I am... _____________ October 13, 2006 Documents Reveal Scope of U.S. Database on Antiwar Protests By ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — Internal military documents released Thursday provided new details about the Defense Department’s collection of information on demonstrations nationwide last year by students, Quakers and others opposed to the Iraq war. The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show, for instance, that military officials labeled as “potential terrorist activity” events like a “Stop the War Now” rally in Akron, Ohio, in March 2005. The Defense Department acknowledged last year that its analysts had maintained records on war protests in an internal database past the 90 days its guidelines allowed, and even after it was determined there was no threat. A department spokesman said Thursday that the “questionable data collection” had led to a tightening of military procedures to ensure that only information relevant to terrorism and other threats was collected. The spokesman, Maj. Patrick Ryder, said in response to the release of the documents that the department “views with great concern any potential violation” of the policy. “There is nothing more important or integral to the effectiveness of the U.S. military than the trust and good will of the American people,” Major Ryder said. A document first disclosed last December by NBC News showed that the military had maintained a database, known as Talon, containing information about more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” around the country in 2004 and 2005. Dozens of alerts on antiwar meetings and peaceful protests appear to have remained in the database even after analysts had decided that they posed no threat to military bases or personnel. Some documents obtained by the A.C.L.U. referred to the potential for disruption to military recruiting and the threat posed to military personnel as a result. An internal report produced in May 2005, for instance, discussed antiwar protests at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and was issued “to clarify why the Students for Peace and Justice represent a potential threat to D.O.D. personnel.” The memorandum noted that several hundred students had recently protested the presence of military recruiters at a career fair and demanded that they leave. “The clear purpose of these civil disobedience actions was to disrupt the recruiting mission of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command by blocking the entrance to the recruiting station and causing the stations to shut down early,” it said. But the document also noted that “to date, no reported incidents have occurred at these protests.” The documents indicated that intelligence reports and tips about antiwar protests, including mundane details like the schedule for weekly planning meetings, were widely shared among analysts from the military, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security. “There is simply no reason why the United States military should be monitoring the peaceful activities of American citizens who oppose U.S. war policies,” said Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U. Joyce Miller, an official with the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group that learned that information on some of its antiwar protests was in the military database, said she found the operation to be a “chilling” and troubling trend. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/washington/13protest.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
What really "scares" me is the conduct of the Columbia students choking off free speech by the Minutemen. Whereas they have every right to disagree, they have no right to use Hitler-like tactics in shutting down the talk. Several of these elitist students actually went on camera and said that wrong-headed opinions should be squelched before they can be heard. The "I'm right and you're wrong so everybody should listen only to me" attitude is growing, and that truly is scary. And the biggest offenders come from the left, whose very mantra is free speech, freedom of choice, etc. etc. I haven't seen the ACLU defending the Minutemen's freedoms as yet.
The "I'm right and you're wrong so everybody should listen only to me" attitude is growing, and that truly is scary. And the biggest offenders come from the left, whose very mantra is free speech, freedom of choice, etc. etc. So how many people with a Democratic t-shirt, bumper sticker, etc. gets to see W at public speech opportunities?
Wow. I coined a "phrase." Hee, hee. BTW- If you can't see an anti-government rally in a war on terror as a potential (didn't say definite) place that may cause terrorists to show their faces, then you may not get the point of such a list. In many case in history, these types of situations have yielded recruits for anti-establishment groups... NOt of the exact gravity or ilk, but I believe the 60's yielded some of these "demonstrations" that helped to spawn anti-government organizations. In this day and age it's not the Black Panthers or a communist sympathizer group.... it's a terrorist sympathizer group. Quite frankly, I view today's threats way more serious than those of an age past. I for one, don't see these "lists" as anything but dotting every "i" and crosses for all of the "t's"... Scared Yet? It's quite like this to me. The only people who are scared of the "rapture" are those ill prepared for it's occurrence. I do not believe our government is throwing out reason, in a search for treason.
YOu really think an on-campus squabble between private actors is more troublesome than a potentially unconstitutional domestic spying program carried out by the US military? I find that odd. Anyway, last time I checked a bunch of columbia students had no regulatory authority over civil liberties so I really don't think this is a probem for the ACLU. Private actors shouting each other down doesn't fall into that realm. It really burns me up when right wingers like to lob bombshells at the ACLU. They really are one of the few truly principled organizatons out there. The ACLU has, and will continue, to legally align themselves with all kinds of organizations that their membership my find distasteful or antithetical (Nazis, abortion protestors, conseravative political PAC's, the NRA) solely to protect the principle of free speech. They're not perfect, and they don't take on every single possible case for various reasons, but they do a very good job of embodying Voltaire's famous concept of "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die for your right to say it" However they never receive any credit - the right likes to caricature them as a bunch of godless commie bastards, which strikes me as quite ungrateful - considering that the ACLU has the balls to go to the mat for them no matter what.
