NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, it looks like our friends at the FBI are at it again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201568.html):

A secret FBI intelligence unit helped detain a group of war protesters in a downtown Washington parking garage in April 2002 and interrogated some of them on videotape about their political and religious beliefs, newly uncovered documents and interviews show.

For years, law enforcement authorities suggested it never happened. The FBI and D.C. police said they had no records of such an incident. And police told a federal court that no FBI agents were present when officers arrested more than 20 protesters that afternoon for trespassing; police viewed them as suspicious for milling around the parking garage entrance.

But a civil lawsuit, filed by the protesters, recently unearthed D.C. police logs that confirm the FBI's role in the incident...


Now this is hardly the first time that the FBI has intimidated protesters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro), so maybe I shouldn't be suprised. After all, they were dirty, terrrorist enabling hippies.

You know what's worse? The "probable cause" for detaining and intimidating these protesters?

They were wearing black -- a color choice the FBI and police associated with anarchists

I wear black, for the most part, and I'm not an anarchist. Still, even if they were anarchists, that doesn't give the FBI the right to treat them abusively. Between free speech zones, spying on peace groups, illegal wiretaps, and bullshit like this, is it any wonder that people complain of law enforcement groups gone mad with power?

Just keep clapping.

They were asking about the protester's RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. How much do you want to bet they were not asking because that was really important to the protest?

People seem to take their freedoms for granted.

Maybe we should reinstate the Sedition and Espionage acts which were passed during WWI. Back then, a prominent Socialist leader (Eugene V. Debs) was arrested simply for professing his disgusting ideology. Back in the day, Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italians, were condemned to death simply because of their anarchist viewpoint (coupled with their atheism).

Now, the threat to America is much graver than it was in the past when those pieces of legislation passed Congress. Thus, we should instate more stringent measures to deal with them. We certainly shouldn't complain when some suspicious individuals, wearing black no less, were interrogated without being harmed.

They were asking about the protester's RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. How much do you want to bet they were not asking because that was really important to the protest?

Neither were their political beleifs. Political beleifs aren't illegal.

Neither were their political beleifs. Political beleifs aren't illegal.


True. But religious beliefs are the ones people tend not to think the FBI cares about.

True. But religious beliefs are the ones people tend not to think the FBI cares about.

Don't you know? All Muslims are terrorists, plotting to blow up your home, and convert your children to Islam!

Look on the bright side, at least they weren't shot by our fearless protectors, the federal police. I wonder what I have to do to get one of those permits to kill anyone I want, anywhere, any time, without being held responsible.

Look on the bright side, at least they weren't shot by our fearless protectors, the federal police. I wonder what I have to do to get one of those permits to kill anyone I want, anywhere, any time, without being held responsible.

Be a G-man.


Hey! Doesn't the FBI tend to wear black suits? ANARCHISTS! FILTHY HIPPIES! :D

We certainly shouldn't complain when some suspicious individuals, wearing black no less, were interrogated without being harmed.

Neither should you complain if you are locked up for years without legal recourse on a suspicion.

And none of that "I've done nothing wrong" crap. Everyone is a suspect. EVERYONE.

People seem to take their freedoms for granted.

Maybe we should reinstate the Sedition and Espionage acts which were passed during WWI. Back then, a prominent Socialist leader (Eugene V. Debs) was arrested simply for professing his disgusting ideology. Back in the day, Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italians, were condemned to death simply because of their anarchist viewpoint (coupled with their atheism).

Now, the threat to America is much graver than it was in the past when those pieces of legislation passed Congress. Thus, we should instate more stringent measures to deal with them. We certainly shouldn't complain when some suspicious individuals, wearing black no less, were interrogated without being harmed.

Are you a troll, or just a facist?

People seem to take their freedoms for granted.

Maybe we should reinstate the Sedition and Espionage acts which were passed during WWI. Back then, a prominent Socialist leader (Eugene V. Debs) was arrested simply for professing his disgusting ideology. Back in the day, Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italians, were condemned to death simply because of their anarchist viewpoint (coupled with their atheism).

Now, the threat to America is much graver than it was in the past when those pieces of legislation passed Congress. Thus, we should instate more stringent measures to deal with them. We certainly shouldn't complain when some suspicious individuals, wearing black no less, were interrogated without being harmed.

So when the administration/political landscape changes, and people are being interrogated because they like to drink Wild Turkey and are members of the local gun club, you won't mind?

By the way, you make a lovely troll. Don't think for a minute you had me fooled.

one day those guys are gonna learn that they need to at least follow their own rules while dealing with us. unless they like losing millions to us in the inevitable lawsuits. though we do put that money to some much better uses than the state would, so maybe somebody up high just likes some roundabout redistribution.

Are you a troll, or just a facist?

If you think that Progressive America during the 1910s was "fascist," then yes, sir, I will proudly say that I am a fascist. However, if you don't throw a whirlwind of pejorative labels madly around, I prefer to be called center-right, because that's what I am.

Are you a troll, or just a facist?

For the love of good debate, dont actually respond to it!

