Misuse of PATRIOT Act

[zakur]

Critics: Patriot Act Warnings Come to Fruition (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103812,00.html)

WASHINGTON — Critics of the Patriot Act say the 2001 law, which was intended to enhance police powers to track terrorists, has recently been misused to investigate a political scandal in Las Vegas.

The same folks who warned that provisions in the Patriot Act are too far-reaching and could infringe on the civil liberties of regular Americans say the Las Vegas case is the first — but certainly not the last — example of federal law enforcement using its broadened surveillance powers to prosecute domestic criminals who do not threaten national security.

"It would seem to me the fact that the FBI is wasting any time at all prosecuting strip club owners is good news for terrorists," said George Getz, national spokesman for the Libertarian Party, which is calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act, passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who voted for the bill, but has since voiced his concerns of the law, said he wasn't surprised, but disappointed to hear reports earlier this month that FBI agents investigating two strip club owners in Las Vegas on bribery charges bypassed a grand jury and instead used the Patriot Act to subpoena the financial records of the bar owners as well as several prominent city and county officials.

[...]

Some experts say that technically speaking, the FBI had the authority to use the Patriot Act to expedite their case against the club owners. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't immediately raise red flags about the design of the Patriot Act, which Attorney General John Ashcroft has firmly insisted is for the sake of national security only. Does anyone know if this is the first documented case of the FBI misusing the PATRIOT Act?

[jj]

Originally posted by zakur
Does anyone know if this is the first documented case of the FBI misusing the PATRIOT Act?

What about when the "Homeland Security" people tracked down the Texas legislators in the process of attempting to interfere and bias the political process on behalf of the current administration?

[Ed]

I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this topic.

There was a story last month (I think) that said something like 70% of the prosecutions using the Patriot Act were for criminal matters. This is exactly what the doomsayers predicted.

Unfortunately you cannot trust government.

[WildCat]

Shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone, just look at how the RICO laws have been used and abused.

[Suddenly]

What amazes me is that anyone ever thought these things wouldn't be used "aggressively" to combat crime outside of terrorism. Anyone who has spent any time whatsoever dealing in the criminal justice system would have to be either bat f*ck*ng nuts or flat lying to even suggest that prosecutors would restrain themselves from using these new tools available to them in situations where they really want to bust someone.

Just completely insane. I though that when the thing was proposed, and I'd have been shocked if the outcome was any different. I mean shocked as if my cat started speaking perfect English, or Geller winning the JREF prize.

That level of shock; saying that "prosecutors will restrain themselves" without any explicit restrictions in the act is one of the dumbest political statements I have ever heard, and I have lived my whole life in West Virginia.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by zakur
Does anyone know if this is the first documented case of the FBI misusing the PATRIOT Act?

Like anybody with half a brain didn't know the patriot act would be misused. Go ahead guys, keep hating libertarians. Keep loving big brother.

[Luke T.]

This, too, shall pass.

From the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918:


SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

Makes the Patriot Act look pretty lame, doesn't it?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Luke T.
This, too, shall pass.

From the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918:



Makes the Patriot Act look pretty lame, doesn't it?

Granted the 1918 Sedition act was far worse than the Patriot act, especially since the government was asking people to turn in people who so much as expressed doubt over the nations war effort. However, I don't think that makes the Patriot act any less scary and I also worry that it might be a stepping stone to something like the Sedition act coming around again. With the curent attitude of "if you disagree with the President, you are on the side of the terrorists" that seems so prevalent in this country lately, it doesn't seem unlikely at all to me.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Granted the 1918 Sedition act was far worse than the Patriot act, especially since the government was asking people to turn in people who so much as expressed doubt over the nations war effort. However, I don't think that makes the Patriot act any less scary and I also worry that it might be a stepping stone to something like the Sedition act coming around again. With the curent attitude of "if you disagree with the President, you are on the side of the terrorists" that seems so prevalent in this country lately, it doesn't seem unlikely at all to me.

Well, looking at the link in the opening post, it seems to me that the Patriot Act was certainly misused. However, it was used to catch real criminals. Granted, they weren't terrorists, but they were crooks nonetheless who might have otherwise gone unpunished.

I don't think we are anywhere near the level of hysteria that brought about the Sedition Act. There has been a cooling off period that I think will eventually bring about a re-examination of the Patriot Act. It looks to me like that is already underway.

I would like to see folks keep the pressure up on their elected officials to do so, but responding to hysteria with hysteria is a non-starter.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by zakur
Does anyone know if this is the first documented case of the FBI misusing the PATRIOT Act?

No. But it definately isn't the last.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997088.asp?0dm=C2ACN

Sounds like the return of COINTELPRO.

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointel.htm

Have we learned nothing from the past?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by zakur
Does anyone know if this is the first documented case of the FBI misusing the PATRIOT Act?



Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


No. But it definately isn't the last.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997088.asp?0dm=C2ACN

Not a word in there about the Patriot Act.


Sounds like the return of COINTELPRO.

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointel.htm

Have we learned nothing from the past?

Apparently not. From the link:


Communists have been trained in deceit and secretly work toward the day when they hope to replace our American way of life with a Communist dictatorship. They utilize cleverly camouflaged movements, such as peace groups and civil rights groups to achieve their sinister purposes.

I provided exhaustive evidence on here that communists were behind the recent large protests against the war in Iraq. Evidence from their own web sites.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.






Not a word in there about the Patriot Act.




Apparently not. From the link:



I provided exhaustive evidence on here that communists were behind the recent large protests against the war in Iraq. Evidence from their own web sites.

The Patriot Act backed out the strictures placed on the FBI after the abuses of COINTELPRO as well as granting them new powers. Most of the people involved in the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's joined the Communist party as part of political protest.

The quote you pulled from my COINTELPRO site was from J. Edgar Hoover. It was his way of combatting Communism which caused many of the excesses of COINTELPRO. He was also spouting the doctorine of the Communist party of the 40's and 50's.

Whether the Communists party were behind recent large protests is immaterial to the fact that the FBI is cracking down on all dissenters. It does not draw a distinction between Communists and everyday people. Large protests often have many backers, assigning them only to Communists is improper. It also smacks of a prejudical language fallacy.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


The Patriot Act backed out the strictures placed on the FBI after the abuses of COINTELPRO as well as granting them new powers. Most of the people involved in the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's joined the Communist party as part of political protest.

The quote you pulled from my COINTELPRO site was from J. Edgar Hoover. It was his way of combatting Communism which caused many of the excesses of COINTELPRO. He was also spouting the doctorine of the Communist party of the 40's and 50's.

Whether the Communists party were behind recent large protests is immaterial to the fact that the FBI is cracking down on all dissenters. It does not draw a distinction between Communists and everyday people. Large protests often have many backers, assigning them only to Communists is improper. It also smacks of a prejudical language fallacy.

All you have to do is go to internationalanswer.org and see for yourself who sponsored the large protests against the war in Iraq. Start with their "steering committee," and go from there.

I also provided a phone number to the parks and rec department in San Francisco in one of the topics I mentioned where people could verify for themselves that A.N.S.W.E.R. organized the protest there and elsewhere.

edited to add: Not only was the lady at parks and rec more than happy to tell me about A.N.S.W.E.R., she didn't even let me finish asking my question before telling me about them and how to join up with them in my area if I so desired.

Hoover wasn't wrong about who was behind the peace movement. What he did about it might have been.

[corplinx]

The patriot act contains very specific definitions of what terrorism is and who may be pursued by patriot methods. The same holds true for RICO (which Patriot is mostly a carbon copy of).

I think this is a simple case where if patriot is misused we need to discipline to FBI folks involved.

I guess we should revoke the oral recitation of the Miranda rights because sometimes cops don't read them properly?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Well, looking at the link in the opening post, it seems to me that the Patriot Act was certainly misused. However, it was used to catch real criminals. Granted, they weren't terrorists, but they were crooks nonetheless who might have otherwise gone unpunished.
... This fact provides me exactly no comfort. It sounds a lot like the old "if you're innocent what have you got to hide?" gambit. Restrictions on the power of the state are for the benefit of us all, not for the benefit of just criminals. Remember: power currupts!

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


All you have to do is go to internationalanswer.org and see for yourself who sponsored the large protests against the war in Iraq. Start with their "steering committee," and go from there.

I also provided a phone number to the parks and rec department in San Francisco in one of the topics I mentioned where people could verify for themselves that A.N.S.W.E.R. organized the protest there and elsewhere.

edited to add: Not only was the lady at parks and rec more than happy to tell me about A.N.S.W.E.R., she didn't even let me finish asking my question before telling me about them and how to join up with them in my area if I so desired.

Hoover wasn't wrong about who was behind the peace movement. What he did about it might have been.

What a load of crap.

Here is a listing of ANSWER coalition members.

http://www.internationalanswer.org/endorsers.html

It includes such widely diverse groups such as the Green party, the Berkley City Counsel, labor unions, individuals by the scores, and a few Communist groups.

Hardly a majority Communist presence.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


What a load of crap.

Here is a listing of ANSWER coalition members.

http://www.internationalanswer.org/endorsers.html

It includes such widely diverse groups such as the Green party, the Berkley City Counsel, labor unions, individuals by the scores, and a few Communist groups.

Hardly a majority Communist presence.

Well, I guess you didn't dig far enough. Start with some of the individuals and look at their organizations. Ramsey Clark is at the top of that list. Start with him.

The Green Party is socialist with marxist tendencies. Check them out, too.

Take a look at the Korea Truth Commission's web site. It is a real eye opener. Pay particular attention to who hosts their site. Hint: I already mentioned his name in this post.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc
This fact provides me exactly no comfort. It sounds a lot like the old "if you're innocent what have you got to hide?" gambit. Restrictions on the power of the state are for the benefit of us all, not for the benefit of just criminals. Remember: power currupts!

Well, you only quoted a piece of what I said, so I guess I need to restate that I agree the Patriot Act has been misused and that citizens need to put the pressure on their elected officials to get rid of it.

Vote.

I just am not going to get as hysterical as the people who put the Patriot Act in place to begin with.

I guess I should also take this opportunity to say for the umpteenth time (I said it elsewhere, not here) that I don't believe people who participated in the peace marches were all a bunch of commies. I just think they were unwittingly allowing themselves to be used by the commies.

