home

The War Against Dissent

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 08:14:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Is the FBI fighting a war against terror or a war against dissent? The LA Times reports on FBI documents showing that the agency "has spent resources gathering information on antiwar and environmental protesters and on activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless" -- not exactly prime targets in a "war" designed to protect the country from terrorist attacks.

The FBI justifies this war against protest by defining "terrorism" to include crimes against property, at least if the crime is politically motivated (a caveat that might save shopliter Claude Allen from being labeled a terrorist). As TalkLeft argued here, that definition distracts federal law enforcement from a meaningful attack on terror. But even accepting that any politically motivated crime constitutes terror, the FBI has shown less interest in true domestic terrorists who are motivated to bomb abortion clinics and gay bars, choosing instead to spy on Americans who are merely exercising their right to protest.

"Any definition of terrorism that would include someone throwing a bottle or rock through a window during an antiwar demonstration is dangerously overbroad," ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner said. "The FBI will have its hands full pursuing antiwar groups instead of truly dangerous organizations."

ACLU attorneys say most violence during demonstrations is minor and is better handled by local police than federal counterterrorism agents. They say the FBI, which spied on antiwar and civil rights leaders during the 1960s, appears to be investigating activists solely for opposing the government.

The FBI insists that it only investigates crimes, not protest, but "the documents show that the FBI has monitored groups that were not suspected of any crime."

The murky connection that the federal government makes between some left-wing activist groups and terrorism was illustrated in a Justice Department presentation to a college law class this month.

An FBI counterterrorism official showed the class, at the University of Texas in Austin, 35 slides listing militia, neo-Nazi and Islamist groups. Senior Special Agent Charles Rasner said one slide, labeled "Anarchism," was a federal analyst's list of groups that people intent on terrorism might associate with.

The list included Food Not Bombs, which mainly serves vegetarian food to homeless people, and -- with a question mark next to it -- Indymedia, a collective that publishes what it calls radical journalism online. Both groups are among the numerous organizations affiliated with anarchists and anti-globalization protests, where there has been some violence.

Elizabeth Wagoner said she was one of the few students who objected to the groups' inclusion on the list. "My friends do Indymedia," she said. "My friends aren't terrorists."

Could the government's true purpose be to squelch dissent?

Denver-area activists said that since the surveillance documents became public, there had been a subtle chill, with some people avoiding protests for fear of ending up in an FBI file. Some activists think the FBI has been watching their groups to intimidate them.

< Wanting War | Zacarias Moussaoui Takes the Stand >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The War Against Dissent | 48 comments (48 topical)
    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    When the dissenters have a history of violent protest, I don't see a problem with the FBI keeping an eye on them. When they don't have such a history, this is ridiculous. There are far more important things they should be doing.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#2)
    by BigTex on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 08:58:44 AM EST
    When the dissenters have a history of violent protest, I don't see a problem with the FBI keeping an eye on them.
    Abslooutely. It's called good police work. LEO should be keeping an eye on ELF, and the anarchist organizations that engage in property damage. ELF in particular has a history of using violence to achieve their means. Just because they haven't killed anyone yet doesn't mean that the day isn't coming. Terrorism is defined as
    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
    That fits ELF like a glove. They threaten to strike at facilities, and carry out the threats. Unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence element is met. They have at times had web pages up that call for action until the web pages are shut down. They are a loose coalition of the willing. By a person or organized group element is met. They tree spike and burn down buildings. Against people or property element is met. They strike against targets to both send a message that similar targets will be hit (intent to coerce is met) and they strike targets that they are politically aligned against (political or ideological reasons is met.) ELF is a prime example of a terrorist organization. Ditto Tim McVeigh. Ditto the wackos who attack abortion clinics. All need to be watched. All need to be stopped. Keeping tabs on a group isn't violating their rights.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:12:06 AM EST
    Quakers in Basements don't have any more history of violent protest than John Lennon did. They just have a history of opposing this administration's policies and pointing out their lies and inconsistencies. Just like Lennon did. That is the ultimate in Patriotism. The only unAmerican, unpatriotic activities are being conducted by this administration and their supporters just like nixon and his supporters.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#4)
    by BigTex on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:14:51 AM EST
    Charley, are you saying that tree spiking and burning down buildings of those you oppose is patriotic?