And the one thing that reassures me in situations like this one is the fact that it actually does tend to get out. The guilty are eventually brought to task and the offended are given justice.

one day those guys are gonna learn that they need to at least follow their own rules while dealing with us. unless they like losing millions to us in the inevitable lawsuits. though we do put that money to some much better uses than the state would, so maybe somebody up high just likes some roundabout redistribution.

My god! That's it! A few hippies join the FBI, and then finance the rest of them by illegally questioning them, opening up the FBI to lawsuits! [/machiavelli]

And none of that "I've done nothing wrong" crap. Everyone is a suspect. EVERYONE.

Someone sounds a little bit paranoid. The police have never suspected me of wrongdoing because I have always assiduously followed the law. Those who committed no crime have nothing to fear, unless they're afraid of a few innocuous questions, in which case they really need to reexamine their viewpoint. Don't scream bloody murder every time a police officer wants to ask you a question -- it's not a violation of your civil liberties.

one day those guys are gonna learn that they need to at least follow their own rules while dealing with us. unless they like losing millions to us in the inevitable lawsuits. though we do put that money to some much better uses than the state would, so maybe somebody up high just likes some roundabout redistribution.

Just yesterday, there was a report on NPR that a group had won a lawsuit for wrongful arrest during the WTO protests. It seems like the police have got to learn to be a little more tolerant of protesters, or they are likely to have their budgets cut down.

Unless this is a scam by the cops to spend the rest of their money for the year, to prevent their budget from being cut... :p

Someone sounds a little bit paranoid. The police have never suspected me of wrongdoing because I have always assiduously followed the law. Those who committed no crime have nothing to fear, unless they're afraid of a few innocuous questions, in which case they really need to reexamine their viewpoint. Don't scream bloody murder every time a police officer wants to ask you a question -- it's not a violation of your civil liberties.

The people protesting did no wrong. The people you referenced followed the law. Again, see the Wild Turkey and Gun Club argument.

Someone sounds a little bit paranoid. The police have never suspected me of wrongdoing because I have always assiduously followed the law.

When wearing black, which isn't against the law, gets you arrested, claiming to have followed the law is no defense.


Those who committed no crime have nothing to fear, unless they're afraid of a few innocuous questions, in which case they really need to reexamine their viewpoint.

I specifically told you none of that "I've done nothing wrong" bullshit but you just can't accept it can you? It can be your mode of dress, maybe you have a beard. Maybe your name shares a letter with some criminal. It doesn't matter.

But what doesn't really matter is you. You just ignore valid points, spin out lies to which you respond to in a vapid attempt to look clever, when all you're doing is making yourself look stupid.

You are by all definitions, a troll, or a mental midget.

The FBI is arresting and investigating protesters on the flimsiest of rationales? Sounds like business at usual. At least they're not organizing illegal break-ins at facilities used by Bush's political opponents... or at the very least, they've gotten smart and we haven't heard about the break-ins...

And now for something completely different... it sounds like it's time for the infamous Flame Warriors page (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/index.htm) to show up again. Enjoy.

Are you a troll, or just a facist?

Why can't Fascism and Glory be both?

I'm pretty sure FreedomAndGlory is a troll. Afterall, look at the acronym his name produces.


Someone sounds a little bit paranoid. The police have never suspected me of wrongdoing because I have always assiduously followed the law. Those who committed no crime have nothing to fear, unless they're afraid of a few innocuous questions, in which case they really need to reexamine their viewpoint. Don't scream bloody murder every time a police officer wants to ask you a question -- it's not a violation of your civil liberties.

They didn't just stand next to the protestors and ask them questions, they detained them and interrogated them. There is a difference between "asking questions" and an interrogation.

Are you a troll, or just a facist?

Troll. The style is identical to RuleCaucasia and MeansToAnEnd. Note even the names use the same style of capitalization.

Note even the names use the same style of capitalization.

Out of the hundreds of different styles of capitalization, our names share the same type. What a coincidence!

When wearing black, which isn't against the law, gets you arrested, claiming to have followed the law is no defense.

Being arrested implies being charged with a crime. This individuals were simply interrogated; there is a fine difference. All potential enemies of the state should be subjected to questioning in relation to their activities and released if no sufficiently suspicious information is acquired. Why should you be afraid of answering questions if you did nothing wrong?

Being arrested implies being charged with a crime. This individuals were simply interrogated; there is a fine difference. All potential enemies of the state should be subjected to questioning in relation to their activities and released if no sufficiently suspicious information is acquired. Why should you be afraid of answering questions if you did nothing wrong?

They were interrogated while being held, parrot. The claimed "probable cause" (which they have to have before they can hold someone) was that they were wearing black. That is not probable cause.

Welcome to the U.S., parrot. It is anti-American (really and truly) to not defend our freedoms first. This nation was founded on the ideals of liberty, not the small-minded fears of "terror" and "enemies of the state".

Being arrested implies being charged with a crime. This individuals were simply interrogated; there is a fine difference. All potential enemies of the state should be subjected to questioning in relation to their activities and released if no sufficiently suspicious information is acquired. Why should you be afraid of answering questions if you did nothing wrong?

