NationStates Jolt Archive

So - monitoring Islamic citizens is not enough... the Pentagon is spending the money it claims it is so short of..... monitoring anti-war protestors?

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051230/NEWS/512300338/1003

"Leahy wants info on spying

December 30, 2005

Associated Press

COLCHESTER — Sen. Patrick Leahy wants the Defense Department to give him the details about two Vermont anti-war protests that were monitored by government officials.

Leahy, a Democrat, said Vermont had a long tradition of peaceful political protest.

"I want to know the extent of it. I want to know under what conceivable, conceivable legal justification they are doing it," Leahy told Vermont Public Radio.

"And even if they could legally justify it, what dunderhead policy reason (is there) for doing it," he said. "And again, I'd like to know how much it cost. The Department of Defense says we don't have enough money to get the kind of armor and protection our troops need in Iraq, but we've got money to go around and spy on Quaker meetings?"

Pentagon policy allows it to take the legal steps necessary to protect military installations and personnel from violence.

Earlier this month, NBC News reported that the Pentagon has monitored anti-war protests as part of a stepped up intelligence collection effort. The efforts included monitoring two Vermont protests.

Joseph Gainza of the American Friends Service Committee, who helped organize those protests, said he was not surprised that the Pentagon keeps tabs on the peace movement.

"What disturbed me was that it's part of a larger pattern that this government seems to be doing what it pleases and hiding from the American people so much of its violations of law," Gainza said.

Leahy wrote Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asking for more information.

"Besides, I told the Department of Defense, if they really want to hear Vermonters speak out against the war, they don't have to send a camera crew to snoop around Vermont, just turn on C-SPAN," Leahy said. "I do it on the Senate floor all the time."

Gainza said the Pentagon's monitoring of protests could have a chilling effect on the public's right to challenge the government.

"People don't want to have their names on files somewhere as doing something which the government doesn't approve of. People are very concerned about that," Gainza said.

Opposing violence is a clear indication that somebody is a violent terrorist, it stands to reason.

*nods sagely*

Opposing violence is a clear indication that somebody is a violent terrorist, it stands to reason.

*nods sagely*

Indeed... apparently, those who line up in the street, and ADMIT they do not approve of violence... must be somehow the worst threat possible.

Makes you wonder how, though... what with the whole 'opposing violence' thing.

Maybe the Pentagon is worried that the whole thing might escalate... God knows what we'd do if they took it to the next level, and did something crazy.... like hold a bake-sale.


Anyway... far better to spend huge wodges of cash on monitoring pacifists, than on armouring our boys overseas..... obviously...

That's actually kind of a sad reflection on the Pentagon right now. It all started to go downhill under Rummy's command...

Indeed... apparently, those who line up in the street, and ADMIT they do not approve of violence... must be somehow the worst threat possible.

Makes you wonder how, though... what with the whole 'opposing violence' thing.

Maybe the Pentagon is worried that the whole thing might escalate... God knows what we'd do if they took it to the next level, and did something crazy.... like hold a bake-sale.


Anyway... far better to spend huge wodges of cash on monitoring pacifists, than on armouring our boys overseas..... obviously...

A bake-sale? Will nobody think of the children?:eek:

Pacifists were monitored in the USSR too, and indeed were intimidated in every noteworthy fascistic dictatorship. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the case in China.

There are two reasons - one being unnecessary surveilance for the sake of looking like you're doing your job, thus avoiding cuts in funding, the other being a fear that deviations from the ideal national character would undermine the whole - and all fascist regimes have a strong vision of the ideal national character.

Whichever way you look at it, it is pretty dumb.

Maybe the US will get around to doing to pacifists what it did in the 1950s.

The State Department kept a list of professors who were known to oppose US involvement in Korea - and when they travelled overseas, they were summoned to the Consulate or Embassy, and had their passport confiscated.

Left one guy in Brazil that I remember in particular. He was never able to come home again.