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:19:02 AM EST
    ELF is a prime example of a terrorist organization. Ditto Tim McVeigh. Ditto the wackos who attack abortion clinics. All need to be watched. All need to be stopped. Keeping tabs on a group isn't violating their rights.
    Well, you'd have to start monitoring gun shows and right wing websites and the like to monitor the timothy mcveighs of the world and that means rufflin' the nra's feathers which means messin' with the republican party's base and we all know that's not gonna happen.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#6)
    by selise on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:27:12 AM EST
    let's be clear. if you think property damage for political purposes is terrorism - then you think the boston teaparty was an act of terrorism and those that participated were terrorists. what we're talking about here is POLITICALLY motivated police action. i'm perfectly willing to be flexible on the definition of terrorism - but i'm not willing to have the law selectively implimented against political enemies and ignored for political allies. disclaimer - i don't advocate or support violent property damage.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steven Sanderson on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:35:49 AM EST
    "Is the FBI fighting a war against terror or a war against dissent?" It's doing neither. The war on terror and the war on dissent are merely two fronts in an all-out war to protect and insulate big business from being held accountable by living, breathing human beings. We need to counteract terrorism. Maybe someday we'll do so.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    ELF is about as big a threat to our nation as Fred Phelps' church is.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#9)
    by desertswine on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 10:15:46 AM EST
    ooo tree spikes... I'll remember that next time I'm cutting down some sequoya trees or clear cutting an old growth forest.
    The law doth punish man or woman That steals the goose from off the common, But lets the greater felon loose That steals the common from the goose.
    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#10)
    by Al on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 10:33:48 AM EST
    That's nice that they are monitoring those criminals that hand out vegetarian food to the homeless. On a related topic, where is Osama bin Laden?

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    Osama is in a cave in Kashmir for now and in 20minutes he will move to another so our un-maned drones won't spot him. If you are willing to support the invasion of Kashmir we can get him.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#12)
    by Al on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 12:09:30 PM EST
    Yeah, Slado, that's what they said when they invaded Afghanistan. They had all kinds of hi-tech gizmos then too. I'm not impressed.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#13)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 12:51:27 PM EST
    Osama is in a cave in Kashmir for now and in 20minutes he will move to another so our un-maned drones won't spot him.
    Couple of problems, Slado: 1) If we know he's in Kashmir, wouldn't our good allies the Pakistanis be willing to let us go get him? 2) Wouldn't moving to a new "cave" (Note: Haw!) make it more likely he'd be spotted?

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    Terrorism is defined as... Oy. Nice self-recursive trick there. That's the definition the Feds drafted for the PATRIOT Act specifically so they could throw as wide a net as possible around all sorts of non-terror activity.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 04:11:18 PM EST
    Posted by BigTex March 27, 2006 10:14 AM
    Charley, are you saying that tree spiking and burning down buildings of those you oppose is patriotic?
    I didn't hear me say that, Tex. I don't support those activities. Certainly, not as presented. I'd have to know some specifics to possibly support specific instances of those types of activities, but I certainly don't endorse them in the abstract or as a blanket statement. Having said that, that's not what they're talking about, though. That's not what they're limiting their surveillance actions and their harassment tactics to. I've caught their act before. They've just got more sophisticated equipment this time. That, and even fewer scruples.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 05:10:52 PM EST
    I'm so sick of hearing vandalism and other property crimes referred to violent. It's all part of the process of elevating property rights above human rights. The only actual violence I've heard of at a protest was perpetrated by the police. Menawhile, the government has hardly paid attention to the right-wing groups (anti-abortion and others) in this country that have been engaging in violent terrorism by anyone's definition for years.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#17)
    by BigTex on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 05:29:59 PM EST
    Oy. Nice self-recursive trick there. That's the definition the Feds drafted for the PATRIOT Act specifically so they could throw as wide a net as possible around all sorts of non-terror activity
    . Nice coincidence. However, I went to dictionary.com, the same place I go for any non law defination. Don't take my word fr it though, go there yourself.
    I didn't hear me say that, Tex.
    That's why I was asking, wasn't sure if that was what you were saying or not.
    Well, you'd have to start monitoring gun shows and right wing websites and the like to monitor the timothy mcveighs of the world.
    I agree. This shouldn't be selective monitoring.
    I'm so sick of hearing vandalism and other property crimes referred to violent.
    lagringa - this is what I was referring to. In an October 2001 press release, the
    ALF claimed responsibility for one of the activities listed in the Oregon indictment: releasing 200 horses and setting four timed incendiary devices in Litchfield, California. The group accused the BLM of rounding-up wild horses for slaughter to clear public land for cattle grazing. Similarly, ALF spokesperson Dr. Jerry Vlasak said the motive behind the arsons of a ski resort expansion in Vail, Colorado in 1998 was to prevent the destruction of land inhabited by the lynx, which was added to threatened species list after the attacks.
    ALF and ELF engage in acts of property destruction as a means of raising the costs of doing business until they are a deterrent to conducting practices the activists oppose.


