6 ms·

The group that poses the biggest threat to civil order in the US are the elites who are looting the country as society collapses around them. And how exactly d

by themgt 14y ago

The group that poses the biggest threat to civil order in the US are the elites who are looting the country as society collapses around them. And how exactly do you call yourself a "libertarian" and then support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent political activities of private citizens? If the FBI was monitoring libertarian party members and events that would be kosher with you too, or is it just hippies that deserve the police state treatment?

mseebach 14y ago
You can be your ass that the FBI was monitoring the tea party movement. Especially the bits of it that kept reminding everyone that the second amendment was meant to keep the government afraid of the citizens.
- webmeist 14y ago
  I think the Tea Party movement was an invented astroturfed hoax to reel in disgruntled GOPers. And the Ron Paul "No Tax" libertarian movement as well.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
Everyone is non-violent until they're not and there is a rational trade-off between civil liberty and security (the risk/reward balance ranges from the U.S. to Singapore to Stalin's Russia). There is a proper way to do this - peeking into suspects' lives for suspicious activity, and if nothing is found, to hide away the file. While most protesters in Benghazi weren't bad it created a predictably attractive environment for violence-biased individuals. As a personal aside and a New Yorker, I've been concerned by the sometimes violent proclamations of OWS protesters (as well as thoroughly pleased by the coherence of a diminishing minority's arguments). I would be dismayed to the point of taking action if NYPD CT weren't monitoring the group (once an individual leaves the group the civil liberties side weighs in higher as a temporary phenomenon indicating an elevated risk profile has passed).
- jeffdavis 14y ago
  "trade-off between civil liberty and security" What specific civil liberties were being violated, that were not known before these documents were revealed by the FOIA request? I don't even really see what the trade-off is here.
btilly 14y ago
I am not a libertarian. I am a liberal. I broadly support the goals of the Occupy movement. I also support the principles of this action by the FBI (though almost certainly not all of the details). Why? Among other things, it is the job of the FBI to monitor situations that could turn into problems. The Occupy movement, as legitimate as it is, has the potential to attract easily radicalized people. These people could easily coalesce into a radical fringe whose methods would be counter to both the desires of both the majority of Occupy and the legitimate goals of law enforcement. (See the Weathermen for an example of such a group that arose out of broad protests during the 60s.) If law enforcement can stay abreast of the Occupy movement, and hopefully form connections between their officers and various well connected people, they have the opportunity to better monitor and head off this radical fringe. That is a legitimate goal for law enforcement, and benefits the Occupy movement as well. The details where I would disagree with this action are any and all where law enforcement seeks to block the rights of reasonable people to political protest. Given what law enforcement is like, I am certain that this has happened to some extent. However my impression is that on the whole the focus really has been to be prepared for illegitimate action, and not to block legitimate protest. Therefore my default position is cautious support of this law enforcement action, even though I recognize the possibility of abuse.
- subsystem 14y ago
  Who decides what's illegitimate? Is it anything the police says like sitting down at the wrong place, wearing a mask not to be identified or just being part of something considered illegitimate? It's uncommon even in totalitarian countries that the government won't have some justification for its behavior. If people in Quebec would have respected bill 78, maybe there wouldn't have been a change in government there.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    The courts, that's why we have them. You might also like to recall that at least some of the occupy movements involved violent and wholly unecessary destruction of private property, eg Occupy Oakland. Sure, that was only a few fringe anarchists who had attached themselves to the ideologically pure movement, but that's little different from the 'few bad apples' excuse that is sometimes advanced to forestall criticism of police misbehavior.
jeffdavis 14y ago
"support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent" What's wrong with "monitoring"? It sounds bad, but from the article, it seems like they are just keeping their eyes on a potential problem. Given that OWS was a public protest movement, monitoring it is hardly an unreasonable search. So, does this article offer new evidence that some unreasonable searches, seizures, or harassment took place? If not, then I don't see what it has to offer. And no, I don't care whether they "monitor" the ELF, or the Tea Party, or the libertarian party rallies, or Ron Paul, or Richard Stallman; except to the extent it wastes the FBI's time (which we all pay for).
- jlgreco 14y ago
  What is your tolerance threshold for surveillance? What percentage of the population can they 'monitor' until it makes you feel uncomfortable?
  - jeffdavis 14y ago
    Monitoring many people is of course cause for concern, but it has little to do with what the article was talking about. The article was talking about the monitoring of specific, fairly small groups of people. I would object to any attempt at widespread monitoring of public spaces by the government (though I don't see an obvious constitutional problem there). I don't object to using their existing monitoring capabilities to focus on certain groups.
anigbrowl 14y ago
The Occupy movement may have been nominally non-violent, but in practice many people involved with it also engaged in violent property damage, and not just towards the property of banks or other ideological targets; there was also abundant violent and tinpot revolutionary rhetoric to go around. I have zero sympathy for such tactics, whether practiced by Occupy or the Tea Party; the people who manipulate populist sentiment for political advantage are irresponsible jerks. And for those who suggest that this represents some sort of new totalitarianism, I invite you to go read the Wikipedia article on the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.
mindcrime 14y ago
And how exactly do you call yourself a "libertarian" and then support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent political activities of private citizens? As a libertarian myself, I am definitely not completely comfortable with this, but I can see where @DanielBMarkham is coming from. From a strict libertarian perspective, if they're not initiating force against anyone, they aren't doing anything really wrong. Passive monitoring may be distasteful (and I worry about the eventual repercussions of it), but it's not necessarily something a libertarian would find to be inherently wrong.

