Ashcroft gone too far? You decide...
 

Thing 1 -- the SF Gate left any pretense of objectivity in the dust a while ago.

Thing 2 -- the FBI has been doing this stuff for years, w/ or w/o a memo.

Thing 3 -- IMHO, the FBI should be doing this b/c it is going to be a target-rich environment for the type of people that would pull some crazy shizznit. The next Oklahoma City bombing or David Koresh-type figure is more likely to have omens w/ radical protesters than knitting circles.

JP

I don't think it's a black & white issue, I think the S.F. Chronicle is putting a left wing spin on it. I do however feel that the present administration & cabnets have used 9/11 to further their agendas, but wouldn't put the McArthur stamp on this, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Anarchists are oppurtunist, & I doubt you would find any in a "training camp". I am curious what security will evolve into when the Republicans eventually lose the steering wheel. My half a nickel.

That a**hole went too far a long time ago.

Sorry, touched a nerve. Grrr.

"Ashcroft gone too far? You decide..."

OK, I've decided. No he hasn't gone to far.
Do you want the FBI to only react to crimes, or do you want them to try and prevent them?

I know the Gate isn't exactly Fox news, but this story was on a variety of sources.

Yes, the FBI should be proactive, but when is enough far enough? Seems to me there are some parallels between this and gun control. People argue that it is a constitutional right to own guns, and that to abridge that in anyway is anti-freedom. I would argue that to protest against the government is a constitutional right, and in fact a key part of the democratic process. To abridge this is anti-freedom.

Or was Hoover right in what he did during his tenure at the FBI?

I don't see any parallel to "gun control" here. The gov't hasn't lifted the right to free speech or to gather peacfully in the way they have hog tied the 2nd amendment. But since this isn't a gun control debate, back to the issue......

I don't see what they are doing now as anything "new". Are you outraged or "terrified" everytime the ATF infiltrates a militia? Or biker club? Or "family of Italian descent"?

I agree that having the right to disagree with the government is vital, but there are people (not like you and me) who would wish to ABUSE our system and it's inherent rights. I don't agree with the anti - war movement (and never have) but I think that people who genuinely protest have every right to be there. Ultimately though there are going to be people who would rather have violent movements than peaceful protests. That must not happen. I don't see a problem here.

Was Hoover right? He did a lot of good for the Bureau while he was there, but he went too far at the end of his career. Was it worse than Clintons abuses of power against his "enemies"? Were you bothered by his actions?

One thing that struck me odd in the article is how thin skinned the Left is sometimes. Jumping up and down at having a "training camp"? While at the same time comparing Bush to Hitler and openly referring to the administration as a "regime". Nice. Once again freedom of speech apparently should only apply to a select few.

Pete

" I would argue that to protest against the government is a constitutional right"

I completely agree, 100%. Was anybody being arrested for peaceful protest? Was anybody being arrested for organizing a peaceful protest? Were there any illegal techniques used to gather information? What rights were violated?

I saw a woman on the news from Florida complaining about heavy handed police tactics used against protesters. She commented that we have a "right to civil disobedience" What???? Since when????

You are correct that there is no right to civil disobedience...but it has been long held as an acceptable method of protest (from Ghandi back to St. Francis of Assisi and Christ).

The part that bugs me is this:

"California Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued guidelines in July specifying that state and local law enforcement agencies shouldn't spy on political protesters without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. He said the guidelines were needed after U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft authorized federal agents to monitor political and religious groups without evidence of criminal activity, something Lockyer said is prohibited by California's constitution."

People here joke about the Republik of Kalifornia, but where is the axe falling on this one? Innocent until proven guilty *is* a cornerstone of American justice. I know that you can't turn a blind eye and assume that everything will be OK, at some point you have to determine when enough is enough. I don't like where things are headed...

On the other hand, I notice that it didn't take Turkey long to round up "the usual suspects" after the terrorist bombings there. Evren wrote that his office shook with the 2nd one. I sometimes wish our country could be as efficient at identifying terrorist supporters as Turkey seems to be. But life goes on....since Evren & Ruki haven't made a post, I'd like to be the first to welcome Suzan Unver to the Pelican board...born 11-22-03. May Suzan & Selma's generation handle this tired old world better than we do now. (Selma is Suzan's older sister..) I do think Turkey could play a leading role in this "war on terrorism"...as the first Muslim nation to have been dragged from the dark ages by one of their own, a national hero known as Attaturk...The greatest fear of the terrorists? That other Muslim nations may choose to do the same. The mistake Bush may be making is in thinking that a puppet Government can accomplish this. It takes a real, and home grown leader...as Attaturk was.