    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 07:47:25 PM EST
    Posted by Slado March 27, 2006 12:27 PM
    Osama is in a cave in Kashmir for now and in 20minutes he will move to another so our un-maned drones won't spot him. If you are willing to support the invasion of Kashmir we can get him.
    So, what are ya sayin', slado? It's our fault that shrub hasn't gotten bin laden? Just how have we prevented him from doin' that over the last 4.5 years, tractor beam? Romulan Cloaking Device? Nice try. We're not responsible for your illegitimate trash nitwit's incompetence.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 01:11:51 AM EST
    On New Year's Day, I decided to start 2006 out with a public protest against the war. Little did I know how public it would become. My younger brother and I (he was only the wheelman, led astray) tagged three highway overpasses near Toledo with "TROOPS OUT NOW!"... Suburban cops with too much time on their hands and citizens with cell phones being what they were, we were soon pulled over by five (no kidding) patrol cars and arrested on no fewer than five felonies each. More...
    Suppression of dissent: documents On The Front Lines of a War on Dissent: Students prepare to protest anti-terrorism agenda as Bush and friends move to quash criticism of war There is always a "war" on dissent. It's part of the psyops and manipulative propaganda that goes hand in hand with foreign policy, war making, as part of creating or drumming up support for unpopular government actions.
    "Police in riot gear fired paintballs filled with cayenne pepper Thursday night to disperse a crowd of protesters assembled in this historic gold mining town where President Bush was spending the night after a campaign appearance." (Associated Press, 15 Oct 2004) "Three Medford school teachers were threatened with arrest and thrown out of the President Bush rally at the Jackson County Fairgrounds Thursday night, after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan "Protect our civil liberties."" (Associated Press/KGW of Portland, 15 Oct 2004)
    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:00:39 AM EST
    I'm so sick of hearing vandalism and other property crimes referred to violent. It's all part of the process of elevating property rights above human rights. I wonder, lagringa, if you would be so blase about vandalism and property crimes if it was your house that was burned down as a form of protest, your car which was torched to elevate awareness about our problem with dependency on foreign oil, or your business that was vandalized to protest big business. Destruction of someone elses property for the purpose of making yourself heard is not a valid form of protest, regardless of how strongoly you feel about a given issue. It's the belief that it is okay to destroy what other people have worked hard to build if it gets you the attention you crave that has made groups like ELF a liability to the environmental movement.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#21)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:42:01 AM EST
    Before the nation elected Bushbag, the term "Free Speech Zone" had not really entered popular lexicon. Thanks wrong-wingers.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#22)
    by swingvote on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 07:06:51 AM EST
    Before the nation elected Bushbag, the term "Free Speech Zone" had not really entered popular lexicon. Sure it had. It just hadn't entered the "liberal" lexicon, because it was a "liberal" president who was using them before Bush was elected. As in: Redner said President Clinton's Secret Service also employed protest zones. and Although such zones existed earlier, instituted by the Clinton administration, they gained more attention after the WTO Meeting of 1999 and have been used vigorously by the George W. Bush administration. And liberals continue to use them, as in: Protesters at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Boston may be confined to a cozy triangle of land off Haymarket Square, blocked off from the FleetCenter and convention delegates by a maze of Central Artery service roads, MBTA train tracks, and a temporary parking lot holding scores of buses and media trucks. Barney Frank was dead on when he said we already have a free-speech zone; it's called the United States of America. But as long as we only object when those we oppose use them to screen off protesters we'll never get this practice stopped. Both sides of aisle have sold us out.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#23)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    It's the belief that it is okay to destroy what other people have worked hard to build if it gets you the attention you crave that has made groups like ELF a liability to the environmental movement.
    Yes, ELF's the problem.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#24)
    by swingvote on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    Yes, ELF's the problem. If you say so, DS. I would say that they are "a" problem, not "the" problem. And you know, it would make a much larger statement if these guys burned down their own houses to draw attention to their protests. Burning down your neighbors house doesn't exactly indicate a real committment to the issue, does it? Or maybe you could offer up yours as a sacrifice the earth gods?

