"hippo" wrote in message

*****, and what a whining irresponsible "you caused it"

response.

You have a lot in common with Clinton and his brand of whining

irresponsible

hacks.

Soooo your people wouldn't take advantage of chaos at the Republican
Convention? Crap! -the Troll

Chaos? Tell us what this kind of intimidation crap by the FBI has to

w/

stopping chaos at this convention or anywhere else.
Cmon Hippo Clinton, tell us.

Hey Vladimir, don't play stupid. It is on page 45 of the little red book

of

running ***** on capitalists: Cause a riot and make the evil capitalists
react so as to be able to scream jack boot Fascist tactics. Then accuse

the

administration of screwing up security (just like 9/11 and Chicago).

got your number 'cause we have a copy of the book. Little Red Mary

anti-war-protester, now knows the FBI has her number, her personal

It's an old artillery principle, load your guns before the battle (or

election in this case). Drench your hankie somewhere inhabited with

who can be taken in. :^) -the Troll

Dear MR or MS Troll:
I don't think your attitudes are particularly American. It was either
Franklin or Adams who said "those who would sacrifice liberty for security
will wind up with neither". If somebody from the left were ever elected
would you like a visit from the FBI based on your internet posting?

F.B.I. officials insist that the people they interview are free to "close
the door in our faces," but by then the damage may already have been done.
The government must not be allowed to turn a war against foreign enemies
into a campaign against critics at home.

.....and if the administration didn't take precautions and chaos ensued you
would be the very first to point it out and criticize it for failure so as
to lever your guy into office. You can blame yourselves for the
no-fault-allowed CYA precautions being undertaken. -the Troll

Wherever you are politically, just remember that whatever these assholes

do to others today, they can do to you tomorrow. And whatever they get

with today, they will increase tomorrow.

Interrogating the Protesters NY Times: August 17, 2004

For several weeks, starting before the Democratic convention, F.B.I.
officers have been questioning potential political demonstrators, and

friends and families, about their plans to protest at the two national
conventions. These heavy-handed inquiries are intimidating, and they
threaten to chill freedom of expression. They also appear to be a
spectacularly poor use of limited law-enforcement resources. The F.B.I.
should redirect its efforts to focus more directly on real threats.

Six investigators recently descended on Sarah Bardwell, a 21-year-old

with a Denver antiwar group, who quite reasonably took away the message

the government was watching her closely. In Missouri, three men in their
early 20's said they had been followed by federal investigators for days,
then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. They ended up canceling

plans to show up for the Democratic and Republican conventions.

The F.B.I. is going forward with the blessing of the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel - the same outfit that recently approved the use

torture against terrorism suspects. In the Justice Department's opinion,

chilling effect of the investigations is "quite minimal," and

outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order." But

analysis gets the balance wrong. When protesters are made to feel like
criminal suspects, the chilling effect is potentially quite serious. And

chances of gaining any information that would be useful in stopping

are quite small.

The knock on the door from government investigators asking about political
activities is the stuff of totalitarian regimes. It is intimidating to be
visited by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, particularly by

s who warn that withholding information about anyone with plans to create

disruption is a crime.

And few people would want the F.B.I. to cross-examine their friends and
family about them. If engaging in constitutionally protected speech means
subjecting yourself to this kind of government monitoring, many Americans
may decide - as the men from Missouri did - that the cost is too high.

Meanwhile, history suggests that the way to find out what potentially
violent protesters are planning is not to send F.B.I. officers bearing
questionnaires to the doorsteps of potential demonstrators. As became

in the 1960's, F.B.I. monitoring of youthful dissenters is notoriously
unreliable. The files that were created in the past often proved to be
laughably inaccurate.

The F.B.I.'s questioning of protesters is part of a larger campaign

political dissent that has increased sharply since the start of the war on
terror.

At the Democratic convention, protesters were sent to a depressing
barbed-wire camp under the subway tracks. And at a recent Bush-Cheney
campaign event, audience members were required to sign a pledge to support
President Bush before they were admitted.

F.B.I. officials insist that the people they interview are free to "close
the door in our faces," but by then the damage may already have been done.
The government must not be allowed to turn a war against foreign enemies
into a campaign against critics at home.

Wherever you are politically, just remember that whatever these assholes

do to others today, they can do to you tomorrow. And whatever they get

with today, they will increase tomorrow.

Interrogating the Protesters NY Times: August 17, 2004

For several weeks, starting before the Democratic convention, F.B.I.
officers have been questioning potential political demonstrators, and

friends and families, about their plans to protest at the two national
conventions. These heavy-handed inquiries are intimidating, and they
threaten to chill freedom of expression. They also appear to be a
spectacularly poor use of limited law-enforcement resources. The F.B.I.
should redirect its efforts to focus more directly on real threats.