Doesn't take a trial. Purely administrative.

Damned Neutrals! :mad:

them vermont quakers can be verrrrrrrry dangerous. we need to keep an eye on them.

remember, nixon was a quaker...

Maybe the US will get around to doing to pacifists what it did in the 1950s.

The State Department kept a list of professors who were known to oppose US involvement in Korea - and when they travelled overseas, they were summoned to the Consulate or Embassy, and had their passport confiscated.

Left one guy in Brazil that I remember in particular. He was never able to come home again.

Doesn't take a trial. Purely administrative.

MI5 had assasination lists of radicals (mainly left-wingers) who were to be killed if there was ever a war with Russia. The fact that we'd all have been blasted by nuclear weapons if there'd been a war with Russia seems to have been irrelevant.

A bake-sale? Will nobody think of the children?:eek:

Mmmm... No.

Damned Neutrals! :mad:

You have to wonder what makes a man turn Neutral. It's sickening, really.

Maybe the US will get around to doing to pacifists what it did in the 1950s.

The State Department kept a list of professors who were known to oppose US involvement in Korea - and when they travelled overseas, they were summoned to the Consulate or Embassy, and had their passport confiscated.

Left one guy in Brazil that I remember in particular. He was never able to come home again.

Doesn't take a trial. Purely administrative.
Well, is that really a punishment? I mean, which is worse -- to get kicked out by the country that wants to violate your rights and left somewhere where, maybe, you might get some rights and get asylum and get famous as an activist against the oppressors of your home nation; or to be kept in the country that wants to violate your rights and have your rights violated by them?

Typical self-defeating US-pseudo-fascist dumbassedness. Some things never change.

It's because the Busheviks all hold a common belief that Cindy Sheehan is a bigger traitor than Aldritch Ames and Robert Hansen put together, and that she's an even bigger terrorist than Osama Bin Ladin.

That and everyone knows Quaker Oatmeal is a WMD.

:D

Well, is that really a punishment? I mean, which is worse -- to get kicked out by the country that wants to violate your rights and left somewhere where, maybe, you might get some rights and get asylum and get famous as an activist against the oppressors of your home nation; or to be kept in the country that wants to violate your rights and have your rights violated by them?

Typical self-defeating US-pseudo-fascist dumbassedness. Some things never change.
Leaving you without food housing money or a job or your family ... still a punishment

Unfortunately, not all protestors are peaceful. There have been cases where people under the guise of an "antiwar protest" damage government property.

Maybe stop watching them, but require licenses expensive enough to cover the costs incurred by nonpeaceful protestors?

Unfortunately, not all protestors are peaceful. There have been cases where people under the guise of an "antiwar protest" damage government property.

Maybe stop watching them, but require licenses expensive enough to cover the costs incurred by nonpeaceful protestors?
So, you're going to punish peaceful protesters for the actions of a few nonpeaceful protesters? I don't think so. And free speech does not require a license. (see US Consitution, First Amendment) If protesters cause violence, the proper course is to arrest and charge the people who did it.

And it remains to be seen if the protesters who were under surveillance had committed, or planned to commit, any violent acts. We don't know why they were being watched. The government owes us an explanation.

:rolleyes:

Leaving you without food housing money or a job or your family ... still a punishment
There's food in Brazil. Quite good food, actually.

Think of it this way: The dictators of South America didn't kick their dissidents out of their countries; they just killed them. The Soviets didn't kick their dissidents out of Russia -- they kept them virtual prisoners within their country, denied them food, housing, money, and jobs right there at home, and if that didn't shut them up, they sent them to prison. Why? Because they didn't want dissidents running around blowing the whistle on their rotten governments. They didn't want them writing books. Remember The Gulag Archipelago? That was a PR setback.

But American would-be dictators just kick dissidents out, thus letting them loose to tell the whole world what a bunch of shits we are.

This kind of incompetence is the only thing that has saved this country so far from becoming a totalitarian state. American totalitarians are morons, thank god.