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#25)
    by selise on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 10:51:02 AM EST
    we don't have to choose between "legitimate protest" and "terrorism"... there ARE other options. how about criminal vandalism? theft? harrassment? stalking? just because an act is illegal and destructive - we don't have to get caught up in the jingoism of the day by calling it terrorism. it is just too easy to fall into the trap of calling our political enemies terrorist. please remember that today we are told that terrorism is such a threat to our society that we have to lock people up without charges or trial, that we have to spy on people without a warrant, that we have to torture people.... (you get the idea). i appeal to everyone to think carefully before calling someone a terrorist and to use the term ONLY in the most selective of situations. please remember the american revolution and the boston teaparty. the people who dressed up as indians and destroyed, what today would be, millions of dollars of of tea - do you call them terrorists? please think about this question. thank you.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#26)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    Huge multinationals are much larger purveyors of "terrorism" than tiny nobodies like ELF. Who's burning whom?

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 11:02:33 AM EST
    I'm so sick of hearing vandalism and other property crimes referred to violent. It's all part of the process of elevating property rights above human rights.
    Was that you, lagringa, that I saw on TV throwing a brick through a storefront window after the Rodney King verdict?

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#28)
    by swingvote on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 11:11:09 AM EST
    A very valid point selise. Can we call these people "terrorists", or do they have to actually kill someone before they can be considered such? Or how about this guy who e-mailed a series of threats to kill the backers of a research company ? Is he a terrorist? Yes, we could call them something else, and with regard to some of these protests perhaps we should, because you're right, it is a rather extreme term in today's political environment. But when the objective is to make someone afraid of failing to comply with your wishes or preferences for fear of their lives, I think the term terrorist is quite applicable. And for the record, The British did consider The Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism, but that doesn't make the member's of ELF the equivalents of George Washington and Samuel Adams. Huge multinationals are much larger purveyors of "terrorism" than tiny nobodies like ELF. Perhaps, DS. When they start mailing death threats, let me know.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 11:53:40 AM EST
    Karen Silkwood.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#30)
    by selise on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    justpaul, thank you for your reply. 1. "The British did consider The Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism" that's my point. it was the political enemies who considered them terrorists, but not their political allies. whatever the standard is (and i am somewhat flexible on this) the same standard MUST apply to both our enemies and our political allies. otherwise we're just engaging in hypocrisy. 2. re SHAC. first, i am biomedical researcher who uses animals (mice) in my research. but, i don't consider email threats to be terrorism. i do consider it harrasment, and would be happy to see criminal and/or civil penalties. i should also tell you that i've be on the receiving end of hatemail and verbal death threats (for peacework). i've also been on the receiving end of tear gas and pepper spray (from police) while engaging in perfectly legal behavior. and i don't consider any of that terrorism either. also, i've been told by the chief of police during a city council meeting that those of us who participated in a silent vigil for peace were a potential threat (implied terrorism threat) to society (he was justifying why he needed to have his police officers photograph us for identification purposes). i think we are in much more danger of the overuse than the underuse of the term terrorist. just to make clear, i do consider bombing a person to be a terrorist act. for example judi bari and darryl cherney or fernando pereira and otherson the Rainbow Warrior so, for me - when people are killed or maimed - yeah, i'm willing to call that terrorism. but harrasment and property damage? criminal - yes, terrorism -no.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#31)
    by swingvote on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 12:12:03 PM EST
    selise, When ELF, or SHAC, or whoever finally kills someone (it will happen), will you then consider death threats terrorism? Or is it terrorism only when people are killed, in which case, what makes it any different from murder? Are the Iraqi "insurgents" who kidnap people and broadcast videotapes of them with threats to kill them voiced over not "terrorists" unless they actually kill those very people? Isn't the purpose of those tapes to terrorize the rest of us into submission? Taking your story at face value, it sounds to me like you have had some run-ins with some law enforcement officers who had less concern for your civil liberties than you do for trees, but that doesn't make every use of the term, or even every use that you disagree with, incorrect. I'd also want to hear the LEO's side of the story before I would assume that they were entirely out of line. It is, after all, a rather natural thing for those who feel themselves wronged to whitewash their own actions after the fact. Overuse, or under use, of a term does not mean that it should not be used when it applies.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#32)
    by selise on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    justpaul, if (and let me remind you, it is IF and not WHEN) members of ELF or SHAC or whoever start killing people, then i might (depending on the situation) consider the death threats part of a terrorist campaign. but death threats by themselves? no. and let's be clear - SHAC targets people like me (who do research using animals). yes, i do, generally, only consider it terrorism when people are harmed or killed. i do not consider property damage to be terrorism - unless it involves the destruction of property necessary to maintain life (for example, the destruction of agricultural land). i consider kidnapping to be harming a person. i also consider psychological (as well as physical) torture to be harming a person. you don't know me, so there is no reason for you to believe me (and i won't be offended if you don't), but here is some more info on some of my "run-ins" (in addition to the episode of the silent peace vigil described above): the pepper spray was a "run-in" with law enforcement when i volunteered as a legal observer during the miami ftaa protests (2003). the police targeted a group of journalists, whom i was standing with, before starting what became a police riot. the hatemail i received was after my name was published in the local newspaper when i was organizing buses to an anti-war march. the death threats i received was when i was in israel/palestine. it was repeated yellling at me "my father kills jews like you" while taking my picture so that i could be identified and tracked down. my family was also threatened. oh, and guns were present and shots were fired. i WAS scared that time! given the poltical climate we live in. i would not characterize any of this as terrorism. again, terrorism is such a big threat that we are told we must be able to lock people up for life w/o trial or charges, we must be free to torture, we must spy on people without warrants and we must start wars and bomb innocents. certainly nothing i experienced comes close to the kind of threat that can't easily be handled through normal law-enforcement mechanisms. the biggest sources of terrorism i am aware of are al-queda and my government (shock and awe for example).