Is there anyone who Ever remembers changing their mind from The paint on a sign? Is there anyone who really recalls Ever breaking rank at all For something someone yelled real loud one time Everyone believes In how they think it ought to be Everyone believes And they're not going easily Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword Like punching under water You never can hit who you're trying for Some need the exhibition And some have to know they tried It's the chemical weapon For the war that's raging on inside Everyone believes From emptiness to everything Everyone believes And no ones going quietly We're never gonna win the world We're never gonna stop the war We're never gonna beat this If belief is what we're fighting for What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand Belief can Belief can What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand Belief can Belief can "Belief" John Mayer CONTINUUM
You're critiquing an entirely different element but in this debate I find both critiques to be relevant. The article is a criticism of government surveillance and collection of data. We already know from leaked intelligence that the warrantless wiretap program of the NSA was used to spy on non-profit NGOs like PETA, greenpeace, the ACLU, and some others and as we see now the defense department is collecting data on speech and protests which seems excessive, unnecessary and ridiculous. At the same time, your critique of college students and academia in my opinion is also correct. Even though I agree with many of the protests I see on campus, I just find their demeanor and their attitude to be very boorish and poisonous in terms of fostering broader political discourse. Liberal academia in many ways has an elitist flair to it that has turned off much of mainstream america. Ironically, in the 60s and 70s when science and academia were much much more respected and when politicians ran on the claim that they identified with intellectualism and academia (as opposed to today where a plain-jay like Bush who is functionally anti-intellectual can win) that very same arrogance and isolationism was viewed with awe by America's population. Both are issues to deal with and both should be examined closely. Critiquing one does not mute criticism of the other area.
If you're scared that you're on one.... why don't you admit it? (my response to you makes as much sense as your question to me) It seems some are scared, even now.
W's mantra is "I'm right and you're wrong so everybody should listen only to me". After all, he is the decider. For you to somehow think that "the left" are the worst offenders of self-righteousness is clearly specious
The position is noble, indeed. I just don't see the ACLU out there vigorously championing the cause of free speech when it's for a non-liberal viewpoint. And, yes, if the Columbia incident were isolated, who would care? But this type of free speech shutdown is becoming rampant. I'm no fan of Ann Coulter but I would go hear what she has to say. I'm no fan of Michael Moore, but I would go hear what he has to say. Whereas the latter is allowed his "free speech" on college campuses, the same is not true for the former. Now, I understand you believe I am wearing my conservative cap right now, but I'm really not. I'm merely pointing out that there is an abundance of hypocracy out there at present, and those closed minds are the great killers of true liberty. Oh yes. As far as military taking pictures of crowds, that's not scary. It's merely "due diligence" in my book.
why would al-queda be going to anti-war rallies? i thought they were pro-war? my response was to your post where you say that you dont have a problem with our government surveilling people at a peaceful anti-war protest. one of the ideals this country was founded on freedom of assembly and protest. if you hate this basic right so much why dont you leave. better watch out for those quakers though - scared yet?
What are you talking about? Did you even read my post? I just listed a number of non-liberal viewpoints that the ACLU has routinely litigated on behalf of, or at least on the same side with. I will repeat them for you: The ACLU has taken cases for Neo Nazis. The ACLU has taken up cases for hard-core anti abortion protestors. The ACLU aligned with all sorts of conservative groups (the NRA, Christian Coalition, etc) against campaign finance reform. Virtually ANY major free speech issue, no matter who is litigating, you will find the ACLU files a brief in support of the free speech side almost without fail. That is there job, that is what they do. Do you not believe me? Do you want docket numbers? Ann Coulter is allowed to exercise her speech at universities all over the country. She also draws protesters, who exercise their own speech, as does Moore. I don't see the issue. I'm not sure what cap you have on...but the fact that you seem to be intentiaonlly ignoring my point about the ACLU, as part of it mission, taking up the side of causes it detests (the ACLU's first big case in which they became notable was for neo-nazis marching in Skokie Illinois -- mind you this is a bunch of liberal, in many cases JEWISH lawyers, litigating the rights of neo-Nazis - absolutely free of charge) is perplexing.
Ah. You are right in that both left and right are equally guilty in that sense. My point was that the activists of the left currently are much more active in stopping people from speaking freely by using mob tactics. It's easy to cite incidents on college campuses where speakers of a conservative bent are throttled. I can think of no corresponding occurrences on the obverse side of the coin -- indeed, quite the contrary.
There is nothing wrong with the Black Panthers or communist sympathizers as far as our constitution is concerned. In case you dont' remember people are expressly allowed by our constitution the right to assemble for exactly these kinds of protests. Trying to spy on them would seem to go directly against what is expressed by our constitution.
free speech zones anyone? how about every single public event bush goes to? the control they exercise over who gets to get in is a joke. people who have something like an anti iraq-war bumper sticker or t-shirt are asked to leave. its wrong when either side does it. those college kids are as anti-american as bush when they go around shutting opposing viewpoints down.