Do not obfuscate. There is no real difference between calling it an arrest or interrogation if you are being held against your will without charge for extended periods of time.

A week, a month, five years or the rest of your life.

And again, would YOU object to being held, for years possibly, without charge, without legal counsel, without ANY rights whatsoever, by your OWN country, based on the COLOR of your shirt?

I'm betting you would.

Any attempts to obfuscate will automatically default you to full troll status. Do so, and meet /ignore.

Pfft. This is nothing. I've once been arrested for carrying a bag of stale old bread. And I wasn't even dressed in black.

The police have never suspected me of wrongdoing because I have always assiduously followed the law.

How do you know what the police are thinking?

Pfft. This is nothing. I've once been arrested for carrying a bag of stale old bread. And I wasn't even dressed in black.

Would you mind telling the whole story?

Being arrested implies being charged with a crime.

It might imply it to you, but the two are separate things. It is possible to be arrested without being charged, and it is possible to be charged without being arrested.

Would you mind telling the whole story?It happened several years ago, prior to a completely legal and pre-approved demonstration. A few of us met a bit early at the scheduled point of origin for the demonstration, in a completely legal and obviously anticipated manner (the place was crawling with coppers and journalists), purely for practical purposes.

There was about a dozen of us meeting up with materials & such, surrounded by a small army of riot coppers and journalists, and though the entire situation was pretty unusual and somewhat worrying, we went about our business in a perfectly normal, non-threatening, non-disruptive, and absolutely legal manner.

I think no more than 15 minutes after I'd arrived, carrying the already mentioned bag of stale bread, a contingent of riot coppers (though perhaps rioters is a more appropriate term) broke off from the horde, and 2 or more seized each of us, as well as a journalist they apparently mistook for one of us (I was talking to her when they rushed us). After the usual bit of yelling, name-calling, pushing and pulling, they decided to search us. At that point the journalist got just a bit angry, and started yelling something not unlike "You rotten bastards! You have no right to do this! You can't search me! This is fucking illegal! I have rights! I am a journalist you bastards!" etc.

Encouraged by her outburst, the whole lot of us were thrown about a bit, placed under arrest, and stood on until they managed to clear a path to us for their trucks. I was informed later, down at the station, that I'd been arrested and had the bag of old bread confiscated, because they were convinced I was going to... Brace yourself... Throw the stale loaves at people.

I can't remember how long we were held, but it was no more than 4 hours, tops. Less, I think. And it is, of course, one of the most ridiculous indignities I've ever had to laugh my way through. We were all received the tiny standard compensation for being wrongful arrest a couple of months later (actually.. Think it was more like a year later, but who cares).

I think I've kept this sufficiently obscure to keep my identity hidden, but if I haven't, keep it to yourself or I'll break my habit of not running to the mods. And if you were there: sorry we lost touch. Do drop me a TG.

Just yesterday, there was a report on NPR that a group had won a lawsuit for wrongful arrest during the WTO protests. It seems like the police have got to learn to be a little more tolerant of protesters, or they are likely to have their budgets cut down.

some people i've met won some significant cash as a result of the illegal mass arrests at "the people's strike" in dc. i actually barely avoided being among the 650 people illegally arrested that morning.

-snip-

I think that the only lesson I can take away from this is that if I'm going to bring bread to a protest, I need to make sure that the bread is fresh. :p

some people i've met won some significant cash as a result of the illegal mass arrests at "the people's strike" in dc. i actually barely avoided being among the 650 people illegally arrested that morning.

Apparently the protesters in the WTO case only got 1 million bucks between them. Most of that will probably go to their lawyers anyway. That's what you get for settling out of court. :p

There is no real difference between calling it an arrest or interrogation if you are being held against your will without charge for extended periods of time.

There most certainly is. They were not charged with a crime, nor were they taken to a police station for questioning. They were simply asked a few simple questions in the parking garage which they entered. Furthermore, to consider an hour an extended period of time is absurd; it barely causes a ripple in one's schedule.

A week, a month, five years or the rest of your life.

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. The suspects were detained for an hour, not for the duration of their lives. Resorting to excessive hyperbole undermines your argument.

And again, would YOU object to being held, for years possibly, without charge, without legal counsel, without ANY rights whatsoever, by your OWN country, based on the COLOR of your shirt?

I most certainly would not object to being questioned not for years, but for an hour, with legal counsel if I so desire and with my rights as an American citizen, based on the suspicious activity in which I had been engaged. These people were wearing black shirts, their skin besmirched by heinous tattoos, and in possession of a suspicious van. I would hope that anybody meeting those criteria would be questioned.

Any attempts to obfuscate will automatically default you to full troll status. Do so, and meet /ignore.

Pot -- kettle -- black? You're the one who's trying to obfuscate in a trollish manner. You repeatedly made the claim that these people could theoretically be held for years. This is patently false -- they were only held for an hour. You asserted preposterously that they were stripped of their rights without presenting any evidence of this. You stated that they were not allowed counsel, again without providing corroborating evidence. Predicate your arguments upon facts, not unfounded suspicions.