You have to wonder what makes a man turn Neutral. It's sickening, really.
My $ is on reading too many threads on forums that debate more than two ends of a spectrum ad nauseum and then realizing precious minutes of your life are melting away in a digital continuum, signifying nothing.

Or it could be from reading and interpreting most forms of "entertainment" en masse and realizing there's nothing particularly funny or entertaining about it. But you still hold a doubt as to whether you truly dislike it or not.

It could also be from reading too much Sartre or Camus.

It could even be from a lack of significant monetary stimulus/compensation to sway one's resolve.

It's because the Busheviks all hold a common belief that Cindy Sheehan is a bigger traitor than Aldritch Ames and Robert Hansen put together, and that she's an even bigger terrorist than Osama Bin Ladin.

That and everyone knows Quaker Oatmeal is a WMD.

:D

Anthrax of the future, my friend.

So what's new? Under the guise of protecting our country from terrorists our government has spyed on Ancient Forest Rescue, Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the American Indian Movement and the Catholic Workers, to name but a few.

Not saying I approve, just not surprised.

So what's new? Under the guise of protecting our country from terrorists our government has spyed on Ancient Forest Rescue, Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the American Indian Movement and the Catholic Workers, to name but a few.

Not saying I approve, just not surprised.

Well, PETA is a terrorist support network, but other than that your post pretty much works.

Is this the real thing, this time? Unlike the kid that claimed he was questioned over a library book?

Smacks of more anti-government communists at work trying to destroy what little credibility the Administration has left.

Is this the real thing, this time? Unlike the kid that claimed he was questioned over a library book?

Smacks of more anti-government communists at work trying to destroy what little credibility the Administration has left.

How do you mean? The article says that the inquiry that is being called for, is being called by none other than Patrick Leahy, Democrat Senator for Vermont.

Which is he? A kid? Or an anti-government communist?

You have to wonder what makes a man turn Neutral. It's sickening, really.

"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born
with a heart full of neutrality?"
"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand,
but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me."
-Zap Brannigan

"Sound the beige alert."
"All I know is my gut says maybe."
"If I don't make it, tell my wife, "Hello."" - President of the Neutral
Planet, upon facing his impending doom.

How do you mean? The article says that the inquiry that is being called for, is being called by none other than Patrick Leahy, Democrat Senator for Vermont.

Which is he? A kid? Or an anti-government communist?
I'm just waiting for a little more confirmation before I start condemning the Administration for spying on dissidents. Just because Leahy wants an inquiry, doesn't make it so. As soon as we see someone besides an AP stringer reporting on it, I'll be more inclined to believe it isn't just another attention getting stunt.

I'm just waiting for a little more confirmation before I start condemning the Administration for spying on dissidents. Just because Leahy wants an inquiry, doesn't make it so. As soon as we see someone besides an AP stringer reporting on it, I'll be more inclined to believe it isn't just another attention getting stunt.
....I'll only need another 2 or 3 years before i start condemning the Administration for any of its policies, misappropriations, tactics, behaviour or actions....

....I'll only need another 2 or 3 years before i start condemning the Administration for any of its policies, misappropriations, tactics, behaviour or actions....
That might actually sound clever, if ... What am I thinking, that will never sound clever.

That might actually sound clever, if ... What am I thinking, that will never sound clever.
Just clever enough to further your input, thus serving its function.
It worked well enough for me.
And as per the tactics of the administration, it would seem you fit the place all the more.
Thanks. And happy new year!!!

Maybe the US will get around to doing to pacifists what it did in the 1950s.

The State Department kept a list of professors who were known to oppose US involvement in Korea - and when they travelled overseas, they were summoned to the Consulate or Embassy, and had their passport confiscated.

Left one guy in Brazil that I remember in particular. He was never able to come home again.

Doesn't take a trial. Purely administrative.

Although I find the history lesson interesting, I fail to see any point you are making.