I will also restate that I am not in favor of Uncle Sam getting all up in the business of private citizens unless they provide a clear and present danger.

I will additionally restate (again, I have said this elsewhere) that this whole "Department of Homeland Security" smacks of black armbands and midnight rallies.

Valiant Dancer, if you dig far enough, you will eventually find that the source of a lot of those organizations on the ANSWER web site all lead back to the WWP.

I don't know if the topics where I documented all this are still in existence after Hal's recent purges. I can do a search, I guess, because I really don't feel like going through all that again.

You don't have to take my word for it. I gave more than enough links and evidence for anyone to veryify it for themselves. Even to the point of providing phone numbers to real people like the parks and rec department in CA.

It isn't that hard to do for yourself if you are motivated enough.

I oppose extremists from both ends of the spectrum.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Well, I guess you didn't dig far enough. Start with some of the individuals and look at their organizations. Ramsey Clark is at the top of that list. Start with him.


Clark is the head of the International Action Center. Despite the IAC's association with the socialist Workers World Party, he is not himself a socialist or Marxist.


The Green Party is socialist with marxist tendencies. Check them out, too.


Oh, bullfeathers. This idea that "anything to the left of Republican is socialist" is better left to talk radio fanatics and Coughlin wannabes. The Green Party isn't socialist. (I am a Green Party member.)

The Muslim Student Alliance isn't a gaggle of commies.
Pastors for Peace isn't, either.
Nor is Dick Gregory.

[Luke T.]

I did a search of the forum "workers AND world AND party" and found a few topics about ANSWER and my documentation.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16424

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16042

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17289

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17300

A couple notes. Because the forum is running slow, I could not check out all of the above links to see if they contain all the evidence I provided over time. Some of it might actually be repeated throughout them.

The second note is kind of ironic. A while ago, I asked Hal to delete my "LukeT" account because I was going to a white supremacist web site to debate White Nationalists and didn't want to have them backtracking me here as I had posted a lot more personal information than I wanted them to know. So I appear as "guest" in some, if not all, of the above topics. And that is why I am "Luke T." today.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Well, you only quoted a piece of what I said, so I guess I need to restate that I agree the Patriot Act has been misused and that citizens need to put the pressure on their elected officials to get rid of it.

Vote.

I just am not going to get as hysterical as the people who put the Patriot Act in place to begin with.

... snip ...
I'm glad to hear that you oppose these provisions of the Patriot Act. But nonetheless the quote from your post sounds a lot like a justification for the actions of the police/prosecutors in this case, and like a complete equivocation of your stated position.

I can't imagine how my inclusion of your entire post would have changed the meaning of what I quoted, but please enlighten me. I always try to trim quotes from others' posts down to what is the relevant piece, so that readers can easily get what I'm referring to. For instance I did it again here, as I'm not participating in the part of this thread about the backers of the antiwar protests.I oppose extremists from both ends of the spectrum. I always cringe when I read something like this. Sounds like "I'm the reasonable middle, and if you disagree with me, you're an extremist."

[Luke T.]

One of my posts in a topic I just linked:


Okay, fellas. I just made a lot of calls to San Francisco to see who, what, where and how these protests are put together.

Eventually, I was led to the police department, and called them. 415-553-1115. The desk seargant told me the only permit you need is if you are going to have a handheld voice amplifier over 10 watts. When I asked if any other permits were necessary, and if she knew what organizations had applied for them for the big peace protests, she said she didn't know, but that "those were very well organized" and that they needed to get permits from Parks and Recreation Department.

So I called Parks and Rec. 415-831-2700. Before I was even halfway through my question, the lady there said, "Do you know about ANSWER?"

I pled ignorance.

She went on and on about them. I was writing quotes as fast as I could. "Main organizers." "Very big organization." She told me to go to their web site and I would find "everything you want to know." "Lots and lots of information." "You can get on their email list." And so on. She couldn't say enough about them. She gave me the web address internationalanswer.org without even looking it up.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc
I'm glad to hear that you oppose these provisions of the Patriot Act. But nonetheless the quote from your post sounds a lot like a justification for the actions of the police/prosecutors in this case, and like a complete equivocation of your stated position.

No. My posts are a statement saying that I understand why they believe the things they do. It in no way states support for the actions they take based on those beliefs.

I can't imagine how my inclusion of your entire post would have changed the meaning of what I quoted, but please enlighten me. I always try to trim quotes from others' posts down to what is the relevant piece, so that readers can easily get what I'm referring to. For instance I did it again here, as I'm not participating in the part of this thread about the backers of the antiwar protests.

All right. That's fair enough. My bad.

I always cringe when I read something like this. Sounds like "I'm the reasonable middle, and if you disagree with me, you're an extremist."

No. When talking about actual extremists, I often get concerned that people will think I am calling them an extremist, too. This is because it became an issue during the peace protest topics. Because I was pointing out who was behind the protests, those people who opposed the war or had participated in those protests thought I was saying they were extremists by association, and I had to keep clarifying that that was not what I was saying.

There are extremists. And they are organized better than I think most people know. And people are sometimes too easily manipulated by them, and it seems particularly if the influence comes from the Left. If the Klan put on a peace march, nobody would go. But when the WWP puts on a peace march, hundreds of thousands go. I find that curious.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.

There are extremists.

Agreed, but I must point out that you need to add "on all sides of the issue".

And they are organized better than I think most people know.

And, again, "on all sides of the issue" is an important thing to note here. If they would only cancel each other out, we'd all be better off.

And people are sometimes too easily manipulated by them, and it seems particularly if the influence comes from the Left.

Then how do you explain the extreme coercive power of the right, with their anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-science activities? It seems entirely, positively clear to me that the left has no, zero, ZIP influence at the minute, and the anti-science right-wingers are not only running the show, but working on making any other show illegal.

This is a swing from the 1970s, where it was the other way around, where left-wing imbiciles were attacking science and evolution because 'everything is a patriarchal deception'.

What's significant to me is that both sides attack science and civil rights above all else, and both want to destroy the two things that make this country work as well as it does.

If the Klan put on a peace march, nobody would go. But when the WWP puts on a peace march, hundreds of thousands go. I find that curious.

Could it be that nobody, even Klansmen, would believe that the Klan wanted peace? Perhaps the Klan hasn't any credibility because of their well-known behaviors.
That doesn't suggest that the WWP DESERVES any credibility, mind you.

[Tony]

My contention is that the only reason "liberals" are against the patriot act is that they didn’t think of it first.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.

...

If the Klan put on a peace march, nobody would go. But when the WWP puts on a peace march, hundreds of thousands go. I find that curious. I've also wondered about this, especially in the context of making direct comparisons of right-wing and left-wing extremists. I think that people find a racist ideology a lot more radioactive than an economic ideology with which they also disagree, and that is often the distinguishing characteristic between left and right "extremes." But you are right, I think, that most peace protesters were probably unaware of the true nature of the protest organizers, regardless of whether they were communist/socialist organizations or not (about which I express no opinion here, lacking information).

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony
My contention is that the only reason "liberals" are against the patriot act is that they didn’t think of it first. What about all the "conservatives" who are against it? What's their excuse?

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
What about all the "conservatives" who are against it? What's their excuse?

Judging from past conservative positions, I would say they object to the Patriot Act on an anti-big government and/or pro-individual rights basis.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony


Judging from past conservative positions, I would say they object to the Patriot Act on an anti-big government and/or pro-individual rights basis. Oh, I see. But "liberals" don't care about government intrusion on individual rights, especially as regards the power of the criminal justice enforcers? That's a curious reading of history. I'll have to change my "label."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by jj:
Then how do you explain the extreme coercive power of the right, with their anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-science activities? It seems entirely, positively clear to me that the left has no, zero, ZIP influence at the minute, and the anti-science right-wingers are not only running the show, but working on making any other show illegal.

I don't equate the religious right with the extremism of communists. But I can see how someone else might, and I don't mean that deragotorily.

I do see, though, a lot of leftist influence on our society. I see left and right influence. I would be very concerned if I didn't see both.

[Frank Newgent]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001804469_patriot01.html

The trouble with the Padilla case, Dinh said, is that the government hasn't established any framework for permitting Padilla to respond, and that it seems to think it has no legal duty to do so.

"The president is owed significant deference as to when and how and what kind of process the person designated an enemy combatant is entitled to," Dinh said.

"But I do not think the Supreme Court would defer to the president when there is nothing to defer to. There must be an actual process or discernible set of procedures to determine how they will be treated."
It'll probably come down to how it's decided to pronounce his name.

Padi-La - hey, this guy's an American. Get him a lawyer, already.

Padi-Ya - How come he's not in Guantanamo?

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
But "liberals" don't care about government intrusion on individual rights, especially as regards the power of the criminal justice enforcers?

I haven’t seen any evidence of it. "Gun-control", high taxes, and smoking bans are just some examples of "liberal" antipathy towards individual rights. I’m not saying the conservatives are innocent, but they don’t hold themselves up as the champions of civil and constitutional rights as much as the “liberals” claim to do.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001804469_patriot01.html


It'll probably come down to how it's decided to pronounce his name.

Padi-La - hey, this guy's an American. Get him a lawyer, already.

Padi-Ya - How come he's not in Guantanamo?

I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for a guy who wanted to drop a nuclear dirty bomb on a major American metropolitan area. However, if he is an American citizen, he should be immediately tried in a court of law.

THEN hang him! :D

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Well, I guess you didn't dig far enough. Start with some of the individuals and look at their organizations. Ramsey Clark is at the top of that list. Start with him.

The Green Party is socialist with marxist tendencies. Check them out, too.

Take a look at the Korea Truth Commission's web site. It is a real eye opener. Pay particular attention to who hosts their site. Hint: I already mentioned his name in this post.

Ramsey Clark saw COINTELPRO from the inside and refused to put it into operation. He also defended people who were very controversial. He actually decided to uphold the system of justice by providing counsel for clients who noone else would touch. This does not make him a communist.

Green party has some different ideas. None of which I would term socialist nor marxist.

