Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   ACLU sues FBI for using weapons of mass surveillance to intimidate civil rights groups, enviros   (sfgate.com) divider line 443
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

12833 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jul 2005 at 4:26 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



443 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-07-18 02:36:17 PM  
Good for the ACLU.
 
2005-07-18 02:40:19 PM  
Should the ensuing flames be used to make smore's, or hot dogs?
 
2005-07-18 02:43:23 PM  
Everyone hates the ACLU until their own civil liberties get trampled on.

Kinda like how everyone hates lawyers until they need one.
 
2005-07-18 02:43:42 PM  
[image from xs4all.nl too old to be available]

Might as well get this out of the way.
 
2005-07-18 02:44:52 PM  
Yeah, well, it's Greenpeace. Who are neither green nor peaceful. Clearly the FBI is in the wrong for monitoring international criminals, arsonists, pirates, vandals, and thieves.
 
2005-07-18 02:45:14 PM  
tarrant84

Everyone hates the ACLU until their own civil liberties get trampled on.

I detest many of the actions of the ACLU. If my rights were trampled on, I wouldn't use them. It would be hypocrisy. The Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Counsel are for me.
 
2005-07-18 02:47:22 PM  
EatHam: Yeah, well, it's Greenpeace. Who are neither green nor peaceful.

Agreed. Greenpeace is little more than a group of well-intentioned thugs... a kind of environmentally-conscious street gang.
 
2005-07-18 02:49:09 PM  
I'd get Reverend Al. He does wonders for black folks... He'd be sure to protect my rights being white guy from middle america!

\votes s'mores.
\\loves me some chocolate
 
2005-07-18 02:49:31 PM  
Reminds me of this little gem I read last week:

"Critics argue that Britain's history of respecting civil liberties and individual freedoms has made it a haven for terrorists." - Reuters, July 10
 
2005-07-18 02:51:21 PM  
this greenlight is sweet revenge for all those damn stoptheaclu blog submissions. thanks, mods.
 
2005-07-18 02:52:51 PM  
Wow, and I thought it was legal for the FBI to search your stuff and paw through your records under the Patiot Act, and lock you up without charges as a material witness, and charge you with obstruction if you invoke your full first and fifth amendment rights, and jail you for five years if you lie to them while you're not in a courtroom or even under oath.

So what's a thousand page file, compared to how we fare as individual citizens?
 
2005-07-18 02:55:06 PM  
Tarrant84

I'm with you.

/Semper Fi
 
2005-07-18 02:57:32 PM  
Huzzah, ACLU!
 
2005-07-18 02:59:24 PM  
2005-07-18 02:44:52 PM EatHam [TotalFark]
Yeah, well, it's Greenpeace. Who are neither green nor peaceful. Clearly the FBI is in the wrong for monitoring international criminals, arsonists, pirates, vandals, and thieves.

Thank you. You just called me an international criminal, arsonist, pirate, vandal, and thief.

/Member of Greenpeace
 
2005-07-18 03:01:11 PM  
GoodDamon: You just called me an international criminal, arsonist, pirate, vandal, and thief.

No, but I would say that you materially support international criminals, arsonists, pirates, vandals, and thieves. Unless you are one of the people that actually goes out and commits those type of acts, in which case, if the shoe fits, wear it.
 
2005-07-18 03:01:34 PM  
Sheesh, you'd have thought the FBI would have learned better in J. Edgar Hoover's day. Spy on the real threats to life an property, and leave the rest of us alone.
 
2005-07-18 03:02:19 PM  
Protest groups charge that FBI counterterrorism officials have used their expanded powers since the Sept. 11 attacks to blur the line between legitimate civil disobedience and violent or terrorist activity in what they liken to FBI political surveillance of the 1960s.

Apparently, there is no place for dissent in a free society.

Clearly the FBI is in the wrong for monitoring international criminals, arsonists, pirates, vandals, and thieves.

You mean pirates and theives like Joan Baez, John Lennon and the Dead? History repeats.
 
2005-07-18 03:04:35 PM  
Damn Commies.

Hippies smell bad.

Damn Treehuggers.

I am gonna go eat a bacon sandwich.

/got nuthin
 
2005-07-18 03:06:30 PM  
Ha!! The ACLU should hire Craig Livingstone to be a part of their legal team.
 
2005-07-18 03:09:01 PM  
EatHam

materially support international criminals, arsonists, pirates, vandals, and thieves

That covers a lot of territory, arguably including the US Congress.
 