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#33)
    by swingvote on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:15:08 PM EST
    selise, Fair enough. You have an extremely narrow definition of "terrorism" which does not appear to actually allow for the terrorism to achieve anything, as the only person who can be terrorized is one who is killed by the terrorist, and everyone else should just consider the terrorist a murderer in that case. Terrorism, by definition, is an attempt to intimidate, not simply to kill, and death threats are a great way of intimidating people as long as they are made in a way that the person receving them takes them seriously. So is destroying people's property if what you want them to take to heart is your wish that they stop building homes in places you disapprove of for residential housing. If the purpose of death threats is not to terrorize, what is it? If the purpose of death threats is to terrorize, why is that not terrorism? I'm not sure why you keep bringing up your own alleged history of receiving threats, unless you mean to imply that this experience has given you the power to redefine what terrorism is, since you don't see threats against your life as terroristic (and good for you). Whatever else it is you think this proves is unclear. As I noted in response to your original comment here, I think you're right, the term is used too often to describe people who are not doing anything that can be construed as being intended to terrorize anyone, just as the term "nazi" is used too often these days to describe anyone "liberals" disagree with, but I believe your definition of terrorism is so restrictive that it would almost never be used, even when it is clearly called for. Murder is murder; the deliberate infliction of terror on someone, making them believe they will be murdered, is terrorism. But if that's the way you want to see it, so be it. In your world there are very few terrorists. I hope that works well for you.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#34)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:54:09 PM EST
    Terrorism, by definition, is an attempt to intimidate
    Does that include arresting people for dissent?

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 08:26:15 PM EST
    If terrorism is defined as including destruction of property for a political purpose, then, weren't a bunch of the founding fathers terrorists? I have some vague recollection of something called "the Boston Tea Party." Certain radical elements painted themselves as indians, did not carry their proper state-approved ID or drivers license, and they dumped tea in Boston Harbor. And didn't something similar happen when Britain had passed the Stamp Act?

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#36)
    by selise on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 04:20:13 AM EST
    justpaul, i bring up my own history to show that i am not using one standard of terrorism for my political enemies and another for my political allies. as i have stated several times - i am flexible on the definition - i am not flexible on necessity of applying the same standard (whatever that is) to everyone. until you tell me that you, personally, consider the boston teapart (and similar) an act of terrorism, i will take your definition of terrorism (property damage for political purpose) as hypocritical. unless you are willing to apply the same definition & standard to EVERYONE, i don't see how we can discuss what the definition ought to be. and again - i am willing to reconsider my definition - so long as it is uniformly applied. are you willing to apply your definition to all?