by themgt 14y ago

mseebach 14y ago

You can be your ass that the FBI was monitoring the tea party movement. Especially the bits of it that kept reminding everyone that the second amendment was meant to keep the government afraid of the citizens.

webmeist 14y ago
I think the Tea Party movement was an invented astroturfed hoax to reel in disgruntled GOPers. And the Ron Paul "No Tax" libertarian movement as well.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

Everyone is non-violent until they're not and there is a rational trade-off between civil liberty and security (the risk/reward balance ranges from the U.S. to Singapore to Stalin's Russia). There is a proper way to do this - peeking into suspects' lives for suspicious activity, and if nothing is found, to hide away the file. While most protesters in Benghazi weren't bad it created a predictably attractive environment for violence-biased individuals. As a personal aside and a New Yorker, I've been concerned by the sometimes violent proclamations of OWS protesters (as well as thoroughly pleased by the coherence of a diminishing minority's arguments). I would be dismayed to the point of taking action if NYPD CT weren't monitoring the group (once an individual leaves the group the civil liberties side weighs in higher as a temporary phenomenon indicating an elevated risk profile has passed).

jeffdavis 14y ago
"trade-off between civil liberty and security" What specific civil liberties were being violated, that were not known before these documents were revealed by the FOIA request? I don't even really see what the trade-off is here.

btilly 14y ago

I am not a libertarian. I am a liberal. I broadly support the goals of the Occupy movement. I also support the principles of this action by the FBI (though almost certainly not all of the details). Why? Among other things, it is the job of the FBI to monitor situations that could turn into problems. The Occupy movement, as legitimate as it is, has the potential to attract easily radicalized people. These people could easily coalesce into a radical fringe whose methods would be counter to both the desires of both the majority of Occupy and the legitimate goals of law enforcement. (See the Weathermen for an example of such a group that arose out of broad protests during the 60s.) If law enforcement can stay abreast of the Occupy movement, and hopefully form connections between their officers and various well connected people, they have the opportunity to better monitor and head off this radical fringe. That is a legitimate goal for law enforcement, and benefits the Occupy movement as well. The details where I would disagree with this action are any and all where law enforcement seeks to block the rights of reasonable people to political protest. Given what law enforcement is like, I am certain that this has happened to some extent. However my impression is that on the whole the focus really has been to be prepared for illegitimate action, and not to block legitimate protest. Therefore my default position is cautious support of this law enforcement action, even though I recognize the possibility of abuse.

subsystem 14y ago
Who decides what's illegitimate? Is it anything the police says like sitting down at the wrong place, wearing a mask not to be identified or just being part of something considered illegitimate? It's uncommon even in totalitarian countries that the government won't have some justification for its behavior. If people in Quebec would have respected bill 78, maybe there wouldn't have been a change in government there.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  The courts, that's why we have them. You might also like to recall that at least some of the occupy movements involved violent and wholly unecessary destruction of private property, eg Occupy Oakland. Sure, that was only a few fringe anarchists who had attached themselves to the ideologically pure movement, but that's little different from the 'few bad apples' excuse that is sometimes advanced to forestall criticism of police misbehavior.

jeffdavis 14y ago

"support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent" What's wrong with "monitoring"? It sounds bad, but from the article, it seems like they are just keeping their eyes on a potential problem. Given that OWS was a public protest movement, monitoring it is hardly an unreasonable search. So, does this article offer new evidence that some unreasonable searches, seizures, or harassment took place? If not, then I don't see what it has to offer. And no, I don't care whether they "monitor" the ELF, or the Tea Party, or the libertarian party rallies, or Ron Paul, or Richard Stallman; except to the extent it wastes the FBI's time (which we all pay for).

jlgreco 14y ago
What is your tolerance threshold for surveillance? What percentage of the population can they 'monitor' until it makes you feel uncomfortable?
- jeffdavis 14y ago
  Monitoring many people is of course cause for concern, but it has little to do with what the article was talking about. The article was talking about the monitoring of specific, fairly small groups of people. I would object to any attempt at widespread monitoring of public spaces by the government (though I don't see an obvious constitutional problem there). I don't object to using their existing monitoring capabilities to focus on certain groups.

anigbrowl 14y ago

The Occupy movement may have been nominally non-violent, but in practice many people involved with it also engaged in violent property damage, and not just towards the property of banks or other ideological targets; there was also abundant violent and tinpot revolutionary rhetoric to go around. I have zero sympathy for such tactics, whether practiced by Occupy or the Tea Party; the people who manipulate populist sentiment for political advantage are irresponsible jerks. And for those who suggest that this represents some sort of new totalitarianism, I invite you to go read the Wikipedia article on the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

mindcrime 14y ago

And how exactly do you call yourself a "libertarian" and then support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent political activities of private citizens? As a libertarian myself, I am definitely not completely comfortable with this, but I can see where @DanielBMarkham is coming from. From a strict libertarian perspective, if they're not initiating force against anyone, they aren't doing anything really wrong. Passive monitoring may be distasteful (and I worry about the eventual repercussions of it), but it's not necessarily something a libertarian would find to be inherently wrong.