2005-07-18 03:10:32 PM  
Marcus Aurelius: including the US Congress.

I'll give you international criminals and thieves, but I don't see many members of Congress attempting to do the equivalent of a home invasion on someone else's property.
 
2005-07-18 03:10:54 PM  
2005-07-18 03:01:11 PM EatHam [TotalFark]
No, but I would say that you materially support international criminals, arsonists, pirates, vandals, and thieves. Unless you are one of the people that actually goes out and commits those type of acts, in which case, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Until the recent piracy charge (which, by the way, was absolutely astonishing in its absurdity), Greenpeace has maintained a remarkably clean record. They're not violent, and instead are often on the receiving end of violence. Greenpeace as an organization has consistently condemned violent acts by the few of its members who choose to go to that extreme, and never condones them.

Why don't you go after a real target, EatHam? There are people being killed every day by real terrorist organizations. But you only make noise about the guys who put themselves between whales and whalers.
 
2005-07-18 03:13:41 PM  
EatHam:

I'll give you international criminals and thieves, but I don't see many members of Congress attempting to do the equivalent of a home invasion on someone else's property.

Nope, that would be the United States Supreme Court.

/thank you, I'll be here all week, try the fish
 
2005-07-18 03:15:23 PM  
EatHam

don't see many members of Congress attempting to do the equivalent of a home invasion on someone else's property

Iraq?
 
2005-07-18 03:16:49 PM  
GoodDamon

You'll have to excuse EatHam, he has so much faith in his government that he doesn't even believe the BLS cooks their statistics.
 
2005-07-18 03:16:54 PM  
GoodDamon:

Greenpeace as an organization has consistently condemned violent acts by the few of its members who choose to go to that extreme, and never condones them.

Worth repeating.
 
2005-07-18 03:17:20 PM  
GoodDamon:

Why don't you go after a real target, EatHam? There are people being killed every day by real terrorist organizations. But you only make noise about the guys who put themselves between whales and whalers.

If you think that's all EatHam makes noise about, you must be new.
 
2005-07-18 03:19:45 PM  
2005-07-18 03:17:20 PM Teekno [TotalFark]
If you think that's all EatHam makes noise about, you must be new.

Heh. I should have said, "you're only making noise" instead, to indicate that I was only referring to his current line of discussion.

/Actually, that applies to just about everything he's ever said
 
2005-07-18 03:21:26 PM  
GoodDamon: Why don't you go after a real target, EatHam?

I can only have one? My only point is that Greenpeace certainly does advocate breaking the law. That's what civil disobedience is. If you don't want to take the repercussions from it, don't do it. If you want to advocate that your members break the law and cause chaos, then don't be surprised if law enforcement doesn't care for that so much, and watches you.

Marcus Aurelius: he doesn't even believe the BLS cooks their statistics.

You are a silly little boy.
 
2005-07-18 03:24:16 PM  
Certainly nothing good has come of civil disobedience in the past.
 
2005-07-18 03:25:22 PM  
materially support international criminals, arsonists, pirates, vandals, and thieves
Hell, that's pretty well covered the Bush Administration, way to go! Spreading the flames...
/ACLU Member and Greenpeace supporter
 
2005-07-18 03:27:59 PM  
hack4good: Certainly nothing good has come of civil disobedience in the past.

I'm not saying that nothing good has ever come of civil disobedience, just don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Plus, there's a bit of a difference between blackmail, sabotage, and port blockading and sitting in the front of the bus.
 
2005-07-18 03:28:46 PM  
Baggins: Hell, that's pretty well covered the Bush Administration, way to go!

Your homework is to write an essay on the difference between real and imaginary.
 
2005-07-18 03:29:04 PM  
EatHam: I can only have one? My only point is that Greenpeace certainly does advocate breaking the law. That's what civil disobedience is. If you don't want to take the repercussions from it, don't do it. If you want to advocate that your members break the law and cause chaos, then don't be surprised if law enforcement doesn't care for that so much, and watches you.

Absolutely true. And it has fark-all to do with what you were accusing them of. You accused Greenpeace of all sorts of absurd violence (arson, piracy, etc.). You did not accuse them of civil disobedience, so don't go changing your story now. Are they violent? Or are they pursuing civil disobedience? Or, as a third option, are you attributing the actions of one or two wackos to the organization as a whole? If so, I have some pretty harsh things I can say about Christianity, PETA, the American Governors Association, Bingo Players United, and any other group you can think of.
 