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 05:06:19 AM EST
    Terrorism is anyone who doesn't agree with JP, Jim, BB, Jimcee, Variable or Shrubco and doesn't sit still for one of the Jeepster's "I'm not a bigot, BUT..." song and dances or doesn't sit still while he tells you what you really think and then goes through the roof when you give Mr Saran Wrap a dose of his own.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 06:13:52 AM EST
    selise, I haven't defined terrorism as including property damage. I agreed with you that the term is used too often. What definition is it you think I have that I am unwilling to modify? We were talking about death threats. And death threats are a form of terrorism. Property damage, in and of itself, is not terrorism, per se, although, if it is intended to intimidate, it shares many characteristics of terrorism. As for hypocritical definitions: You are one to speak. You seem to think that because you have been lucky enough to have been threatened by people who weren't serious about killing you (you haven't stopped what you do and they haven't killed you), death threats themselves are not terroristic actions. But you conveniently ignored the two specific questions that would nail this issue down. If death threats are not intended to terrorize, what are they intended to do? If they are intended to terrorize, why do they not consititute terrorism? Answer those questions, and we might be able to get somewhere toward modifying your definition of terrorism. For the record, my definition of terrorism is actions taken with the intent to terrorize people into submission to one's will. As in, making people afraid of not acquiescing. Please tell me where that definition is flawed in your opinion and I will be happy to consider such. As for the Boston Tea Party: I consider it an act of rebellion, because it was never intended to terrorize anyone into doing anything. It was an act of protest against George III's tea taxes. No one's life was threatened by this action, although it is possible that the people guarding the ships felt threatened at the time, in which case they might have considered it an act of terrorism, but I would still say that the affect desired by those who did it was not to terrorize, hence it is not terrorism. Do you disagree? And how is this not in keeping with my definition? Perhaps it would clarify the discussion if you were to stop telling us what is not terrorism and tell us instead what is. Then your own definition would be clear and we could see if you do in fact use the same definition for those you disagree with and those you agree with.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 06:17:05 AM EST
    Thanks, JP, but there really was no need for you to illustrate my point YET again.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#42)
    by swingvote on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 08:40:10 AM EST
    selise, To clarify, I would be more than willing to grant that in a place like Hebron people may well threaten your life without having it in mind to coerce you into a course of action, and that perhaps, in those circumstances, "terrorism" is the wrong word for it. But getting yourself involved in a situation like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is very different from receiving death threats from people because of the work you do in the U.S.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 09:07:02 AM EST
    What'd I tell ya, Selise. As long as ya let the Jeepster define all terms and engage in his predictably pedestrian efforts at telling you what you really think and what you SHOULD really think, things will be reasonably OK. Try to engage in some form of give and take or give him a dose of his own and it's Katie bar the door. As for the good faith thing, you're on your own there. I've seen no evidence of capacity for or intent of since I moseyed into town, but hope springs eternal.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#44)
    by swingvote on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 09:50:41 AM EST
    Selise, In re the issue of intent: Webster's says "especially as a means of coercion". You say "unless it complies with demands made". How can coercion exist of there is no intention to coerce? How can a requirement of compliance be set without an intended course which is to be complied with? Intention is everything. What you describe would seem to be just random acts of violence, or random threats made for no purpose. I would agree that these do not meet the definition very well.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#45)