Assassinating the character of some memebrs of the opposition to attempt to demonize the entire dissent is not logically valid.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

Assassinating the character of some memebrs of the opposition to attempt to demonize the entire dissent is not logically valid.

You mean the way Clark's web site assassinates the character of our boys in uniform?

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


You mean the way Clark's web site assassinates the character of our boys in uniform?

ad hominem. Ignores anti-war reasons and instead attacks the character of one speaker out of many.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

It also does not make him a Communist.

Nor does it make the arguement for war crimes made by Clark logically valid.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for a guy who wanted to drop a nuclear dirty bomb on a major American metropolitan area. However, if he is an American citizen, he should be immediately tried in a court of law.

THEN hang him! :D

Civil rights apply to everyone. Please keep that in mind when defending an administration which wants to suspend them for citizens.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Civil rights apply to everyone. Please keep that in mind when defending an administration which wants to suspend them for citizens. The rights we expect as citizens also apply to any non-citizens put under the power of our criminal justice system.5th Admendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, ...

6th Admendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ...
No mention is made of citizenship.

So what of the prisoners of Guantanamo? Are they prisoners of war? Then they should be accorded the rights as such under the Geneva Conventions (to which U.S. is a signatory), and if not then they should be granted all the rights accorded by our constitution.

[jj]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Civil rights apply to everyone. Please keep that in mind when defending an administration which wants to suspend them for citizens.

And, bear in mind that a law-enforcement officer's word that you aren't a citizen is grounds enough under PATRIOT to have you hauled off to Gitmo in the dark of night, and held incommunicado with no rights to council or habeas.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


ad hominem. Ignores anti-war reasons and instead attacks the character of one speaker out of many.

And many of the many on ANSWER's steering committee are of Clark's ilk. After a certain point, you have to question the true motives behind the marches.


http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

It also does not make him a Communist.

Communist. Fellow traveler. Useful idiot. Makes no difference.

Nor does it make the arguement for war crimes made by Clark logically valid.

Goody! I win!

Why do I have the feeling people are taking me too seriously sometimes?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Civil rights apply to everyone. Please keep that in mind when defending an administration which wants to suspend them for citizens.

Okay. I'll be serious for a second.

I do believe the alleged dirty bomb suspect should be tried in a court of law and his civil rights respected, as I said.

And now I will put my propeller hat back on.

AND THEN HANG HIM!

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by hgc
The rights we expect as citizens also apply to any non-citizens put under the power of our criminal justice system.
No mention is made of citizenship.

So what of the prisoners of Guantanamo? Are they prisoners of war? Then they should be accorded the rights as such under the Geneva Conventions (to which U.S. is a signatory), and if not then they should be granted all the rights accorded by our constitution.

Which is why I said that they apply to everyone.

Gitmo prisoners are on US soil. They have to be treated as if they are in custody in a US jail. That means access to counsel and courts.

Preaching to the choir, dude.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Gitmo prisoners are on US soil. They have to be treated as if they are in custody in a US jail. That means access to counsel and courts.



Not during times of war. German POW's in america didnt get constitutional protections and rights. They were under military control.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


And many of the many on ANSWER's steering committee are of Clark's ilk. After a certain point, you have to question the true motives behind the marches.

Such is your opinion. Duely noted and discarded due to lack of support.



Communist. Fellow traveler. Useful idiot. Makes no difference.


additional ad hominem. Does not support your premise. Classifies people by percieved company that they keep. Logically invalid.


Goody! I win!

Why do I have the feeling people are taking me too seriously sometimes?

Congrat. You win a strawman that you constructed. You must be so proud. :rolleyes:

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Tony


Not during times of war. German POW's in america didnt get constitutional protections and rights. They were under military control.

They were also directly involved in combat. The military isn't treating them like POW's, so they must be treated like they are in US courts. Then, of course, the war with their country is over so unless they are actually tried for war crimes, the US has no basis to hold them.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Such is your opinion. Duely noted and discarded due to lack of support.

Ahhhhhh. So you didn't look at the links to the topics I provided and follow the painstakingly obvious chain of evidence, did you?

That's ok. I really don't feel like holding somebody's hand and walking them through all of the web sites again. I am not all that fanatical about it.

Maybe the next time they put on a protest, you will not be able to help but notice the marxist symbols on the signs they hand out for people to carry.

Don't you ever wonder how a large protest event happens? Do you think they arise spontaneously? Wouldn't you like to know something about the sponsors? I sure would. So I went and found out. I can't make you come with me and see.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
...

Preaching to the choir, dude. Wasn't disagreeing with you, but rather expanding on your point for the benefit of others.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

additional ad hominem. Does not support your premise. Classifies people by percieved company that they keep. Logically invalid.

So Ramsey Clark hosting the Korea Truth Commission's web page on his web site is merely "keeping company" with them to you, and means nothing more.

Ooooookaaaay.....

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony


Not during times of war. German POW's in america didnt get constitutional protections and rights. They were under military control. Gitmo prisoners have not been classified as POW's. They don't even have that many rights. Legally speaking, they have been kidnapped from a zone of military conflict, and are being held with no rights accorded whatsoever.

[Luke T.]

I guess all I'm saying in my own loopy way, Valiant, is that I do care about the company I keep. If I was going to go to a big protest, I would want to know who I'm running with. Don't want to lend my face or my name to people I have strong ideological differences with.

A.N.S.W.E.R.: Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. Sure does sound pretty. And I'm all for ending war and racism. Believe it or not, I'm all for civil rights, too. But the solutions ANSWER and the company they keep offer are not ones I agree with.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony


I haven’t seen any evidence of it. "Gun-control", high taxes, and smoking bans are just some examples of "liberal" antipathy towards individual rights. I’m not saying the conservatives are innocent, but they don’t hold themselves up as the champions of civil and constitutional rights as much as the “liberals” claim to do.

Conservatives claim to be the the champions of the constitution and individual rights all the time (think of conservative objections against "judicial activism"). In fact most political parties claim this a lot. And I'll even give that most parties' record on that point is good in some areas and spotty on others. As a liberal-leaning person I was gnashing my teeth at the Democrats' support of the CDA, for example.

But you're looking for evidence of liberal support of individual rights--I can give some examples.

- The ACLU. Certainly a controversial organization, but generally considered a liberal organization and spends most of its time defending individual liberties. For example, they were one of the most prominent organizations opposing both the CDA and the Patriot Act.

- Abortion. Justly or not, liberals treat this as an individual right and defend that right rigorously.

- Rights of the accused. Liberals get hammered with this a lot, for "defending criminals". The true goal is to protect the wrongfully accused and to make sure that even the justly accused get no more punishment than they deserve. A defense of the individual over the expedience of society.

Thats a start--there's probably more.

[Tony]

Originally posted by gnome


- The ACLU. Certainly a controversial organization, but generally considered a liberal organization and spends most of its time defending individual liberties. For example, they were one of the most prominent organizations opposing both the CDA and the Patriot Act.


The rest you gave are good examples, but I take anything from the ACLU with a grain of salt. They aren’t for individual rights as much as they are for pushing their hypocritical agenda. For example look at their stances on the 2nd amendment and affirmative action. This fact destroys the ACLU's credibility as a defender of individual and civil rights.

That’s why I put liberal in quotations. They aren’t anymore liberal than Pat Robertson; they are just interested in pushing a different authoritarian model.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
The rest you gave are good examples, but I take anything from the ACLU with a grain of salt. They aren’t for individual rights as much as they are for pushing their hypocritical agenda. For example look at their stances on the 2nd amendment and affirmative action. This fact destroys the ACLU's credibility as a defender of individual and civil rights.

That’s why I put liberal in quotations. They aren’t anymore liberal than Pat Robertson; they are just interested in pushing a different authoritarian model.

You mean like this hypocritical agenda?

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=14469&c=42

Come on, I don't agree with all their positions about everything (campaign finance reform, for one) but that doesn't invalidate the rest of the critical work they do.

[Tony]

Originally posted by gnome

Come on, I don't agree with all their positions about everything (campaign finance reform, for one) but that doesn't invalidate the rest of the critical work they do.

I never said it invalidates the work they do, I just said it destroys their credibility as a defender of civil and individual rights.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
I never said it invalidates the work they do, I just said it destroys their credibility as a defender of civil and individual rights.

You're still missing my point. Why does disagreement on one issue destroy their credibility?

If, for example, they chose to stop defending the pro-choice position, I would be disappointed but still support them in all the other rights they defend.

You expect them to agree with you on every single topic, in order to have credibility?

[Tony]

Originally posted by gnome

You expect them to agree with you on every single topic, in order to have credibility?


I expect them to be true to their name and be a defender of civil and constitutional rights, which they are not.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Ahhhhhh. So you didn't look at the links to the topics I provided and follow the painstakingly obvious chain of evidence, did you?

That's ok. I really don't feel like holding somebody's hand and walking them through all of the web sites again. I am not all that fanatical about it.

Maybe the next time they put on a protest, you will not be able to help but notice the marxist symbols on the signs they hand out for people to carry.

Don't you ever wonder how a large protest event happens? Do you think they arise spontaneously? Wouldn't you like to know something about the sponsors? I sure would. So I went and found out. I can't make you come with me and see.

Actually, I looked. I also conducted my own research into the matter and found your conclusions to be factually deficient. A lot of guilt by association and presumed affiliation based on conduct you feel is inappropriate.

It still amounts to non-support of your premise.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So Ramsey Clark hosting the Korea Truth Commission's web page on his web site is merely "keeping company" with them to you, and means nothing more.

Ooooookaaaay.....

More ad hominem. A lot of supposition you have there. Be a shame if you could actually stop demonizing people based on their company and not on their actions. It also ignores the other groups that are a part of ANSWER which do not have such alledged ties.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I guess all I'm saying in my own loopy way, Valiant, is that I do care about the company I keep. If I was going to go to a big protest, I would want to know who I'm running with. Don't want to lend my face or my name to people I have strong ideological differences with.

A.N.S.W.E.R.: Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. Sure does sound pretty. And I'm all for ending war and racism. Believe it or not, I'm all for civil rights, too. But the solutions ANSWER and the company they keep offer are not ones I agree with.

I can support your decision to keep away from things you don't agree with. You have the right of free association.

