Then you're either not looking or intentionally turning a blind eye to them to fit what you want to believe.
Your face is getting purple, Sam. Chill. I didn't say the ACLU is a bad organization. Maybe they just need a better public relations director who can change their image as liberal elitists. You reckon?
This is primarily my point... right here-------> I do not feel threatened when I'm doing nothing for them to "catch." I am not scared of government when I am not engaged in potentially treasonous activities. Anyone not certain of their rights would be scared. I am not. That's why it's to me. It's alarmism at it's best to insinuate that this means our government is going the way of the KGB. They are just using a "fine toothed comb." Ever hear of those previous movements I mentioned? Well, not unlike those times, YES, current anti-governement orgs can use those rallies as recruiting grounds... Yes they would show their faces at the risk of gaining recruits... Didn't see the most recent story about the "homegrown terrorist" they called "Azzam the American?" I'm sure this effort is to avert any more homegrowns ending up on Al Q vids... And if.... I REPEAT - AND PLEASE READ - IF there are linkable suspects consistently showing up at these events, they (the gubment) MAY catch on to a pattern and squelch something. Why not do that? I am IN NO WAY saying that it means everyone at these rallies is a terrorist, and I don't believe the gubment agencies are either.... Paranoid much? Why? <----That's all I'm asking/saying. If you aren't involved in any criminal or terrorist activity, I'm still certain enough of our system to believe that "you" won't be implicated. In old cliche' terms... if the shoe fits... If it doesn't, quit trying to make this appear as a wholesale loss of freedom. It is NOT that. This is NOT a case of Orwell predicting reality. Seriously. I am fully aware that the "1984" scenario is what we're ALL guarding against, but any similarity to fiction cannot be automatically assumed to be it's fruition. That's exactly WHY I went on the "Scared Yet?" spree.... There is mass, unsubstantiated, paranoia... IMHO. I hope I'm right, too. Don't you? Don't you hope that the "worst" is NOT upon us? How is that in the least "un-American" or a show of "hate" for our country? I want what you want. I DO NOT want a kneejerk reaction to a common practice among law makers and peace keepers in our country which makes the "administration" out to be the devil for using the same tactics employed by government in ANY past war time. This is NOT the first time these things have been kept track of, it's just the first time we have such easy, and fast access (the interwebs, primarily) to these types of reports. I understand from discussions with folks I know that MILLIONS were watched during the Kennedy presidency during our Cuban episode... and how many since? No one will quite know... but this is no "original" phenomenon that the "Bushies" have just come up with. Don't freak yourselves out here. These things actually, if anything, help KEEP your free assemblies a possiblity. I suppose if no one tracked potential state-side suicide bombings, and then one or two began occuring at these types of events, then people wouldn't feel free to even host such a rally. If I were everyone screaming against the "policing" of potential hotbeds of anti-US sentiment, I'd be realizing the system may just be protecting your right to scream.
The Secret Service is always like that, regardless of who is President. Getting into a Jimmy Carter event was tough even back in the day.
So you are OK with the Defense Dept doing this? You'd be OK with President Hillary Clinton doing this to Republicans gathered to protest universal health care or a tax hike? Or withdrawal from Iraq? Or some other policy Clinton might support? It sounds to me like you are confusing the party in charge and the Government. Would protests aimed at a Clinton administration be anti-American? After all, such rallies could be used to gather recruits for home-grown terrorists.
Wow. This really is scary. The government is keeping super secret files on people!!! So super duper secret that the information was handed over after a written request.
This is a repeat of all the BS that the DoD did during the Vietnam War. Honestly it doesn't surprise me since so many of the 'players' in this administration seem to pine for the better days before the Watergate break in. The problem once they gather this information is that some genus decides that it would be negligent not to use it as leverage. Look at what the FBI did to opponents of Vietnam and you'll see it started just like this.
No you didn't say it was bad, you just repeated an absolute lie in order to discredit it. Are you proposing that the onus should definitely be on the ACLU to stop people who intentionally spread distorted portrayals of them for their own political agenda, and the folks who ,even after beign told otherwise, repeat them, cluelessly, on things like, say, the internet -- rather than on those that spread false information....... One question, do you believe any of this or are you just trolling?
It's been awhile since Skokie, Sam. Instead of berating thumbs maybe you can point to some recent examples of the ACLU taking up a non-liberal slant since you're intentionally so intentionally clued in to the subject.
I did. Read my posts. Abortion clinic protests, campaign finance reform - all examples from the last few years. you can read more about it here: www.aclu.org And that answers my question.
Just go their site and have a look... it won't make you Liberal. Here's one from Sept where the ACLU defended the rights of supporters of that nut Fred Phelps. The ACLU argued that KY could not pass a law restricting free speech at funerals. Here, they defend a Republican... http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html
I don't have a problem with the government - or anybody else for that matter - photographing people at public events. *News flash*, when you are out in public, people can see you. If you don't want people to know that you oppose the war, don't attend public rallies against it. You can still oppose the war in private though. I don't see this in any way as an attack on the constitution. There are specific protections granted in the bill of rights, but the right to assemble and have no one keep any records of it is not one of them. I can see the argument for not allowing wire tapping or reading of email, but you have no reasonable expectation of privacy marhing down the middle of the street.
Neither the Democratic or Republican parties share all of my views. I could fall into one of either of the camps depending on which topic is being discussed. I used to vote Republican because the Democratic party was too far to the left. Now I vote Democratic because the Republican party is too far to the right.
SM, when I protested against Vietnam, back in the day, I figured the government might be doing something it shouldn't do, which is spying on the citizens of this country when they are making peaceful, non-violent political statements by marching legally down the street to make their point. Like I said, it was something they shouldn't have been doing, and it's certainly something they shouldn't be doing today. We have a right to engage in peaceful political protest. This isn't a police state. At least, that has been my understanding. If someone wants to point out how I am wrong, and that it is, then feel "free" to do so. Keep D&D Civil and America Free.
This has nothing to do with rights of privacy, that is not a first amendment issue. The right to assemble peaceably is guaranteed by the Amendment I. Accordingly, the government cannot take steps to prevent people from doing so, including those which fall short of an outright ban, such as keeping blacklists of people.
How is recording those who assemble preventing them from assembling? If I write down the names of everyone that posts in this thread, am I preventing them/you/myself from posting? You guys are complaining about something they haven't even done yet (take away the constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble) and in doing so, claiming it is illegal to note who is on a street on a particual day. Deckard called it spying. It isn't spying to look at who is standing around in public. What they are doing is not infringing on your 1st amendment rights, and the only reasonable argument against what they are doing is based on a right to privacy, which as a said cannot be reasonably expected in public. Look, I can see where this could lead - once they have a database of protestors they could harrass them. That would be illegal, and that would be an infringement of their rights. Just having the database does not cross that line, imo.