You've been doing this a lot. When the Bush Administration gets caught doing something wrong, you point to something that was allegedly done decades before. You don't expressly use the old incident as an excuse, but you imply it. You also seem to imply that you approve of the old wrongdoing.

Here, are you really saying these actions were legal? I doubt it.

Regardless, are you saying they were right?

I'm just waiting for a little more confirmation before I start condemning the Administration for spying on dissidents. Just because Leahy wants an inquiry, doesn't make it so. As soon as we see someone besides an AP stringer reporting on it, I'll be more inclined to believe it isn't just another attention getting stunt.

There is ample evidence that the Administration is spying on dissidents, if you would open your eyes.

Here is just a handful of the evidence:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/pentagon_domest.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13506607.htm
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html

There is ample evidence that the Administration is spying on dissidents, if you would open your eyes.

Here is just a handful of the evidence:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/pentagon_domest.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13506607.htm
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html
I looked at all those. I still think that 'monitoring', as the word is used to collect information about protests is probably a legitimate tool, as long as the information is obtained by legal means, i.e., open source data, no warrant-less wiretaps, court orders for searches, etc.

Domestic spying is still a touchy issue and the only way it can ever be justified is that there was a potential threat that needed to be investigated. By using legal means to gather that information, at least there has been a third party involved in the approval process.

As far as the article in the first post, there still isn't any indication that the DoD did anything illegal, is there?

I looked at all those. I still think that 'monitoring', as the word is used to collect information about protests is probably a legitimate tool, as long as the information is obtained by legal means, i.e., open source data, no warrant-less wiretaps, court orders for searches, etc.

Domestic spying is still a touchy issue and the only way it can ever be justified is that there was a potential threat that needed to be investigated. By using legal means to gather that information, at least there has been a third party involved in the approval process.

As far as the article in the first post, there still isn't any indication that the DoD did anything illegal, is there?

I think Leahy's original point, was that the Bush Regime constantly bitches and whines about how much more money they need for their little war, and yet servicemen are getting killed because there is no armour on their vehicles...

And then, the Pentagon is spending money that COULD be being spent on things that actually NEED to be done... spying on pacifists... who are OBVIOUSLY the biggest risk to national security, no? </sarcasm>

I think Leahy's original point, was that the Bush Regime constantly bitches and whines about how much more money they need for their little war, and yet servicemen are getting killed because there is no armour on their vehicles...

And then, the Pentagon is spending money that COULD be being spent on things that actually NEED to be done... spying on pacifists... who are OBVIOUSLY the biggest risk to national security, no? </sarcasm>
First, Leahy's statement that the DoD doesn't think it has "... enough money to get the kind of armor and protection our troops need in Iraq, but we've got money to go around and spy on Quaker meetings?" is pure demagoguery. It sounds good in a sound bite, but doesn't have any truth to it. Second, the DoD does maintain an investigative service that is supposed to investigate. That's not misused money. Third, I don't see the Bush Administration 'whining' about the lack of money for Iraq. They present appropriations bills and the Congress passes them. Sometimes Congress even adds a little sweetener for themselves. If anyone should be complaining about anything, the taxpayers should complain about the pork and other non-related legislation that gets added on to the 'must pass' defense appropriations bills.

I looked at all those. I still think that 'monitoring', as the word is used to collect information about protests is probably a legitimate tool, as long as the information is obtained by legal means, i.e., open source data, no warrant-less wiretaps, court orders for searches, etc.

Domestic spying is still a touchy issue and the only way it can ever be justified is that there was a potential threat that needed to be investigated. By using legal means to gather that information, at least there has been a third party involved in the approval process.

As far as the article in the first post, there still isn't any indication that the DoD did anything illegal, is there?

Hmmm.

I see you conveniently distinguish "monitoring" from "spying". Care to explain the difference?