I just find your premise for labling ANSWER as a Commie tool as unsupported.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Tony


I never said it invalidates the work they do, I just said it destroys their credibility as a defender of civil and individual rights.

I wouldn't call it destroyed so much as lessened. The ACLU has backed the wrong horse a time or two. For the most part, they do defend civil and individual rights. One must, however, analyze their stance on a case by case basis to see if they have made a mistake.

Blindly taking whatever the ACLU says as gospel is not good. There are two sides to every story. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


I wouldn't call it destroyed so much as lessened. The ACLU has backed the wrong horse a time or two. For the most part, they do defend civil and individual rights. One must, however, analyze their stance on a case by case basis to see if they have made a mistake.

Blindly taking whatever the ACLU says as gospel is not good. There are two sides to every story. The truth is somewhere in the middle.


Good points, but the ACLU is currently backing the wrong horse right now judging by their support of affirmative action and their stance on the 2nd amendment.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Tony



Good points, but the ACLU is currently backing the wrong horse right now judging by their support of affirmative action and their stance on the 2nd amendment.

The second amendment stance, I will agree with you. I believe that private gun ownership provides a means to keep the government in check. A government is detered from tyranny when it fears armed rebellion from the populace.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -- US Declaration of Independance

"When the people fear their Government, there is tyranny. When the Government fears it's people, there is liberty.." - Thomas Paine

These quotes inspire my opinion on the second amendment.

Affirmative action, I won't. I think that race relations have not come so far as to call for affirmative action's demise. I think that day will come, just not today.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


The second amendment stance, I will agree with you. I believe that private gun ownership provides a means to keep the government in check. A government is detered from tyranny when it fears armed rebellion from the populace.

Disclaimer: I am NO friend of gun control.

Reality check: Does anyone really think the government is afraid of armed rebellion? Or has the potential to be? The US government has everything from fully-automatic weapons to tanks to "smart" bombs to nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think they're afraid of a bunch of guys with 9-mm handguns?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleon

Reality check: Does anyone really think the government is afraid of armed rebellion? Or has the potential to be? The US government has everything from fully-automatic weapons to tanks to "smart" bombs to nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think they're afraid of a bunch of guys with 9-mm handguns?



Do you think the government would you those weapons against US cities?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


I can support your decision to keep away from things you don't agree with. You have the right of free association.

I just find your premise for labling ANSWER as a Commie tool as unsupported.

This is precisely what I mean about people not caring if a protest is organized by marxists, but wouldn't be caught dead at an event sponsored by facists/White Nationalists.

If they were handing out posters for people to carry that had swastikas on them, we'd be hearing about it. But because the posters passed out had marxist clenched fist symbols on them, we don't.

If David Duke's name was on a list of supporters for an event, it would be poorly attended.

A willing blindness, despite the fact that marxism and its spinoffs have brought about enough death and destruction to make Hitler look like a choir boy.

Bizarre.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

Affirmative action, I won't. I think that race relations have not come so far as to call for affirmative action's demise. I think that day will come, just not today.


That may be fine and dandy, but the fact remains the affirmative action is discrimination based on race. It is against everything the civil rights movement stood for, i.e. equality, fairness and colorblind judgement.

If the roles were reversed and whites were legally obligated to discriminate against blacks that would be unacceptable.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Tony



That may be fine and dandy, but the fact remains the affirmative action is discrimination based on race. It is against everything the civil rights movement stood for, i.e. equality, fairness and colorblind judgement.

If the roles were reversed and whites were legally obligated to discriminate against blacks that would be unacceptable.

Affirmative action is in response to discrimination based on race. Quotas were giving preferential treatment to minorities. This has been held to be unConstitutional. Affirmative action seeks to force businesses to hire qualified candidates without regard to color. Several studies have been put out which suggest qualified candidates with black sounding names are less likely to be called back than those who do not have black sounding names.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/01/01-31-03tdc/01-31-03dnews-01.asp

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/030109/inthenews.shtml

Until studies that track this form of discrimination return more nominal differences, affirmative action should stay in place.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Affirmative action is in response to discrimination based on race. Quotas were giving preferential treatment to minorities. This has been held to be unConstitutional. Affirmative action seeks to force businesses to hire qualified candidates without regard to color. Several studies have been put out which suggest qualified candidates with black sounding names are less likely to be called back than those who do not have black sounding names.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/01/01-31-03tdc/01-31-03dnews-01.asp

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/030109/inthenews.shtml

Until studies that track this form of discrimination return more nominal differences, affirmative action should stay in place.


That's just a justification for racism and discrimination.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


This is precisely what I mean about people not caring if a protest is organized by marxists, but wouldn't be caught dead at an event sponsored by facists/White Nationalists.

If they were handing out posters for people to carry that had swastikas on them, we'd be hearing about it. But because the posters passed out had marxist clenched fist symbols on them, we don't.

If David Duke's name was on a list of supporters for an event, it would be poorly attended.

A willing blindness, despite the fact that marxism and its spinoffs have brought about enough death and destruction to make Hitler look like a choir boy.

Bizarre.

I saw a plethora of signs at protests locally and nationally which had no such symbolism. Your contention remains unsupported. The upraised fist was also the symbol of the civil rights movement during the 60's. The news stories I have looked at with pictures did not have this symbolism. Signs with ANSWER affiliation had no such symbolism.

The phenomenon you describe does not exist.

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/o25tabloid.pdf

Your arguement suffers from subverted support. ANSWER signs did not have such symbolism.

Your David Duke strawman is noted and discarded.

Marxist Communism has never been the source of a government. Leninist and Stalinist Communism has. Even Marx said that his idea of Communism would never work due to the greed of man. Your tirade against Stalinist Communism is duely noted and discarded due to it being a strawman.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony
Do you think the government would you those weapons against US cities?

Generally, yes, with the possible exception of nuclear weapons. I can easily see a government (yes, even the US government) using bombers, tanks, the whole nine yards against its own citizens if it feels that doing so is in its best interest.

Nations--and governments--act first and foremost for their own interests, a primary interest being self-preservation. If a government feels that it is in danger from its own citizens, it will act against those citizens.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Tony



That's just a justification for racism and discrimination.

I acknowledge your opinion and note a lack of evidence for your opinion. I still do not agree with your opinion.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
I expect them to be true to their name and be a defender of civil and constitutional rights, which they are not.

If we follow that reasoning to its logical extreme, there would only ever be a few people at a time that would be willing to call them the ACLU; everyone else would surely disagree with some civil rights position of theirs.

The fact is they are a defender of civil and constitutional rights. That they don't defend all the rights that you want them to does not equal a failure of their mission.

Would you turn down their help if you ever needed it, on a non-gun issue?

In fact, I wanted to make the point that the ALCU is probably one of the main reasons you aren't currently using your guns to fight off a tyrannical government.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


I saw a plethora of signs at protests locally and nationally which had no such symbolism. Your contention remains unsupported. The upraised fist was also the symbol of the civil rights movement during the 60's. The news stories I have looked at with pictures did not have this symbolism. Signs with ANSWER affiliation had no such symbolism.

The phenomenon you describe does not exist.

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/o25tabloid.pdf

Your arguement suffers from subverted support. ANSWER signs did not have such symbolism.

Your David Duke strawman is noted and discarded.

Marxist Communism has never been the source of a government. Leninist and Stalinist Communism has. Even Marx said that his idea of Communism would never work due to the greed of man. Your tirade against Stalinist Communism is duely noted and discarded due to it being a strawman.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/mvarxist.htm


Had the good folks at TomPaine.com or Mr. Hentoff taken the time to research the ties between the Worker's World Party and International A.N.S.W.E.R., they would have found the links are plain as day. The Worker's World Party website features prominent links to the International A.N.S.W.E.R. website and the International Action Center which established A.N.S.W.E.R. in late 2001.

http://www.workers.org/

Take a look at the links to other sites on the page.

A.N.S.W.E.R. and the International Action Center (Clark's site)

and Millions for Mumia...

Strawman my...

Pretty hard to keep up your willful ignorance.

[Tony]

International ANSWER's ties to Stalinist groups have been well documented in the mainstream media. The Seattle Times ran an article in January about ANSWER's relationship with extremists left-wing groups. The article is featured in their archives, if I feel like registering, I'll post the article.

[Luke T.]

Here's another nail for you Valiant.

Take a look at this page:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/o25tabloid.pdf

Go down to where it says "Contact A.N.S.W.E.R."

Look at the address for San Francisco


2489 Mission St., Room 24

Then go to this page:

http://www.workers.org/wwp.php

Since you are blind, that is the Worker's World Party address page.

For San Francisco:


2489 Mission St., Room 28

Wake up!

If you really, really insist, I will try to find the posters with marxist symbols again.

Looks like some people do have to have their hand held and led and shown.

[Luke T.]

Earlier in this topic, I cut and pasted the phone numbers for San Francisco's Parks and Rec department from another topic. Call them. Ask them who organized the big anti-war protest there. Seriously.

It doesn't take a genius.....

[gnome]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I wouldn't call it destroyed so much as lessened. The ACLU has backed the wrong horse a time or two. For the most part, they do defend civil and individual rights. One must, however, analyze their stance on a case by case basis to see if they have made a mistake.

I agree with this. In fact, I've often seen them make mistakes of position or PR on various issues. There is plenty of room for improvement in the ALCU.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Here's another nail for you Valiant.

If you really, really insist, I will try to find the posters with marxist symbols again.

Looks like some people do have to have their hand held and led and shown.

I for one know full well that Workers World puts a lot of effort into ANSWER. I'm an activist; I work with them (both ANSWER and WWP) fairly closely. I'm not a WWP supporter, nor do I intend to be.

But WWP doesn't control ANSWER. Not by a long shot; ANSWER is run by a Steering Committee consisting of representatives from a number of different groups, including the Muslim Student Association and Pastors for Peace--hardly WWP fronts. Only one or two people, max, on the Steering Committee are WWP members. WWP members play a large part in ANSWER, but only because they've put considerable time, effort, and energy into building the coalition.