    by selise on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 03:26:20 PM EST
    hi charliedontsurf1, yeah maybe i was wrong about the whole good faith thing. but, i'd like to give the benefit of the doubt - maybe i'm just doing a really bad job of explaining? so, here i go again... (one more time anyway, i'm about ready to give up) justpaul, i'm not using the dictionary definition, which i think is seriously flawed as a basis for law enforcement. i thought that was clear from all my comments. i have been offering a critique and asking for a reconsideration of how we use the term - based on 1) today's cultural reality (why i think we should reserve it for the most serious cases) and 2) that we are not applying the same criteria to our allies and our enemies (and that we rationalize this by attributing good intentions and motivations to our allies and bad intentions and motivations to our enemies). you then asked me for my own definition - that is what i gave you. i am very willing to reconsider my definition. i am not willing to use a different standard for diffferent people - or to use the standard of intention or motivation to provide a rationalization for this. i would be willling to use intention and/or motivation if it wasn't being used to rationalize using different standards for our allies and our enemies. i think i should just judge the actions (doesn't mean i always succeed - just that that's my goal).... because 1) is it hard to know a person's motivations or intent and most importantly 2) it is too easy to attribute good motivations or intent to people we identify with and bad motivations or intent with people we consider our enemies. these are pratical reasons. to deal with the problem you have demonstrated. for example, you call death threats from a member of SHAC terrorism (even though no people have been attacked); but, you don't call the death threats i recieved terrorism (even though there warning shots and it was a group of people who HAVE killed). another example: you call the boston tea party and act of rebellion, but you call property damage by ELF terrorism. the rational you use is intent. i think this is a big mistake. i doubt you actually know the intent or what motivates any of the people involved. furthermore it provides a way to rationalize calling similar actions terrorism or not terrorism based on an unproveable assertion. "Intention is everything. What you describe would seem to be just random acts of violence, or random threats made for no purpose." not at all. see the two examples below. you ask "How can coercion exist of there is no intention to coerce?" it doesn't matter (for our purpose here - i don't need to know anything about intention or motivation. examples: 1. depose your leader or we will invade and occupy your country. 2. withdraw your military presence from our country or will attack you and kill many civilians. i don't need to guess anything about intentions or motivations. there is a threat, there is a demand, and when the demand was not complied with - there was mass murder. btw, the reason i brought up bin laden and bush was to demonstrate, again, that any moral definition must be applied to ourselves in the same way we apply it to our enemies. you have not been willing to do that. i think it is a fundamental requirement for any discussion of what terrorism is. perhaps, we should just admit that for the moment anyway, we don't have enough common ground to have the discussion. if that's the case, thanks for trying... and i hope we can try again some time.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#46)
    by selise on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 05:35:40 PM EST
    charliedontsurf1, thanks for the encouragement... but, i got to say in JP's defense that i think most everyone's got a heart. and here's the thing... i was taught in church (as a kid - a long time ago) a bunch of destructive stuff (wives should submit to their husbands, get divorced you go to hell.... and much more). it took a lot for me to question that teaching, and several years to reject it. my views are SO very different now.... so, i try to think of that person i used to be, and remember that 1) i could be wrong again, and 2) have empathy for people with different views. i rarely live up to this ideal... but i do think its worth trying. and the good thing is that even when i disagree with someone, it helps me define and refine my own thoughts and beliefs. i usually don't comment at talkleft anymore (i used quite a bit in the begining), because it just takes so much effort. every so often, there is a topic i think is too important to be silent about... now, i'll go back to lurking... but i'll be around...