People seem to take their freedoms for granted.

Maybe we should reinstate the Sedition and Espionage acts which were passed during WWI. Back then, a prominent Socialist leader (Eugene V. Debs) was arrested simply for professing his disgusting ideology. Back in the day, Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italians, were condemned to death simply because of their anarchist viewpoint (coupled with their atheism).

Now, the threat to America is much graver than it was in the past when those pieces of legislation passed Congress. Thus, we should instate more stringent measures to deal with them. We certainly shouldn't complain when some suspicious individuals, wearing black no less, were interrogated without being harmed.
Why do you hate our freedom? The terrorists hate our freedom, you hate our freedom. Maybe you're a terrorist.

Someone sounds a little bit paranoid. The police have never suspected me of wrongdoing because I have always assiduously followed the law. Those who committed no crime have nothing to fear, unless they're afraid of a few innocuous questions, in which case they really need to reexamine their viewpoint. Don't scream bloody murder every time a police officer wants to ask you a question -- it's not a violation of your civil liberties.

You don't see how being brought in for a "few innocent questions" against your will could be seen as threatening and harassing someone? What if in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing white christian males with right wing ideologies were randomly brought in and questioned? What if in that situation someone decided to grab you at your local hangout in front of your friends and neighbors and drag you in for questioning simply because of your political views?

I can't believe that anyone would be stupid enough to thing being brought in for "a few innocent questions" when you aren't even suspected of a crime is OK. Why don't you leave the US. You clearly don't like our values. You'd be much more comfortable converting to Islam and living in a repressive state like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Why do you hate our freedom?

For the same reason you're a giant Teletubby.

Maybe we should reinstate the Sedition and Espionage acts which were passed during WWI. Back then, a prominent Socialist leader (Eugene V. Debs) was arrested simply for professing his disgusting ideology. Back in the day, Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italians, were condemned to death simply because of their anarchist viewpoint (coupled with their atheism).

Maybe we should legalize slavery! What do you think of that?

What if in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing white christian males with right wing ideologies were randomly brought in and questioned?

There is a distinction. Those particular protestors were dressed in black to such an extent as to imply that they were anarchists, political radicals who defied the will of the state. Obviously, such people may be dangerous elements of our society, given their disrespect for the legal foundation of this country. Furthermore, they were suspected of illegally entered a building to which they did not have access (they were later arrested for this). To add to this list of transgressions, they also were gruesomely awash in tattoos; while this is not, in itself, illegal, it suggests a mental state of mind that is consistent with criminal behavior and urges police intervention. Now, I don't see how any of those attributes could apply to an upstanding, Christian male who loves this country.

What if in that situation someone decided to grab you at your local hangout in front of your friends and neighbors and drag you in for questioning simply because of your political views?

Again, you're distorting the sequence of events. No one was "dragged in" for questioning; they were comfortably allowed to answer questions in the building in which they were already situated. Additionally, countless other, more innocuous, protestors were allowed to exercise their right to free speech whereas only these few were detained. Thus, the cause must not be simply political orientation, but an unhealthy combination of rotten characteristics.

I can't believe that anyone would be stupid enough to thing being brought in for "a few innocent questions" when you aren't even suspected of a crime is OK.

I can't believe someone would sink to employing ad hominem attacks to strengthen a sputtering argument. Actually, never mind, I can believe it; it's very common among the ignorant.

Why don't you leave the US.

Because I love this country. I love it so much that I would hate to see the more nefarious elements of our society harm it.

Maybe we should legalize slavery! What do you think of that?

That's preposterous and disgusting to the sensibilities of any gentleman. I never advocated anything even near such a fiendish and diabolic idea. I revile the very thought of instating such a system. Only a disturbed mind could come up with such an idea.

I never advocated anything even near such a fiendish and diabolic idea.

Sure you did.

By the way what do you think of Mark Foley?

There is a distinction. Those particular protestors were dressed in black to such an extent as to imply that they were anarchists, political radicals who defied the will of the state. Obviously, such people may be dangerous elements of our society, given their disrespect for the legal foundation of this country. Furthermore, they were suspected of illegally entered a building to which they did not have access (they were later arrested for this). To add to this list of transgressions, they also were gruesomely awash in tattoos; while this is not, in itself, illegal, it suggests a mental state of mind that is consistent with criminal behavior and urges police intervention. Now, I don't see how any of those attributes could apply to an upstanding, Christian male who loves this country.


You're a troll.


I can't believe someone would sink to employing ad hominem attacks to strengthen a sputtering argument. Actually, never mind, I can believe it; it's very common among the ignorant.

You're a troll. It's not an argument, it's a truism.


Because I love this country. I love it so much that I would hate to see the more nefarious elements of our society harm it.

Yes, those nefarious people who have tattoos, wear black, and aren't Christian.

GTFO, troll.

That's preposterous and disgusting to the sensibilities of any gentleman. I never advocated anything even near such a fiendish and diabolic idea. I revile the very thought of instating such a system. Only a disturbed mind could come up with such an idea.