Regarding Marxist symbols on signs, specifically the red fist; this is the work, not of WWP, but of another socialist organization called the International Socialist Organization. Their MO is to make up zillions of posters that feature the slogans of the march in question (like "US out of Iraq") and then give them to as many people as possible. Most folks will carry them because they agree with the slogan, not necessarily because they agree with the organization's name or symbol. The result is that the ISO can take some cool pictures showing masses of people holding ISO signs; it's a propaganda ploy that has nothing to do with ANSWER or WWP. They do this at *every* major action they participate in, ANSWER-organized or not.

Standard ANSWER-printed posters do not feature such symbols, and WWP doesn't print any of their own.

[Luke T.]

Okay. Now lets go back to this page:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/o25tabloid.pdf

A.N.S.W.E.R.'s New York address and phone number:


39 W. 14th St., Room 206
212-633-6646

And now let's go to this page for the International Action Center:


http://www.iacenter.org/help.htm

Their address and phone number?


39 West 14th St., #206; New York, N.Y. 10011. Tax deductible donations (over $50.00) should be made payable to IAC/Peoples Rights Fund. For more information, call 212-633-6646, fax 212-633-2889


So the Workers World Party, International Action Center and International ANSWER are one and the same thing. Along with the Korea Truth Commission.

So much for their "steering committee"....

[Luke T.]

http://www.iacenter.org


Founded by Ramsey Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General

I wouldn't say Ramsey Clark is "keeping company" with marxists. I would say he is the company.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleon

Regarding Marxist symbols on signs, specifically the red fist; this is the work, not of WWP, but of another socialist organization called the International Socialist Organization. Their MO is to make up zillions of posters that feature the slogans of the march in question (like "US out of Iraq") and then give them to as many people as possible. Most folks will carry them because they agree with the slogan, not necessarily because they agree with the organization's name or symbol. The result is that the ISO can take some cool pictures showing masses of people holding ISO signs; it's a propaganda ploy that has nothing to do with ANSWER or WWP. They do this at *every* major action they participate in, ANSWER-organized or not.

Useful idiots.

Standard ANSWER-printed posters do not feature such symbols, and WWP doesn't print any of their own.

Thanks for clearing that up. And I wouldn't expect WWP to print any of their own. They prefer to hide behind their front organizations. And not very well.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Here's another nail for you Valiant.

Take a look at this page:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/o25tabloid.pdf

Go down to where it says "Contact A.N.S.W.E.R."

Look at the address for San Francisco



Then go to this page:

http://www.workers.org/wwp.php

Since you are blind, that is the Worker's World Party address page.

For San Francisco:



Wake up!

If you really, really insist, I will try to find the posters with marxist symbols again.

Looks like some people do have to have their hand held and led and shown.

Nothwestern Medical Faculty Foundation is on the 11th floor of 680 N. Lake Shore Drive. Playboy has the 15th and 16th floors of the same building. By your leap of logic, Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation must be controlled by Playboy.

Your repeated calls to wake up indicate the anemic nature of your arguement.

Your premise is still unsupported.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Okay. Now lets go back to this page:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/o25tabloid.pdf

A.N.S.W.E.R.'s New York address and phone number:



And now let's go to this page for the International Action Center:


http://www.iacenter.org/help.htm

Their address and phone number?




So the Workers World Party, International Action Center and International ANSWER are one and the same thing. Along with the Korea Truth Commission.

So much for their "steering committee"....

Quite a leap of logic. Completely unfounded. But entertaining.

[Luke T.]

Okay, Valiant. I see where you are coming from now. You are a waste of time. Carry on.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.
http://www.iacenter.org



I wouldn't say Ramsey Clark is "keeping company" with marxists. I would say he is the company.

The IAC is not the WWP. You have linked them together based on whether the WWP links to them, not based on any tangible relationship. Only guilt by linking. The Bad Astronomy website links to astronomy crank sites to show both sides of an arguement. It does not magically make an affiliation between the two.

Your opinion continues to be unsupported.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Okay, Valiant. I see where you are coming from now. You are a waste of time. Carry on.

Dismissive hand waving.

Since you cannot support your arguement, you give up and insult the person. Got it.

I accept your concession of defeat.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Dismissive hand waving.

Since you cannot support your arguement, you give up and insult the person. Got it.

I accept your concession of defeat.

I have more than proven my point. And more than proven their connections. The only thing I have accepted is your henriette syndrome and it thus pointless to continue.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Okay. Now lets go back to this page:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/o25tabloid.pdf

So the Workers World Party, International Action Center and International ANSWER are one and the same thing. Along with the Korea Truth Commission.

So much for their "steering committee"....

"Sharing an office" != "one and the same thing." Not by a looong shot.

Unless you happen to think that MSA and Pastors for Peace are a gaggle of communists.

But you can claim whatever you like--I fully expect you to, as you seem bound and determined to "expose" ANSWER as some kind of communist plot.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I have more than proven my point. And more than proven their connections. The only thing I have accepted is your henriette syndrome and it thus pointless to continue.

Thus is your opinion. It is not so. From the other posters to this thread, you have not proven to everyone that your premise is right.

I still await real tangible links. Not just supposition and guilt by proximity and association.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleon


"Sharing an office" != "one and the same thing." Not by a looong shot.

Unless you happen to think that MSA and Pastors for Peace are a gaggle of communists.

But you can claim whatever you like--I fully expect you to, as you seem bound and determined to "expose" ANSWER as some kind of communist plot.

You said yourself, "WWP members play a large part in ANSWER, but only because they've put considerable time, effort, and energy into building the coalition."

edited to add: I have said nothing about MSA and Pastors for Peace. But I have to wonder why they associate themselves with marxist organizations.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


You said yourself, "WWP members play a large part in ANSWER, but only because they've put considerable time, effort, and energy into building the coalition."

And somehow you translate this to mean that Workers World Party and ANSWER are the same thing? Or that WWP controls ANSWER?

Yeah, WWPers play a large part; Larry Holmes frequently MCs ANSWER rallies. Gloria La Riva is one of ANSWER's main organizers on the West Coast. But they don't play a decisive or controlling role; many similar roles are filled by people with no connection to WWP. I know one young woman in particular, Peta, who MCed several of the major DC rallies, who'd been neck-deep in ANSWER organizing, and didn't even hear of Workers World until people started redbaiting the anti-war movement. And the reality remains, office addresses notwithstanding, that ANSWER decisions are made by the steering committee, not by Workers World.

I repeat; sharing an office does not mean "they are one and the same." And, whether you like it or not, the IAC isn't ANSWER. WWP isn't IAC or ANSWER. And you know what? This is an honest-to-god fact; Ramsey Clark is neither a WWP member nor supporter. Not, of course, that I expect you to take my word for it, but it'll have to do.

edited to add: You haven't said anything about MSA or Pastors for Peace because they don't fit into your nice little "ANSWER and WWP are one and the same" worldview. Maybe, just maybe, they don't see ANSWER as being run by communists?

[Luke T.]

On the ANSWER steering committee is "IFCO/Pastors for Peace."

Let's take a look.


IFCO Condemns US Provocations Against Cuba.
US-Cuba relations have plummeted to a new low. The Bush administration has self-righteously led a chorus of criticism against Cuba, while keeping the US public in the dark concerning a campaign of provocation against Cuba. Subsequently, the sovereign Cuba government has seen fit to arrest approximately 80 people for a variety of offenses and to execute three people. It is essential that we understand the US government's disingenuous role in this operation.

Somehow I am not surprised they do not condemn Cuba for arresting and executing people.


In the past seven months, seven separate hijackings have been attributed to US instigation. Within the past three weeks alone, two Cuban airliners were hijacked to Florida. Contrary to agreements reached by the US and Cuba, hijackers were arrested and then released on their own recognizance and not turned over to Cuban jurisdiction. Those Cuban passengers and crew who wished to return to Cuba, have not been permitted to do so.

*paging shanek*

http://ifconews.org/cuprovacations.html#IFCO



Presentation by Rev. Lucius Walker, Jr.
Plaza of the Revolution, Havana, Cuba, May 1, 2003


Dear Commander Fidel Castro,
Dear religious leaders here present, and
Dear people of Cuba:


I come to you today as a pastor; I come representing Pastors for Peace. I come to stand with our sisters and brothers in Cuba, in the midst of the worst provocation by any US administration in history. But I come to declare that you are loved, respected, appreciated, and supported by millions of US citizens who oppose our government's hostility, provocation, and breaches of diplomatic norms.

http://ifconews.org/cuprovacations.html#Presentation%20by%20Rev.%20Luc ius%20Walker,%20Jr.

So, yeah. They are a bunch of commies.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
On the ANSWER steering committee is "IFCO/Pastors for Peace."

Let's take a look.


Somehow I am not surprised they do not condemn Cuba for arresting and executing people.

*paging shanek*

http://ifconews.org/cuprovacations.html#IFCO


http://ifconews.org/cuprovacations.html#Presentation%20by%20Rev.%20Luc ius%20Walker,%20Jr.

So, yeah. They are a bunch of commies.

Actually, Lucius Walker did condemn those crackdowns. He did it while speaking in Cuba, with Fidel Castro standing not ten feet away.

I'll refer you to that bastion of communism, Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85687,00.html

[Luke T.]

"Now there is another alarm tat needs to be sounded...another message
that needs to be carried to every town and city in the United States
about a malignant disease that is eating away at the core of our entire
society.
"That disease is our prison system which has become the fastest growing
industry in our nation. The US prison system has become a slave labor
camp. a prison-industrial complex that imprisons more people than any
other country in the world -- that builds giant new prisons with funds
stolen from educational budgets to improve our children's schools. Even
"drug czar" General Barry McCaffrey calls the US prison system "an
American Gulag."


And there is lots more in their latest mailing about the Caravans, which
plan a major focus on the death penalty.


Rev Lucius Walker, Pastors for Peace's Executive Director, has been a
leading spokesperson in the struggle to free Mumia Abu Jamal.

http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/dec99/1047.html

Free Mumia!

I wonder if they had a movement to stop the execution of the three Cubans Castro executed. They never even mentioned their names.....

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleon


Actually, Lucius Walker did condemn those crackdowns. He did it while speaking in Cuba, with Fidel Castro standing not ten feet away.

I'll refer you to that bastion of communism, Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85687,00.html

Nothing about it on their site. All they do is blame America. Somehow it was America's fault.

