Which group has more guns though? Which group has more domestic attacks in the recent past? At any rate, the left could have an equal number of loons with guns, it wouldn't invalidate a warning about the right wing loons.

My point about groups vs organizations was to try and point out that there is a difference between harassing a particular organization you don't care for, vs warning about people of a particular character. In other words, to me, noting that having lots of crazy extremist right wingers(or left) with guns and no jobs tends to result in bad things happening is not an indicator of the failure of democracy, but merely common sense(or at least an indicator that someone can read the newspaper). On the other hand investigating a political group because you happen to disagree with them is such an indicator(unless you have evidence that would convince a reasonable unbiased observer). To say that that particular anti-war group fell into the category of crazy left wing antiwar protesters who bomb people, is to fly in the face of the facts, and even the most cursory of examinations should have shown this.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
My argument is based on what a hypothetical reasonable observer would think would be an excessive action, in this case the investigation of a harmless antiwar group.

And third party voters are harmful?

Quote:
Which group has more guns though?

Why does this matter? Guns are legal. Likewise, how many terror attacks have been carried out using bombs and arson rather than guns? And how many terror attacks are carried out by left wing vs. right wing groups? Animal rights and environmental activists, for example, have been very active in carrying out domestic terrorist attacks in recent years.

Quote:
Which group has more domestic attacks in the recent past? At any rate, the left could have an equal number of loons with guns, it wouldn't invalidate a warning about the right wing loons.

You're changing the argument. My point wasn't about profiling leftists vs. rightists. It was about hypocrisy. Claiming it's more justified to target right wingers or gloating about the tables being turned is hypocritical.

Quote: vs warning about people of a particular character.

Did you see how vague the profile was?

Quote:
To say that that particular anti-war group fell into the category of crazy left wing antiwar protesters who bomb people, is to fly in the face of the facts, and even the most cursory of examinations should have shown this.

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. Anti-war movements in the United States have a history of violence. If you're going to claim that the sort of person who attends an anti-tax rally, votes for Ron Paul, or expresses interest in secessionism fits the same profile as a McVeigh, why wouldn't you presume that self-proclaimed communist anti-war protesters potentially fit the same profile as past anti-war radicals?

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
My argument is based on what a hypothetical reasonable observer would think would be an excessive action, in this case the investigation of a harmless antiwar group.

And third party voters are harmful?

Quote:
Which group has more guns though?

Why does this matter? Guns are legal. Likewise, how many terror attacks have been carried out using bombs and arson rather than guns? And how many terror attacks are carried out by left wing vs. right wing groups? Animal rights and environmental activists, for example, have been very active in carrying out domestic terrorist attacks in recent years.

Quote:
Which group has more domestic attacks in the recent past? At any rate, the left could have an equal number of loons with guns, it wouldn't invalidate a warning about the right wing loons.

You're changing the argument. My point wasn't about profiling leftists vs. rightists. It was about hypocrisy. Claiming it's more justified to target right wingers or gloating about the tables being turned is hypocritical.

Quote: vs warning about people of a particular character.

Did you see how vague the profile was?

Quote:
To say that that particular anti-war group fell into the category of crazy left wing antiwar protesters who bomb people, is to fly in the face of the facts, and even the most cursory of examinations should have shown this.

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. Anti-war movements in the United States have a history of violence. If you're going to claim that the sort of person who attends an anti-tax rally, votes for Ron Paul, or expresses interest in secessionism fits the same profile as a McVeigh, why wouldn't you presume that self-proclaimed communist anti-war protesters potentially fit the same profile as past anti-war radicals?

With respect, I think you may have confused my position with your opinion of Lessbread. I didnt say anything about left wing groups in general, or gloat about the tables being turned(or indeed say anything whatsoever about the tables being turned). I also said nothing against third party voters, nor do I have anything against them. You keep mentioning the ron paulites, as though I were equating all ron paul fans with extremists. No where do I express this opinion though. I don't care for ron paul, but none of his supporters that I know advocate killing sprees, or blowing themselves up. I also didn't say anything about anti-tax rally protesters, who for all I know, are law abiding, if silly. I get the feeling that we are talking about different things.

I wasn't attempting to change the argument. I entered the conversation to attempt to argue my position that theres nothing wrong with a warning about right wing extremists if the events justify it, that it does not represent a failure of democracy, and comparing it to an investigation ordered for harassment purposes is comparing apples to oranges. I do however think there is more danger of right wing extremist attacks currently in the US going by recently history, but it may be you could show that there is an equal risk of leftist crazies attacking people too. Having familiarity with guns, or explosives in general, is helpful if you decide to flip your lid and kill a bunch of people. Do you think that theres an equal number of crazy leftist extremists who know a lot about weapons in general? Even if you were to show that the odds were equal though, I don't see anything hypocritical about a memo on the right wing extremists.

If you honestly think after reading about the group that was investigated that they were likely to commit a violent crime, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. However there is a difference between an investigation, which everyone agrees turned out to be unwarranted in retrospect, and a memo urging people to take care, which is why I raised the point to begin with. Personally I don't think a reasonable observer would have thought they were the violent type. I also think most people recognize that the antiwar movements have "moved on" since the end of the Vietnam war and the ending of the draft, but again, we can agree to disagree on this, and probably also on if violence by the extreme right wing is on the increase.

I did read the document under discussion. I don't understand how you could compare it with a punitive investigation of an innocent group, or really see anything there that wasn't common sense backed up by recent examples. Which section of the paper do you disagree with? Could you quote the section you find objectionable? Again the entire point of the memo was that people or groups with extremist ideas, lots of guns, and no prospects in hard economic times is a recipe for trouble. It didn't say that if you voted for ron paul you are about to snap.

[Edited by - laeuchli on April 17, 2009 10:40:56 PM]