So you admit you were trolling when you made the pro-slavery threads?

Because you know, no one here is fooled by this new game of yours. Troll.

There most certainly is. They were not charged with a crime, nor were they taken to a police station for questioning. They were simply asked a few simple questions in the parking garage which they entered. Furthermore, to consider an hour an extended period of time is absurd; it barely causes a ripple in one's schedule.



A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. The suspects were detained for an hour, not for the duration of their lives. Resorting to excessive hyperbole undermines your argument.



I most certainly would not object to being questioned not for years, but for an hour, with legal counsel if I so desire and with my rights as an American citizen, based on the suspicious activity in which I had been engaged. These people were wearing black shirts, their skin besmirched by heinous tattoos, and in possession of a suspicious van. I would hope that anybody meeting those criteria would be questioned.



Pot -- kettle -- black? You're the one who's trying to obfuscate in a trollish manner. You repeatedly made the claim that these people could theoretically be held for years. This is patently false -- they were only held for an hour. You asserted preposterously that they were stripped of their rights without presenting any evidence of this. You stated that they were not allowed counsel, again without providing corroborating evidence. Predicate your arguments upon facts, not unfounded suspicions.

I'll highlight the problems with your argument in the article from the Washington Post regarding this instance.

A secret FBI intelligence unit helped detain a group of war protesters in a downtown Washington parking garage in April 2002 and interrogated some of them on videotape about their political and religious beliefs, newly uncovered documents and interviews show.

For years, law enforcement authorities suggested it never happened. The FBI and D.C. police said they had no records of such an incident. And police told a federal court that no FBI agents were present when officers arrested more than 20 protesters that afternoon for trespassing; police viewed them as suspicious for milling around the parking garage entrance.

If there was truly nothing wrong with the conduct of the FBI and the police why were they denying it ever happened? Further, isn't telling a federal court a lie perjury? Do we let those who are supposed to uphold the law break it?


But a civil lawsuit, filed by the protesters, recently unearthed D.C. police logs that confirm the FBI's role in the incident. Lawyers for the demonstrators said the logs, which police say they just found, bolster their allegations of civil rights violations.

The probable cause to arrest the protesters as they retrieved food from their parked van? They were wearing black -- a color choice the FBI and police associated with anarchists, according to the police records.

This is not probable cause in any police juristiction

FBI agents dressed in street clothes separated members to question them one by one about protests they attended, whom they had spent time with recently, what political views they espoused and the significance of their tattoos and slogans, according to interviews and court records.

I missed the part where it is illegal to espouse certain political points of view. Get me my damn constitution.

The revelations, combined with protester accounts, provide the first public evidence that Washington-based FBI personnel used their intelligence-gathering powers in the District to collect purely political intelligence. Ultimately, the protesters were not prosecuted because there wasn't sufficient evidence of trespassing, and their arrest records were expunged.

Isn't detaining and questioning people against their will for political purposes illegal? Stop, that's rhetorical.

Similar intelligence-gathering operations have been reported in New York, where a local police intelligence unit tried to infiltrate groups planning to protest at the Republican National Convention in 2004, and in Colorado, where records surfaced showing that the FBI collected names and license plates of people protesting timber industry practices at a 2002 industry convention.

Several federal courts have ruled that intelligence agencies can monitor domestic groups only when there is reason to believe the group is engaged in criminal activity. Experts in police conduct say it is hard to imagine how asking questions about a person's political views would be appropriate in a trespassing case.

See illegal and unethical to do so.

The Washington case centers on activities that took place April 20, 2002 -- a day of three cacophonic but generally orderly rallies that drew an estimated 75,000 people to the Mall. They included groups demonstrating against the prospect of war in Iraq, numerous supporters of the war, and Palestinians and others rallying for an end to U.S. aid to Israel and for peace in the Middle East.

The police logs for that day show how events developed: Secret Service agents had some concern about a group near the JBG Co. building's garage at 1275 K St. NW just after 5 p.m.

"Intell 53 advises that five members of the anarchist group have entered a parking garage," reads an entry from 5:12 p.m.

Ten minutes later, an entry notes the FBI's role.

So their own log books denote the FBI was involved but then they lie to a federal court. It sure stinks like shit here.

So you admit you were trolling when you made the pro-slavery threads?

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't made any threads, period, whether pro-slavery or otherwise. I also haven't talked about slavery in any of my posts -- you can search my history if you like. Please don't accuse me of espousing such vile rhetoric of hatred.

By the way what do you think of Mark Foley?

That he's a repulsive sexual predator, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

No one is fooled, MTAE. No one. You gave it away by doing the exact. Same. Style.

Yeah, it's really not working this time, sorry MTAE.

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't made any threads, period, whether pro-slavery or otherwise. I also haven't talked about slavery in any of my posts -- you can search my history if you like. Please don't accuse me of espousing such vile rhetoric of hatred.

No one is fooled, MTAE. No one. You gave it away by doing the exact. Same. Style.