[Luke T.]

So, these are the kind of people you hang out with? Supporters of North Korea, Cuba, and the Workers World Party? Nothing wrong with that..... :rolleyes:

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Nothing about it on their site. All they do is blame America. Somehow it was America's fault.

Since you failed to read it, I'll quote it for you.

"Castro said the executions were necessary to halt the hijackings and stem a growing migration crisis.

But he said he respected the opinions of Pope John Paul II and some of his longtime supporters, including the New York Rev. Lucius Walker Jr., who have asked him to abolish the death penalty. The Cuban leader said he would consider their arguments. " -- from the article from FOX news

Clearly shows opposition for the death penalty. Therefore, opposition to the executions.

What does the US do with hijackers? I'll give you a hint. They hunt them down, arrest them, try them, and imprison or execute them.

[Luke T.]

You know, the only reason I came across all of this information was because I changed my mind about the war in Iraq before it started. I decided I was against it. It took a lot for me to admit it after being so pro-war on this forum.

So I began to look into the peace protests. You can imagine my disappointment at what I discovered. But I can't say I was caught by surprise.

One day, I drove through a little village on my way to a prison to do some volunteer work. There was a small group of housewives standing on a corner with protest signs. Your basic soccer moms. I was more proud of that little demonstration than what I consider to be the gigantic recruitment drives put on by ANSWER.

I would rather stand with the mothers than with the mother******s of ANSWER.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Since you failed to read it, I'll quote it for you.

"Castro said the executions were necessary to halt the hijackings and stem a growing migration crisis.

But he said he respected the opinions of Pope John Paul II and some of his longtime supporters, including the New York Rev. Lucius Walker Jr., who have asked him to abolish the death penalty. The Cuban leader said he would consider their arguments. " -- from the article from FOX news

Clearly shows opposition for the death penalty. Therefore, opposition to the executions.

What does the US do with hijackers? I'll give you a hint. They hunt them down, arrest them, try them, and imprison or execute them.

What hijackers? Aside from 9/11, there hasn't been a hijacking since 1991.

I did read the article, by the way. I saw the part where it said Pastors For Peace are counted as the best of friends of Cuba.


Walker, pastor of Salvation Baptist Church in Brooklyn, and executive director of New York-based Pastors for Peace is among Cuba's best-known American supporters.

When I said there was no mention of the condemnation of the executions on their site, I meant on the IFCO/Pastors for Peace site.

They have some things to say about Mumia though. And how long has he been alive? You mean we haven't executed him already? Guess we should take a page from Castro...

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.
You know, the only reason I came across all of this information was because I changed my mind about the war in Iraq before it started. I decided I was against it. It took a lot for me to admit it after being so pro-war on this forum.

So I began to look into the peace protests. You can imagine my disappointment at what I discovered. But I can't say I was caught by surprise.

One day, I drove through a little village on my way to a prison to do some volunteer work. There was a small group of housewives standing on a corner with protest signs. Your basic soccer moms. I was more proud of that little demonstration than what I consider to be the gigantic recruitment drives put on by ANSWER.

I would rather stand with the mothers than with the motherf*****s of ANSWER.

Your opinion is not at issue.

The evidence you cite as justification of your opinion is logically invalid. You cite as evidence guilt by association, guilt by proximity, and guilt by actions you percieve to be wrong.

Your contention that ANSWER is a Commie tool remains unsupported by the evidence you put forth.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


What hijackers? Aside from 9/11, there hasn't been a hijacking since 1991.

And in all the cases of hijacking, the surviving members have been hunted down and arrested. You specifically noted the lack of objection to the arrest of people in Cuba.


I did read the article, by the way. I saw the part where it said Pastors For Peace are counted as the best of friends of Cuba.


And your point is.............

More guilt by association, I see.


When I said there was no mention of the condemnation of the executions on their site, I meant on the IFCO/Pastors for Peace site.

They have some things to say about Mumia though. And how long has he been alive? You mean we haven't executed him already? Guess we should take a page from Castro...

Then you didn't read far enough.

"As a faith-based organization, IFCO/Pastors for Peace has opposed the death penalty for more than 35 years. This opposition includes the 71 executions carried out in the US in 2002, the 152 executions carried out while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, the eight executions of youth offenders in Texas, and the three executions in Cuba. " -- from http://ifconews.org/cuprovacations.html#IFCO

paragraph 15 under the section heading "IFCO Condemns US Provocations Against Cuba."

[Luke T.]

www.moveon.org/press/articles/wp32303.pdf+%22+international+A.N.S.W.E.R.%22,+mar xist&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:7FkHZZAjybAJ:Washinton Post Article


The radical antiwar movement opposes war in general, and the global projection of American military and corporate power in particular. A minority of this minority, such as the group International ANSWER, can be described fairly as Marxist.


Findarticles.com source (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/6_19/98415807/p2/article.jhtml?term=)


LAC and ANSWER are front groups of the Workers World Party (WWP), a tiny Marxist-Leninist group whose leaders display a fanatical devotion to the late North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung and his son and successor, Kim Jong-il (see "Who's Paying for It All?"). According to longtime homeland-security analysts, UPJ's leaders built their political-organizing careers in the old Soviet-funded Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

From the same article:


Many are tempted to laugh off the idea that graying old extremists are running current protests, and they roll their eyes at hearing the "C"-word, even Moscow having given up communism. But many others, especially liberals in the peace movement, are not at all amused. "I think the demonstrations would have been twice as big had the organizers been from a wider range of antiwar groups and not so dominated by this tiny Marxist-Leninist faction," said Stephen Zunes, chair of the peace- and justice-studies program at the University of San Francisco.



LA Weekly (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php)


Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials — including spokesperson Brian Becker — are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.

The IAC, another WWP offshoot, was a key partner with ANSWER in promoting the protest. It was founded by Ramsey Clark, attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. For years, Clark has been on a bizarre political odyssey, much of the time in sync with the Workers World Party. As an attorney, he has represented Lyndon LaRouche, the leader of a political cult. He has defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was accused of participating in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Clark is also a member of the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic. The international war-crimes tribunal, he explains, “is war by other means” — that is, a tool of the West to crush those who stand in the way of U.S. imperialism, like Milosevic. A critic of the ongoing sanctions against Iraq, Clark has appeared on talking-head shows and refused to concede any wrongdoing on Saddam’s part. There is no reason to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “After 12 years of brutalization with sanctions and bombing they’d like to be a country again. They’d like to have sovereignty again. They’d like to be left alone.”


http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/03/1946241&mode=nocomment&


Yet since its inception in 1992, the IAC's actions have given rise to serious doubts about its bona fides as an organization truly committed to peace and human rights issues. Behind the blue door entrance to the IAC's headquarters on 14th Street in Manhattan can be found deeper shades of red. When one looks closely at the IAC, it becomes impossible to ignore the overwhelming presence of members of an avowedly Marxist-Leninist sect called the Workers World Party (WWP), whose cadre staff virtually all of the IAC's top positions. Whether or not the IAC is simply a WWP front group remains difficult to say. Nor is there any evidence that Ramsey Clark himself is a WWP member. What does seem undeniable is that without the presence of scores of WWP cadre working inside the IAC, the organization would for all practical purposes cease to exist. Therefore, even if Clark is not a WWP member, he is following a political course that meets with the complete approval of one of the most pro-Stalinist sects ever to emerge from the American far left.





And, finally, from an honest anti-war site: (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2527)


One extremely energetic antiwar group is the International Action Center (IAC). It is the leading force in the coalition ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) which is calling the October 26 demonstrations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. (IAC and ANSWER share a New York City phone number and the latter's website features many materials from IAC.) IAC is officially led by Ramsey Clark and is largely the creation of the Workers World Party; many key IAC figures are prominent writers for WWP.



WWP holds many views that we find abhorrent. It considers North Korea "socialist Korea" where the "land, factories, homes, hotels, parks, schools, hospitals, offices, museums, buses, subways, everything in the DPRK belongs to the people as a whole" (Workers World, May 9, 2002), a fantastic distortion of the reality of one of the most rigid dictatorships in the world. IAC expresses its solidarity with Slobodan Milosevic (http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_milosdeligation.htm). There's of course much to criticize in the one-sided Hague war crimes tribunal, but to champion Milosevic is grotesque. The ANSWER website provides an IAC backgrounder on Afghanistan that refers to the dictatorial government that took power in that country in 1978 as "socialist" and says of the Soviet invasion the next year: the "USSR intervened militarily at the behest of the Afghani revolutionary government" (http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/resources/index.html) -- neglecting to mention that Moscow first had to engineer the execution of the Afghan leader to get themselves the invitation to intervene.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Nothwestern Medical Faculty Foundation is on the 11th floor of 680 N. Lake Shore Drive. Playboy has the 15th and 16th floors of the same building. By your leap of logic, Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation must be controlled by Playboy.

Your repeated calls to wake up indicate the anemic nature of your arguement.

Your premise is still unsupported.

Not to jump into the argument or anything, but does the Medical Faculty and Playboy share the same phone number? Because the two organizations Luke presented appear to unless I was reading a different post.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


What hijackers? Aside from 9/11, there hasn't been a hijacking since 1991.


This is my last word on the subject, since Luke doesn't seem to have much of a clue what he's talking about.

The people who were executed in Cuba were executed for hijacking a ferry, and trying to take it to Miami. (IIRC, they got out into the middle of the bay, realized the boat wouldn't make it, and caused a standoff that lasted about a day.) Although nobody was killed, three people were executed for it (again, IIRC, it was at knifepoint). They were the first people executed in Cuba for something like three years.

[Luke T.]

Even those on the Left agree that ANSWER and IAC are Marxist. They wish ANSWER and IAC would just go away.

Only a complete idiot would continue to deny who and what they are.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleon


This is my last word on the subject, since Luke doesn't seem to have much of a clue what he's talking about.

The people who were executed in Cuba were executed for hijacking a ferry, and trying to take it to Miami. (IIRC, they got out into the middle of the bay, realized the boat wouldn't make it, and caused a standoff that lasted about a day.) Although nobody was killed, three people were executed for it (again, IIRC, it was at knifepoint). They were the first people executed in Cuba for something like three years.