Moreover, you've changed the subject. The original issue was the DoD "monitoring" anti-war and other dissident groups. You said you wouldn't believe it was happening without proof.

Now that its proved, you switch the issue to whether it was "spying" and/or "illegal."

The Pentagon has no business using its resources to monitor (i.e., spy) on dissident groups -- regardless of the legality of the monitoring. This is a classic example of the waste and abuse of resources for political reasons.

First, Leahy's statement that the DoD doesn't think it has "... enough money to get the kind of armor and protection our troops need in Iraq, but we've got money to go around and spy on Quaker meetings?" is pure demagoguery. It sounds good in a sound bite, but doesn't have any truth to it. Second, the DoD does maintain an investigative service that is supposed to investigate. That's not misused money. Third, I don't see the Bush Administration 'whining' about the lack of money for Iraq. They present appropriations bills and the Congress passes them. Sometimes Congress even adds a little sweetener for themselves. If anyone should be complaining about anything, the taxpayers should complain about the pork and other non-related legislation that gets added on to the 'must pass' defense appropriations bills.

Another nice bait-and-switch.

Hmmm.

I see you conveniently distinguish "monitoring" from "spying". Care to explain the difference?

Moreover, you've changed the subject. The original issue was the DoD "monitoring" anti-war and other dissident groups. You said you wouldn't believe it was happening without proof.

Now that its proved, you switch the issue to whether it was "spying" and/or "illegal."

The Pentagon has no business using its resources to monitor (i.e., spy) on dissident groups -- regardless of the legality of the monitoring. This is a classic example of the waste and abuse of resources for political reasons.
My original complaint was that this whole incident was probably just a photo op for Senator Leahy. I don't see any confirmation that these two Vermonters were ever subjected to any legal or illegal surveillance. But the accusation does provide an outspoken critic of the Administration with yet another chance to prove that he's a demagogue. I still don't see any confirmation, or even widespread outrage that these two protesters are being subjected to anything where "...government seems to be doing what it pleases and hiding from the American people so much of its violations of law," Gainza said.

I believe the post you are referring to could be improved a little by inserting the word 'illegal' in an appropriate place. But what the hell? This isn't court and I'm not a witness.

You are also disinclined to discuss as much as you are inclined to discredit. So I figure this is about all the response you are worth.

First, Leahy's statement that the DoD doesn't think it has "... enough money to get the kind of armor and protection our troops need in Iraq, but we've got money to go around and spy on Quaker meetings?" is pure demagoguery. It sounds good in a sound bite, but doesn't have any truth to it. Second, the DoD does maintain an investigative service that is supposed to investigate. That's not misused money. Third, I don't see the Bush Administration 'whining' about the lack of money for Iraq. They present appropriations bills and the Congress passes them. Sometimes Congress even adds a little sweetener for themselves. If anyone should be complaining about anything, the taxpayers should complain about the pork and other non-related legislation that gets added on to the 'must pass' defense appropriations bills.

I agree. Taxpayers SHOULD complain about all the pork being added into vital bills.

However, that is not the subject of THIS thread, now, is it?

If you want to talk about bridges to nowhere, or Alaska drilling, feel free to start a thread on it.

Are Leahy's words 'pure demagoguery'? We have been hearing, for some time, about under-equipped (especially under-armoured) servicemen. Would it not be appropriate to spend as much money as possible, therefore, on equipping the troops we have in theatre?

Yes, the DoD gets to investigate. That hasn't been disputed. But - should our defence department be wasting resources on pacifist gatherings, while our troops are dying on an almost daily basis, overseas.... and SOME of them MIGHT be saved, by re-appropraiont of the money being used on Quaker-watch?

Last point.... I'm guessing must be a partisan thing... so I'm not even going to touch it.

Why not monitor anti-war protesters? It's cheap, safe, and makes it look like you are doing something. If one were to monitor terrorist organizations, the terrorist organizations might take offence and blow something up or kill people.

All peaceniks are going to do is whine alot.