No one is fooled, MTAE. No one. You gave it away by doing the exact. Same. Style.

First of all, can you please tell me what "mtae" means? Does it mean "meat" the same way "teh" means "the" or something? I'm pretty confused, here. Or are you just trolling and trying to confuse me?

Yeah, it's really not working this time, sorry MTAE.

You know, this is really getting old. If you're not going to debate me but rather throw around puerile accusations, I'm not going to reply, but instead put you on my ignore list. What's it going to be: honest argument or childish name-calling? It's your choice, because I'm getting tired of this.

You know, this is really getting old. If you're not going to debate me but rather throw around puerile accusations, I'm not going to reply, but instead put you on my ignore list. What's it going to be: honest argument or childish name-calling? It's your choice, because I'm getting tired of this.

you passed the point of honest argument two names ago. You got banned under those, you'll get banned under this

You know, this is really getting old. If you're not going to debate me but rather throw around puerile accusations, I'm not going to reply, but instead put you on my ignore list. What's it going to be: honest argument or childish name-calling? It's your choice, because I'm getting tired of this.

You're right MTAE. Are you going to have honest argument? Because so far you aren't and never have been. Dripping satire is not "honesty." Trolling about "good Christians" and "noble" Newt and that ridiculous, overblown circumloquation is not "honest argument." It's trolling, and you know it.

So if you want to ignore me and anyone else - fine. Go ahead. I welcome it. But you won't do that, because you crave and need our attention.

So if you want to ignore me and anyone else - fine. Go ahead. I welcome it. But you won't do that, because you crave and need our attention.

Heh, don't flatter yourself. Just to make myself clear, same thing I said to the other troll goes for you to: honest debate or ignore list.

There most certainly is. They were not charged with a crime, nor were they taken to a police station for questioning. They were simply asked a few simple questions in the parking garage which they entered. Furthermore, to consider an hour an extended period of time is absurd; it barely causes a ripple in one's schedule.

Can you read?
The probable cause to arrest the protesters as they retrieved food from their parked van? They were wearing black -- a color choice the FBI and police associated with anarchists, according to the police records.
The entry notes that D.C. police also were at the site. The protesters were detained at the garage for more than an hour, logs show, until police decided to arrest them for alleged unlawful entry.

They where questioned and after that they where arrested.

Heh, don't flatter yourself. Just to make myself clear, same thing I said to the other troll goes for you to: honest debate or ignore list.

I'm shaking. Although the fact is, I don't need you to see it to mock you. I don't do it for your benefit, merely my own. And the fact is you, like every other troll, crave the attention so much you wouldn't dare ignore anyone, and deny yourself that which you desperatly crave.

You'd rather be called an idiot than not called anything at all.

You know, this is really getting old. If you're not going to debate me but rather throw around puerile accusations, I'm not going to reply, but instead put you on my ignore list. What's it going to be: honest argument or childish name-calling? It's your choice, because I'm getting tired of this.

ok answer the points I made in italics and bold above. If you truly want to debate and not be considered a troll.

Heh, don't flatter yourself. Just to make myself clear, same thing I said to the other troll goes for you to: honest debate or ignore list.

OK - ignore me then. Go on. And while you're at it, ignore anyone who knows you're a troll. Let's see how well you can do it. Go on. Ignore away. You'll be talking to yourself in a few days. Or will you lie, like you always lie, because you're a stupid liar?

They were wearing black -- a color choice the FBI and police associated with anarchists

LOL.

Note to self: wear pink at next demo.

ok answer the points I made in italics and bold above. If you truly want to debate and not be considered a troll.

Many of the points you brought up I already discussed with DrunkCommunist on the previous page. However, you do add that the police actively attempted to cover up their activities. One possible explanation which I can afford is that there were undercover agents who infiltrated the anarachist cells, as well as the protestor community in general. To bring such files into the light would imperil their safety by blowing their cover. Thus, care needed to be taken to ensure that they could remain hidden by covering up any traces of their activity. It is also possible that they acted to avoid a harsh public outcry in an extremely liberal city such as Washington, DC. Even though their actions were completely legal and necessary, they may have been afraid of the irrational public fallout. Who knows? I'm putting my money on the former, though.

Many of the points you brought up I already discussed with DrunkCommunist on the previous page. However, you do add that the police actively attempted to cover up their activities. One possible explanation which I can afford is that there were undercover agents who infiltrated the anarachist cells, as well as the protestor community in general. To bring such files into the light would imperil their safety by blowing their cover. Thus, care needed to be taken to ensure that they could remain hidden by covering up any traces of their activity. It is also possible that they acted to avoid a harsh public outcry in an extremely liberal city such as Washington, DC. Even though their actions were completely legal and necessary, they may have been afraid of the irrational public fallout. Who knows? I'm putting my money on the former, though.

Anarchist "cells"? seems that you're desperately trying to convince yourself these people are terrorists.

Anarchist "cells"? seems that you're desperately trying to convince yourself these people are terrorists.