My statement was in response to Valiant's "What does the US do with hijackers? I'll give you a hint. They hunt them down, arrest them, try them, and imprison or execute them."

We haven't had any hijackers since 1991, aside from 9/11 and they executed themselves.

I would ask Valiant to back up his claims about what we do with hijackers as energetically as I have backing up my claims.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Not to jump into the argument or anything, but does the Medical Faculty and Playboy share the same phone number? Because the two organizations Luke presented appear to unless I was reading a different post.

IAC and ANSWER share the same office and phone number. I have been wondering how they answer the phone. Maybe I'll call. It is almost 5 p.m. there. How late do commies work?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.


IAC and ANSWER share the same office and phone number. I have been wondering how they answer the phone. Maybe I'll call. It is almost 5 p.m. there. How late do commies work?

It has been my experience that those type of commies never stop "working."

[Ignatius]

LukeT,
I think you have almost super-human patience. This thread reminded me of a joke (I think I saw it in a movie).

The police catch a thief that was identified leaving the scene of the crime.

Police: You were identified carring the merchandise off.
Thief: Maybe it was someone that looked like me.
Police: He was wearing the same coat.
Thief: Maybe it was someone that looked like me that had the same coat.
Police: He had the same hair color as you.
Thief: Maybe he looked like me, had the same coat and hair color.
etc..etc...
Police: How long do you intend to keep this up?
Thief: Until the very end.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It has been my experience that those type of commies never stop "working."

:)

I did call them. They answered the phone as "The Center." I said, "Who is this?" She said, "International Action Center." I said, "Oh. I thought this was International Answer." She said, "This is also the International Answer Office, too." I said, "Okay. I was just checking to see if I had the right number."

I should have asked how they respond to the claim they are a front for WWP. Maybe another day.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ignatius
LukeT,
I think you have almost super-human patience. This thread reminded me of a joke (I think I saw it in a movie).

The police catch a thief that was identified leaving the scene of the crime.

Police: You were identified carring the merchandise off.
Thief: Maybe it was someone that looked like me.
Police: He was wearing the same coat.
Thief: Maybe it was someone that looked like me that had the same coat.
Police: He had the same hair color as you.
Thief: Maybe he looked like me, had the same coat and hair color.
etc..etc...
Police: How long do you intend to keep this up?
Thief: Until the very end.

I was thinking about "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck..."

[Mona]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Nothwestern Medical Faculty Foundation is on the 11th floor of 680 N. Lake Shore Drive. Playboy has the 15th and 16th floors of the same building. By your leap of logic, Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation must be controlled by Playboy.

Your repeated calls to wake up indicate the anemic nature of your arguement.

Your premise is still unsupported.

As a newcomer here who has been reading many threads, including this one, I feel moved to say I find Luke T.'s argument to be extremely well supported. Your analogy is extremely flawed, as there is no evidence that the Med Faculty Foundation and Playboy: have any confluence of interest, seek to work toward common goals, or are related in any way other than by accident of choosing to rent space in the same building. That there is a great deal more to the relationship between ANSWER and Marxist organizations -- indeed, that they HAVE a relationship -- by contrast, has been evidenced by their shared activities, interests, goals, personnel (and/or volunteers) AND apparently *identical office space, in not one, but apparently multiple, cities.

If the Faculty Foundation and Playboy evinced so many intersections with one another, one would, indeed, be on sound ground in assuming that they shared common goals and values and were intimately connected; particularly if the Foundation did little or nothing to public distance itself from Playboy and its philosophy.

[Nasarius]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many people are so concerned with who some of the protesters are, rather than how they were acting or what they were saying. That's straight ad hominem.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Nasarius
I'm still trying to figure out why so many people are so concerned with who some of the protesters are, rather than how they were acting or what they were saying. That's straight ad hominem.

Would you attend a pro-breastfeeding demonstration given by White Nationalists? Would you attend an anti-censorship protest organized by the KKK?

edited to add: How would you feel if your smiling face appeared on their web site a week later? What if they used your name and your face in a crowd of other faces to show how much support there is for their cause?

It's a question of true motives.

On a lighter note---

Next week on JREF: Is ConsumerFreedom.com a McDonald's front?

:D

[Mona]

Originally posted by Nasarius
I'm still trying to figure out why so many people are so concerned with who some of the protesters are, rather than how they were acting or what they were saying. That's straight ad hominem.

Credibility is a relevant and acceptable tool in deciding whether to accept someone's claims. For example, while those of us skeptics who have chosen to engage creationists often do confront the merits of their claims per se, it can also be useful (particularly with an audience of non-scientists for whom the empirical arguments can be beyond their ability to evaluate), to point out that it just so happens that every single scientist advancing creationist claims is a Xian who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, and that to non-Xian scientists in non-Western cutures the "theory" seems utterly bizarre. This set of facts does not disprove creationism, but it a reasonable basis on which to make a provisional decision when one is not a scientific expert.

For similar reasons, American courts permit well-informed experts to give opinions which, in addition to the factual evidence, juries are allowed to consider in reaching their decision ; would you dismiss that as an unacceptable appeal to authority? Some people have more credibility than others, because of their superior knowledge and/or motives.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


My statement was in response to Valiant's "What does the US do with hijackers? I'll give you a hint. They hunt them down, arrest them, try them, and imprison or execute them."

We haven't had any hijackers since 1991, aside from 9/11 and they executed themselves.

I would ask Valiant to back up his claims about what we do with hijackers as energetically as I have backing up my claims.

"In 1985 four Palestinian terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, carrying more than 400 passengers and crew, off Egypt. The hijackers demanded that Israel free 50 Palestinian prisoners. After a two-day drama, the hijackers surrendered in exchange for a pledge of safe passage. But when an Egyptian jet tried to fly the hijackers to freedom, US Navy F-14 fighters intercepted it and forced it to land in Sicily."

http://www.recruitlogics.com/articles/1030.shtml

http://www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library2/achille.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4649831-103550,00.html

The US persues and prosecutes hijackers.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


"In 1985 four Palestinian terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, carrying more than 400 passengers and crew, off Egypt. The hijackers demanded that Israel free 50 Palestinian prisoners. After a two-day drama, the hijackers surrendered in exchange for a pledge of safe passage. But when an Egyptian jet tried to fly the hijackers to freedom, US Navy F-14 fighters intercepted it and forced it to land in Sicily."

http://www.recruitlogics.com/articles/1030.shtml

http://www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library2/achille.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4649831-103550,00.html

The US persues and prosecutes hijackers.

Should we just let them go?

This doesn't say we execute them.

edited to add: These are the same hijackers that killed an old man in a wheelchair, right?

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.
www.moveon.org/press/articles/wp32303.pdf+%22+international+A.N.S.W.E.R.%22,+mar xist&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:7FkHZZAjybAJ:Washinton Post Article




Findarticles.com source (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/6_19/98415807/p2/article.jhtml?term=)



From the same article:





LA Weekly (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php)




http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/03/1946241&mode=nocomment&







And, finally, from an honest anti-war site: (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2527)



So five people's opinion should make something so?

The LA Times article states that the linkage of WWP and ANSWER is his own opinion. Not based on any fact.

ZMAG is a site run by Noam Chomsky. He is a linguist who has expressed opinion on the nature of US politics in a manner which indicates a willingness to demonize America by using the same types of guilt by association and guilt by proximity arguements. It is an opinion site.

Move on is a conservative opinion site which is quick to demonize anti-war sites.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Should we just let them go?

This doesn't say we execute them.

edited to add: These are the same hijackers that killed an old man in a wheelchair, right?

You asked me to back up what I said about hijacking. I didn't say what happened was wrong.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Not to jump into the argument or anything, but does the Medical Faculty and Playboy share the same phone number? Because the two organizations Luke presented appear to unless I was reading a different post.

Luke is referring to WWP, IAC, and ANSWER.

IAC and ANSWER share a phone number.

WWP does not.

WWP-NY (212) 627-2994
WWP-LA (213) 500-0529

IAC & ANSWER - NY (212) 633-6646
IAC & ANSWER - LA (213) 487-2368

IAC helped form ANSWER and they share space.

Luke claims a tangible link between WWP and ANSWER. He claims to do this by linking them by proximity and association. He has no logical tangible link.

[Luke T.]

*yawn*

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Mona


As a newcomer here who has been reading many threads, including this one, I feel moved to say I find Luke T.'s argument to be extremely well supported. Your analogy is extremely flawed, as there is no evidence that the Med Faculty Foundation and Playboy: have any confluence of interest, seek to work toward common goals, or are related in any way other than by accident of choosing to rent space in the same building. That there is a great deal more to the relationship between ANSWER and Marxist organizations -- indeed, that they HAVE a relationship -- by contrast, has been evidenced by their shared activities, interests, goals, personnel (and/or volunteers) AND apparently *identical office space, in not one, but apparently multiple, cities.

If the Faculty Foundation and Playboy evinced so many intersections with one another, one would, indeed, be on sound ground in assuming that they shared common goals and values and were intimately connected; particularly if the Foundation did little or nothing to public distance itself from Playboy and its philosophy.

Do you brush your teeth? Then you share an interest and a goal of the WWP. There are enough differences to define the two. In addition ANSWER does not share office space nor telephone numbers with WWP. They are in the same buildings but that is guilt by proximity.

ANSWER has as a member WWP. ANSWER is not controlled by WWP. It would not need to distance itself from WWP publicly just as any other group would not have to distance itself from member groups. Their goals are disparate enough to not necessitate such a public distancing. ANSWER works to end war and racism. WWP tries to forward the Communist form of government. A shared interest is to end war and racism. To inexorably link the two demonstrates the logical fallacy of composition.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Even those on the Left agree that ANSWER and IAC are Marxist. They wish ANSWER and IAC would just go away.

Only a complete idiot would continue to deny who and what they are.

arguementum ad populum.

And an ad hominem to boot.

Does nothing to prove your point.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


. A shared interest is to end war and racism. To inexorably link the two demonstrates the logical fallacy of composition.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm

If you are unwilling or unable to see, on the one hand, the manifest difference between a lot of Western (and many Eastern and other) folks who engage in basic dental hygiene in common, and on the other, the fact that two ideological entities appear to share a lot of office space, goals and volunteers and /or personnel, then you are beyond reasonable exchange of views. You will label this ad hominem, as you are promiscuous (and misguided) in your rapid deployment of accusations of formal fallacies. Try Logic 101 again, and learn that credibility has its own and different criteria.