Six investigators recently descended on Sarah Bardwell, a 21-year-old

with a Denver antiwar group, who quite reasonably took away the message

the government was watching her closely. In Missouri, three men in their
early 20's said they had been followed by federal investigators for days,
then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. They ended up canceling

plans to show up for the Democratic and Republican conventions.

The F.B.I. is going forward with the blessing of the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel - the same outfit that recently approved the use

torture against terrorism suspects. In the Justice Department's opinion,

chilling effect of the investigations is "quite minimal," and

outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order." But

analysis gets the balance wrong. When protesters are made to feel like
criminal suspects, the chilling effect is potentially quite serious. And

chances of gaining any information that would be useful in stopping

are quite small.

The knock on the door from government investigators asking about political
activities is the stuff of totalitarian regimes. It is intimidating to be
visited by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, particularly by

s who warn that withholding information about anyone with plans to create

disruption is a crime.

And few people would want the F.B.I. to cross-examine their friends and
family about them. If engaging in constitutionally protected speech means
subjecting yourself to this kind of government monitoring, many Americans
may decide - as the men from Missouri did - that the cost is too high.

Meanwhile, history suggests that the way to find out what potentially
violent protesters are planning is not to send F.B.I. officers bearing
questionnaires to the doorsteps of potential demonstrators. As became

in the 1960's, F.B.I. monitoring of youthful dissenters is notoriously
unreliable. The files that were created in the past often proved to be
laughably inaccurate.

The F.B.I.'s questioning of protesters is part of a larger campaign

political dissent that has increased sharply since the start of the war on
terror.

At the Democratic convention, protesters were sent to a depressing
barbed-wire camp under the subway tracks. And at a recent Bush-Cheney
campaign event, audience members were required to sign a pledge to support
President Bush before they were admitted.

F.B.I. officials insist that the people they interview are free to "close
the door in our faces," but by then the damage may already have been done.
The government must not be allowed to turn a war against foreign enemies
into a campaign against critics at home.

Wherever you are politically, just remember that whatever these assholes

do to others today, they can do to you tomorrow. And whatever they get

with today, they will increase tomorrow.

Interrogating the Protesters NY Times: August 17, 2004

For several weeks, starting before the Democratic convention, F.B.I.
officers have been questioning potential political demonstrators, and

friends and families, about their plans to protest at the two national
conventions. These heavy-handed inquiries are intimidating, and they
threaten to chill freedom of expression. They also appear to be a
spectacularly poor use of limited law-enforcement resources. The F.B.I.
should redirect its efforts to focus more directly on real threats.

Six investigators recently descended on Sarah Bardwell, a 21-year-old

with a Denver antiwar group, who quite reasonably took away the message

the government was watching her closely. In Missouri, three men in their
early 20's said they had been followed by federal investigators for days,
then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. They ended up canceling

plans to show up for the Democratic and Republican conventions.

The F.B.I. is going forward with the blessing of the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel - the same outfit that recently approved the use

torture against terrorism suspects. In the Justice Department's opinion,

chilling effect of the investigations is "quite minimal," and

outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order." But

analysis gets the balance wrong. When protesters are made to feel like
criminal suspects, the chilling effect is potentially quite serious. And

chances of gaining any information that would be useful in stopping

are quite small.

The knock on the door from government investigators asking about political
activities is the stuff of totalitarian regimes. It is intimidating to be
visited by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, particularly by

s who warn that withholding information about anyone with plans to create

disruption is a crime.

And few people would want the F.B.I. to cross-examine their friends and
family about them. If engaging in constitutionally protected speech means
subjecting yourself to this kind of government monitoring, many Americans
may decide - as the men from Missouri did - that the cost is too high.

Meanwhile, history suggests that the way to find out what potentially
violent protesters are planning is not to send F.B.I. officers bearing
questionnaires to the doorsteps of potential demonstrators. As became

in the 1960's, F.B.I. monitoring of youthful dissenters is notoriously
unreliable. The files that were created in the past often proved to be
laughably inaccurate.

The F.B.I.'s questioning of protesters is part of a larger campaign

political dissent that has increased sharply since the start of the war on
terror.

At the Democratic convention, protesters were sent to a depressing
barbed-wire camp under the subway tracks. And at a recent Bush-Cheney
campaign event, audience members were required to sign a pledge to support
President Bush before they were admitted.

F.B.I. officials insist that the people they interview are free to "close
the door in our faces," but by then the damage may already have been done.
The government must not be allowed to turn a war against foreign enemies
into a campaign against critics at home.