They are, by definition, elements that seek to overthrow the US government or desire to see the government overthrown. However, that being said, I never claimed that they were terrorists. Nonetheless, they are suspicious groups which may engage in nefarious acts, as dictated by their perverse ideology. If they were Nazis at a pro-Israel rally, I would feel the same way.

They are, by definition, elements that seek to overthrow the US government or desire to see the government overthrown. However, that being said, I never claimed that they were terrorists. Nonetheless, they are suspicious groups which may engage in nefarious acts, as dictated by their perverse ideology. If they were Nazis at a pro-Israel rally, I would feel the same way.

First off: The vast majority of Anarchists are peaceful and seek the end of government basically by mutual agreement of the populace.

Second: violence from anarchist groups is not common. In fact, I believe you would have difficulty providing even one example of nefarious activity in the recent past caused by Anarchist groups.

And third: The word "cells" used in the political arena has a rather direct connotation for terrorism. It's also rather obvious that you used the word "cell" to try and draw a line connecting Anarchists with Terrorists. They were not a cell, they were a group. There is a difference.

Actually i do consider anti-war protesters as terrorists, of late I have been reading how many of them make money off of these protests, they could give a damn about their ideology and more for the publicity.

Second of all, all have had seen with these so called peaceful protesters is howthey want to disrupt everyday life of non-protesters. Around where i am from and now live seen plenty of examples of them interfering with traffic flow and harassing persons who are ontehir way to work, school and such by getting in their face as they leave a building or walking downthe sidewalk.

I personally dispise these people.

Pot -- kettle -- black?


You deliberately reply in a manner that does not answer my exact assertions but use falsely constructed arguments to argue against and have the audacity to accuse me of trolling? You are hereby moved to bad troll status. Welcome to /ignore.

They are, by definition, elements that seek to overthrow the US government or desire to see the government overthrown. However, that being said, I never claimed that they were terrorists. Nonetheless, they are suspicious groups which may engage in nefarious acts, as dictated by their perverse ideology. If they were Nazis at a pro-Israel rally, I would feel the same way.

and the nazis would have the freedom to protest at that day too. Check case law and realize that even the KKK has the right to espouse their views, and there is no reason that the police or FBI can harass them. You seem to be for freedom as long as it conforms to your Christian ideological position. Freedom means freedom for all, even those who you disapprove of. This is the United States of America you remember. There was no reason for them to be questioned about the political or religious beliefs. That is illegal.

Actually i do consider anti-war protesters as terrorists, of late I have been reading how many of them make money off of these protests, they could give a damn about their ideology and more for the publicity.

Second of all, all have had seen with these so called peaceful protesters is howthey want to disrupt everyday life of non-protesters. Around where i am from and now live seen plenty of examples of them interfering with traffic flow and harassing persons who are ontehir way to work, school and such by getting in their face as they leave a building or walking downthe sidewalk.

I personally dispise these people.

See US Constitution and right to speech and assembly. If you have that much hate maybe you need to see a shrink. Calling someone who protests a terrorists is myopic and ignorant to the highest levels. As for the money... Hallibuurton makes money off the disturbances and anarchy in foreign lands when we give them government contracts. You hate them to? Further, please provide proof of profit on anti-war protests. Boo friggety hoo they interrupt your traffic, so does the German day parade in NYC, I'm not crying. I refuse to give away my freedom so your commute to work is easier. It's called planning ahead.

Actually i do consider anti-war protesters as terrorists, of late I have been reading how many of them make money off of these protests, they could give a damn about their ideology and more for the publicity.
It would be good if you could provide some links.
Second of all, all have had seen with these so called peaceful protesters is howthey want to disrupt everyday life of non-protesters. Around where i am from and now live seen plenty of examples of them interfering with traffic flow and harassing persons who are ontehir way to work, school and such by getting in their face as they leave a building or walking downthe sidewalk.

I personally dispise these people.

If they harass people then they are arrested. If they are peaceful and are on public or their own private lands then there is nothing wrong with them protesting. Move along.

Actually i do consider anti-war protesters as terrorists, of late I have been reading how many of them make money off of these protests, they could give a damn about their ideology and more for the publicity.

Wow.... capitalism = terrorism?

You should be sure and tell anyone ELSE who makes money that they're a terrorist.

So what are you, some kind of communist?


I personally dispise these people.

Wah. Too bad being "dispised" by Earabia isn't enough to be considered a "terrorist."

Wah. You don't like protesters. They are therefore bombing the World Trade Tower of your happiness!

Wah!

People seem to take their freedoms for granted.

Maybe we should reinstate the Sedition and Espionage acts which were passed during WWI. Back then, a prominent Socialist leader (Eugene V. Debs) was arrested simply for professing his disgusting ideology. Back in the day, Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italians, were condemned to death simply because of their anarchist viewpoint (coupled with their atheism).

Now, the threat to America is much graver than it was in the past when those pieces of legislation passed Congress. Thus, we should instate more stringent measures to deal with them. We certainly shouldn't complain when some suspicious individuals, wearing black no less, were interrogated without being harmed.

*Tosses the troll a cookie.*

Now you go home.