You would make a poor detective.

[zakur]

Now that this thread has settled down a bit, let's see if I can get it back on track...:D

Although the report that started this thread appears to be the most blatant example to date of the misuse of PATRIOT Act provisions to prosecute a non-terrorism related case, I've found some other reports on PATRIOT Act misuses and abuses, FWIW.

From "Code-red cartoonists," USA Today, July 24, 2003:The Justice Department's own inspector general reported Monday at least 34 "credible" instances since January of civil-liberties abuses by agencies administering the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act. They include allegations of ethnic slurs and death threats, raids based on false information, drugs planted at a target's home and a loaded gun held to a detainee's head.From "Report on U.S. Antiterrorism Law Alleges Violations of Civil Rights," New York Times, July 21, 2003:The inspector general said that from Dec. 16 through June 15, his office received 1,073 complaints "suggesting a Patriot Act-related" abuse of civil rights or civil liberties.

The report suggested that hundreds of the accusations were easily dismissed as not credible or impossible to prove. But of the remainder, 272 were determined to fall within the inspector general's jurisdiction, with 34 raising "credible Patriot Act violations on their face."From "Feds hype conviction rate in terror fight, critics say," The Denver Post, December 8, 2003:But critics say the new data - compiled by researchers at Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, using Justice Department reports - provide a very different picture, one that suggests the government is inflating its success by categorizing minor prosecutions as related to terrorism.

TRAC data shows that convictions in cases the Justice Department says are related to international terrorism jumped 7-1/2 times compared with the two years before the attacks - from 24 to 184 - but the number of individuals who received sentences of five or more years actually dropped, from six in the two years before the attacks to three in the two years that followed.

When crimes the Justice Department said were related to domestic terrorism are included, convictions jump from 96 before the attacks to 341 after. Despite that dramatic increase, the number of those individuals who received sentences of five or more years dropped from 24 to 16.

'Since Sept. 11, we've been told that stopping terrorists has been the top priority of the Justice Department. If the data in the (TRAC) report is correct, this raises questions about the accuracy of the department's claims about terrorism enforcement,' said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who in the past has been critical of the way the FBI and other agencies have categorized cases to show they are succeeding in America's war on terror.

The Justice Department warned Friday that the statistics cited in the TRAC study can be deceptive.

In what authorities describe as a strategy of prevention, potential or suspected terrorists are being charged since the 2001 attacks with minor nonterrorism crimes to get them off the street or out of the country.

'The fact that many terrorism investigations result in less-serious charges does not mean the case is not terrorism-related,' Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said in a written statement. 'The Department of Justice's top priority is the prevention of future terrorist attacks.

'Often, there is no clear line between terrorism and other criminal activity such as money laundering, identity theft, visa fraud or immigration violations.'

[...]

'The hype that the Justice Department and the administration has engaged in about terrorism statistics shows that the data they have been using to justify and defend controversial policies, like the Patriot Act, is totally untrustworthy,' Edgar said.

"As they move to expand those policies even further, statistics like these are not going to help their credibility before Congress."I find the passage bolded above to be scary in its implications. Echoes of "Minority Report," anyone?

Links:

US DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/03-01a/final.pdf

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse Reports
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/index.html

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by zakur
Now that this thread has settled down a bit, let's see if I can get it back on track...:D

Yeah. Sorry about that...


Although the report that started this thread appears to be the most blatant example to date of the misuse of PATRIOT Act provisions to prosecute a non-terrorism related case, I've found some other reports on PATRIOT Act misuses and abuses, FWIW.

From "Code-red cartoonists," USA Today, July 24, 2003:

From "Report on U.S. Antiterrorism Law Alleges Violations of Civil Rights," New York Times, July 21, 2003:

From "Feds hype conviction rate in terror fight, critics say," The Denver Post, December 8, 2003:

I find the passage bolded above to be scary in its implications. Echoes of "Minority Report," anyone?

Links:

US DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/03-01a/final.pdf

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse Reports
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/index.html [/B]

I am skeptical about some of these avowed abuses as counting as abuses of the Patriot Act.

If someone points a gun at a suspect, who they happened to arrest under the Patriot Act, to get a confession out of him, say, that is not an abuse of the Patriot Act, that is a violation, period. It doesn't matter if they arrested him under a civil law, federal law, or whatever law.

What I would consider an abuse of the Patriot Act is if they got a wiretap on a bookie, say, using the Patriot Act to get it. They should use whatever existing laws that actually apply to get such a wiretap.

As for the Minority Report similarities, I would again have to see if these people were arrested in the actual act of a crime not related to terrorism, or if they were arrested on trumped up charges. If they were arrested committing actual crimes, albeit only because they couldn't be caught committing terror acts or planning such acts, I don't have much problem with that.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Mona


If you are unwilling or unable to see, on the one hand, the manifest difference between a lot of Western (and many Eastern and other) folks who engage in basic dental hygiene in common, and on the other, the fact that two ideological entities appear to share a lot of office space, goals and volunteers and /or personnel, then you are beyond reasonable exchange of views. You will label this ad hominem, as you are promiscuous (and misguided) in your rapid deployment of accusations of formal fallacies. Try Logic 101 again, and learn that credibility has its own and different criteria.

You would make a poor detective.

Did you miss "There are enough differences to define the two. In addition ANSWER does not share office space nor telephone numbers with WWP. They are in the same buildings but that is guilt by proximity."?

I'll say that again. The WWP and ANSWER do NOT share office space nor telephone numbers. They are located in the same building.

Again, we have two organizations that have enough divergent goals which make them seperate entities. They share goals of stopping racism and war. While it is the primary motivator of ANSWER, it is a minor side goal of WWP.

You have not shown any refutation for the basic contentions here and your post only wishes to demonize my position by reiterating the same factual errors of other posts.

Whether you think I would make a poor detective or not is irrelevant. It ignores the basic problems of linking the two organizations. Linking them by shared workers is absurd. My grandfather is a Freemason. He is also a member of a church and does charity work for that church. Multiple members of that particular church are Freemasons. By your contention, one would have to believe that the Freemasons are controlled by that particular church. Again, fallacy of composition.

And you finish it all off with ad hominems and prejudical language fallacies.

You have not addressed the credibility of ANSWER or IAC with any sources to prove that they are not what they appear to be. I so far have the opinion of a few people but no evidence of linkage of them to the WWP.

[zakur]

Alleged Abuses Under The Patriot Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Alleged_Abuses_Under_The_Patriot_A ct)
In Las Vegas, police used a FISA warrant to monitor the activities of Strip Club owner. Despite his guilt or innocence, it was a violation of the law. [Story (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=14338&c=206)]

The FBI ordered all journalists that have ever written about a hacker, Adrian Lamo, to turn over their information under the auspices of the Patriot Act. [Story (http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0926fbisen.html )]

Beyond the above examples, in September 2003, the New York Times reported that a study by Congress showed hundreds of cases where the Patriot Act was used to investigate non-terrorist crimes. [Story (http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,567051,00.html)]

In April, 2004, a Muslim Idaho man went on trial on charges of supporting terrorism by maintining some web sites (among many he assisted) that supported violent activites. [Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13072-2004Apr14.html)] This type of "guilt by association" was resurrected by the 1996 "anti-terrorism" act signed by President Clinton, but was further expanded under the Patriot Act.

The ACLU was prevented from releasing the text of its lawsuit challenging aspects of the Patriot Act because the government claimed it would violate secrecy provisions of the act. [Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51423-2004Apr28.html)]Department of Justice Finds No Abuses of Patriot Act (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/27/182823.shtml)The Department of Justice has found no incidents in which the anti-terrorism Patriot Act has been invoked to abuse civil rights or civil liberties but has identified instances of mistreatment of Muslims and Arabs that did not involve the act.

[...]

"It is clear that the government has been thoroughly responsible in its implementation of the act," said Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo. "As the president has said, it is vital that Congress reauthorize these provisions."

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Ashcroft releases report:Patriot Act has helped solve crimes (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9145951.htm)

The 29-page report showed that the law ... also has been used in regular criminal cases, such as child pornography and kidnapping.


...The law also has been used to solve credit card-fraud cases, school bomb threats, illegal weapons sales and other more run-of-the-mill crimes.

In 2003, Indiana State Police used Patriot Act powers to help arrest a man for molesting his 13-year-old daughter and posting explicit photos of her online, the report said.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

ACanadian Province is (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/24/bc_privacy040724.html) looking into preventing any far-reaching effects of the U.S. Patriot Act which may contain a small and largely theoretical risk to personal information on its citizens The province will introduce rules this fall to forbid Canadian subsidiaries of American companies from handing over private information to American law enforcement agencies.

[shanek]

This seems relevant to the thread:

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw143702.htm

O'Reilly chickens out of his Patriot Act challenge

On July 13, Bill O'Reilly offered a challenge to debate anyone on the Patriot Act....Hollywood producer Aaron Russo (Trading Places, The Rose) accepted the O'Reilly challenge on behalf of his friend, Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. At this point, O'Reilly flipped 180 degrees and declined to debate Badnarik.

It then goes on to quote the correspondence between Russo and O'Reilly's people. Very telling.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

This fansite alleges that the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from Adam McGaughey's (http://www.sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml) ISP.


This could be a potential scam, as he is asking for money to provide donations to his Legal Defense Fund

Is copyright infringment (http://www.techimo.com/newsapp/i11551.html) a terrorist act?

[zakur]

Justice: FBI Misused Patriot Act Powers (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/09/ap3503019.html)

The FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the United States, a Justice Department audit concluded Friday.

And for three years the FBI underreported to Congress how often it forced businesses to turn over the customer data, the audit found.

[President Bush]

The FBI finally decided to fight fire with fire. Later that afternoon the FBI burned to the ground.

[This Guy]

The FBI finally decided to fight fire with fire. Later that afternoon the FBI burned to the ground.

Mom always said "Play with fire and your gonna get burned!". Normally either just before or after something about a box of chocolates.....



;)