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#47)
    by swingvote on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 05:46:17 PM EST
    i'm not using the dictionary definition, which i think is seriously flawed as a basis for law enforcement. That being the case, you should just admit you're working from a different rule book than those of us who choose to speak english, or at least admit such up front rather than dragging it out this far only to fall back on such a weak claim. If you redefine words at will, your ability to even have a discussion, let alone persuade, is extremely limited. i thought that was clear from all my comments. It wasn't, at all. (But Smurfette will say it was just to have something to throw in.) i have been offering a critique and asking for a reconsideration of how we use the term - That's a very different thing from redefining the word, Selise. Had you simply said "I think terrorism should mean such and such" everyone would have known what you were trying to do. Instead, you objected to the word being used to describe certain activities which clearly meet the standard definition. You could have saved a lot of bandwidth had you been honest about what it was you wanted to do. i am not willing to use a different standard for diffferent people - or to use the standard of intention or motivation to provide a rationalization for this. No one asked you to, Selise. I asked you to acknowledge that the definition of "terrorism", Webster's or yours, requires an acknowledgment of some sort of intention on the part of the person committing the act. Otherwise it's just random violence with no purpose at all. I never said you had to know with certainty, or even assume, a specific intention, only that the person acting is doing so with a goal in mind, not out of some random psychotic impulse. I would be willling to use intention and/or motivation if it wasn't being used to rationalize using different standards for our allies and our enemies. Whose rationalizing here? I thought we were having a conversation about what is or is not terrorism. You are the one who keeps bringing up different standards for different people. I have only one standard. If the intention is to terrorize, the act is terrorism. The act itself is not the issue. As I said above, it is all about intention. Without the intent to terrorize, it's not terrorism, but rather something else. is it hard to know a person's motivations or intent and most importantly It was easy when this conversation started, as we were discussing death threats made against people by animal rights activists. You spun this off in a new direction to cloud the issue and to allow yourself to start arguing about not knowing their intentions and hence not being willing to call them terrorists. But you still won't answer the basic question which actually applies, or so you claim, to you yourself. When people make death threats against people who do research on animals, telling them they will be killed if they don't stop, what is this if not terrorism? the rational you use is intent. i think this is a big mistake. i doubt you actually know the intent or what motivates any of the people involved. And I think this is a sophmoric argument, and a bad one at that. The intent of the people who staged the Boston Tea Party is a matter of historical record. The intent of people in ELF who burn down houses is also a matter of record. They have warned time and again that they will burn down houses to stop development. Their intent is to make people afraid of building homes in the areas tha ELF has declared off limits. How can coercion exist of there is no intention to coerce?" it doesn't matter (for our purpose here - i don't need to know anything about intention or motivation. Now that truly is sophmoric. I can only guess that you are now redefining "intent" and "coercion" as well. This proves that you have no interest in discussing anything honestly. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and the argument isn't even coherent. You remind more of more of Charlie by the minute. i don't need to guess anything about intentions or motivations. there is a threat, there is a demand, and when the demand was not complied with - there was mass murder. It's hard to believe you could possibly be that thick. You're playing a semantics game, trying to spin off into the question of what the intent is, but that was never the issue at stake. Your two examples both require an intent upon the part of the person making the demand; it doesn't matter what the intent is, only that one exists. And without one, you couldn't have a demand unless we're just talking about people with Tourette's. i brought up bin laden and bush was to demonstrate, again, that any moral definition must be applied to ourselves in the same way we apply it to our enemies. you have not been willing to do that How so? Where have I failed to do this? I've tried to work with the understood definition of a given term; you're the one trying to spin each situation into a different moral issue and then apply self-serving nondefinitions of normally understood words to support your claims. As for trying again some time, I must admit I don't see much point in it unless you are prepared to some clean from the start and acknowledge all of the variant definitions you are using for words that most of us here understand from common usage. Minus that, talking to you is mostly a waste of time because nothing you say can be taken at face value. Combined with your general dishonesty about what has been said and your constant moving target approach to even what you yourself have said this makes a conversation with you impossible. Nevertheless, thank you for the effort. It's enlightening to know that there are still people out there who feel free to redefine language on the fly without bothering to let anyone know they are doing it until challenged repeatedly, only to then claim that it should have been obvious. It keeps one on their toes at least.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 06:07:03 PM EST
    Wow JP so many words that amount to so little. A terrorist is the same as a freedom fighter but on the other side. It is an obvious no brainer...what a waste of bandwidth.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    jp, to Selise: That being the case, you should just admit you're working from a different rule book (1) than those of us who choose to speak english(2), or at least admit such up front rather than dragging it out this far(3) only to fall back on such a weak claim(4). If you redefine words at will(5), your ability to even have a discussion(6), let alone persuade, is extremely limited(7). Not bad, jp. Very impressive, in fact. 7, count 'em: 7 personal atacks on Selise in just your first paragraph alone. Very good. Logical argumentation of issues and honest debate is a wonderful form of discourse, and so obviously your strong suit, isn't it. [ snip, snip, snip: saving the fat for future deconstruction, just so we have something to do tomorrow, you understand? ;-) ] And we come to your devastating final argument: talking to you is mostly a waste of time because nothing you say can be taken at face value. Combined with your general dishonesty about what has been said and your constant moving target approach to even what you yourself have said this makes a conversation with you impossible to which of course there can only be one reasonable response; and here we can use your own words which you've so thoughtfully provided yourself, jp:
    talking to you is mostly a waste of time because nothing you say can be taken at face value. Combined with your general dishonesty about what has been said and your constant moving target approach to even what you yourself have said this makes a conversation with you impossible.
    Have a nice day.

    Re: The War Against Dissent (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    justprolix

    The War Against Dissent | 48 comments (48 topical)