Boy you people dont get sarcasm do you?

Yes i think some of these protest groups are terrorist supporters especially the ones that get money for what they do and all they can put ont heir signs is bush and american hate slogans. Guess many of you ahvent been to many protests huh in the states?

But

There are plenty of respectable protests on this war too.

As for the proof of groups taking money or making on the protests, its common sense knowledge that many of these groups make money doing these protests, if you are in denial of this...then you are pretty dumb or blind.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The upcoming Professional Protesters Agency of Central NJ

Used to be, in the olden days you could get a few unemployed to attend your protest by handing out a couple of bucks. In the developing nations you can still do that - and if there's a G8 summit, you can get demonstrators from other countries just by providing transportation and perhaps a meal. Of course that doesn't apply in France, where protesting is the national sport (and from what I've heard, more popular than sex and soccer) and people do it for free as a weekly family outing.
http://faustasblog.com/2007/03/upcom...rs-agency.html


[/QUOTE]Cindy Sheehan: Professional Protester (anatomy of a rent-a-mob crowd)
National Ledger ^ | August 30, 2005 | CK Rairden
Posted on 08/30/2005 7:56:17 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The media loves to portray Cindy Sheehan as just a mom, who lost her son at war, and is demanding answers from the president that is charge of the war.
But Sheehan's vile statements about Israel, the U.S. and the president are a far cry from a grieving mother, they show her for the professional protester she has become.
When you go to Sheehan's web site, the first thing you will be greeted with is a plea for cash.[/QUOTE]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1473418/posts


‘Professional protester’ accepts offer to France
Columbia, Missouri Daily Tribune ^ | 4.11.2003 | Keith Schaffer
Posted on 04/11/2003 1:41:48 PM PDT by rface
Edited on 04/11/2003 1:51:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Dear Editor, the Tribune:
A "serious" offer was made by a caller to the Tribune’s March 29 Trib Talk to purchase tickets enabling "professional protesters" to go to France, Korea or Nigeria. While I don’t consider myself a professional, I do protest President George W. Bush’s illegal aggression against Iraq every opportunity I get, and I also am for fair elections and a clean environment. Does that qualify me for a ticket?
Though I’m not much interested in Korea or Nigeria, I would love to see France. Please send a check for airfare payable to me at the address below. Thank you for this marvelous opportunity, and viva la France.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/891220/posts


Activist Thomas rallies support using comedy
From the archive, first published Wednesday 3rd Mar 2004.
PROFESSIONAL protester and stand-up comedian Mark Thomas comes to New Greenham Arts on Tuesday, March 9, at 8pm.
Mark (pictured), best known for his television show, The Mark Thomas Product, has, over the years, drifted further and further away from regular comedy and has become more and more of an activist.
His exploits and exposés have brought public attention to human rights abuses all over the world, called multinationals to account for their use of sweatshops in developing countries, and made people more aware of their rights to privacy.
His show at New Greenham Arts is part of a short tour in which he's trying out new material for his full tour of the country in the autumn.
Mark is also appearing at other venues in the area, so check his website www.mtcp.co.uk for the full tour listing.
For more information about events at New Greenham Arts and The Corn Exchange, and to book tickets online, go to www.cornexchangenew.com
http://archive.andoveradvertiser.co....3/3/33849.html
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/p...s-of-thousands


Some of the groups organizing protests at this summer's Republican
National Convention in New York – including one anarchist outfit
planning disruptions – get funding from a foundation chaired by Teresa
Heinz Kerry, the wife of the presumed Democratic Party presidential
nominee, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
Heinz Kerry, worth as much as $1 billion according to some estimates,
has directed donations in the millions to the Tides Foundation, a
28-year-old grant-making institution that funds some of the principal
groups organizing demonstrations and disruptions of the GOP
convention.
http://www.talkaboutpeople.com/group...s/2830599.html


I know some are blogs, but this is the proof some of you wanted. Paid and "professional", hmmmm.

Boy you people dont get sarcasm do you?

Yes i think some of these protest groups are terrorist supporters

Unless you're being sarcastic about what you JUST SAID RIGHT THERE, then your sarcasm doesn't matter to my point.

especially the ones that get money for what they do

I guess I just missed out the "making money is terrorist supporting" part of my business and ethical education. Perhaps you could explain this concept to me, comrade.

People seem to take their freedoms for granted.

Maybe we should reinstate the Sedition and Espionage acts which were passed during WWI. Back then, a prominent Socialist leader (Eugene V. Debs) was arrested simply for professing his disgusting ideology. Back in the day, Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italians, were condemned to death simply because of their anarchist viewpoint (coupled with their atheism).

Now, the threat to America is much graver than it was in the past when those pieces of legislation passed Congress. Thus, we should instate more stringent measures to deal with them. We certainly shouldn't complain when some suspicious individuals, wearing black no less, were interrogated without being harmed.
Uh, what? It was WORLD WAR 1. Note the words 'world war'. It was perhaps a bit more significant than Iraq or Afghanistan. Considering over 30 times more Americans died in WWI than on 9/11...