2005-07-18 03:31:32 PM  
GoodDamon:

You did not accuse them of civil disobedience, so don't go changing your story now. Are they violent? Or are they pursuing civil disobedience?

What I meant was that I believe that they commit violent acts and call them civil disobedience. I can see that I didn't communicate that very well.
 
2005-07-18 03:33:05 PM  
EatHam:

I'm not saying that nothing good has ever come of civil disobedience, just don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

And I'm not saying that you shouldn't be prepared for the consequences either, but when you have people like Ashcroft trying to twist centuries-old laws to seriously prosecute people for minor offences, the situation changes a bit.

Plus, there's a bit of a difference between blackmail, sabotage, and port blockading and sitting in the front of the bus.

I cant imagine you believe this to be the only example of morally just civil disobedience.
 
2005-07-18 03:33:12 PM  
2005-07-18 03:28:46 PM EatHam [TotalFark]
Your homework is to write an essay on the difference between real and imaginary.

I was trying to remember why you were on my ignore list. And then I read that, and I thought to myself, "Oh yeah! I remember, now. He's a total trolling asshole!"

Look, if you're going to say bullshiat like that, you're going to get dog-piled here. You want a discussion or debate? Great! You want to act like an arrogant prick? Then kindly STFU and GBTW.
 
2005-07-18 03:34:54 PM  
hack4good:

And I'm not saying that you shouldn't be prepared for the consequences either, but when you have people like Ashcroft trying to twist centuries-old laws to seriously prosecute people for minor offences, the situation changes a bit.

Frankly, considering that Greenpeace as an organization does encourage these crimes, it's just a matter of time until there's a racketeering indictment against them.
 
2005-07-18 03:35:13 PM  
I cant imagine you believe this to be the only example of morally just civil disobedience.

That doesn't make the other things he mentioned less un-just.
 
2005-07-18 03:35:39 PM  
GoodDamon

Don't even get me started on the teachers union.
 
2005-07-18 03:35:42 PM  
2005-07-18 03:31:32 PM EatHam [TotalFark]
What I meant was that I believe that they commit violent acts and call them civil disobedience. I can see that I didn't communicate that very well.

Got any specific examples you can cite? I'd be interested in your examples of "violence" endorsed by Greenpeace. (This, by the way, is much more in line with polite conversation. You state an opinion, I state an opinion. You back up an opinion, I back up an opinion. See how it works?)
 
2005-07-18 03:38:00 PM  
"Results 1 - 10 of about 207,000 for greenpeace violence. (0.53 seconds)"


/just saying
 
2005-07-18 03:38:40 PM  
Anyone else remember when it was scandalous for the FBI to keep files on ordinary law-abiding citizens? The FBI lost a lot of power over it.

/way back when
 
2005-07-18 03:39:44 PM  
itsdan

I'll see your "greenpeace violence" and raise you a "Pamela Anderson violence".
 
2005-07-18 03:41:07 PM  
Marcus, you'd need to put "Pamela Anderson" in quotes, in which case it comes out about equal.

Now, if Greenpeace were violent towards Pamela Anderson, no one would be complaining.
 
2005-07-18 03:42:19 PM  
2005-07-18 03:38:00 PM itsdan [TotalFark]
"Results 1 - 10 of about 207,000 for greenpeace violence. (0.53 seconds)"


/just saying


Heh. Nearly every link involves Greenpeace's efforts to end violence, or violence threatened by opponents of Greenpeace. The only one claiming violence on Greenpeace's part looked like a strange religious site.
 
2005-07-18 03:42:25 PM  
itsdan

Sorry, no quote-backs.
 
2005-07-18 03:43:02 PM  
What I meant was that I believe that they commit violent acts and call them civil disobedience. I can see that I didn't communicate that very well.
And your homework is to work on those lousy communication skills and write an essay on the difference between real and imaginary as well....unless of course you can actually come up with some documented examples of violent acts committed by Greenpeace.
 
2005-07-18 03:44:54 PM  
Good, honestly I'm not on either side here. I don't know enough to make a real arguement for or against.

I was just reading Greenpeace's website though, and for any science dweebs around, couldn't the 'friendly' solar and wind energy ultimately destroy the planet if used widely?

Granted you're not polluting the air, but you're disrupting natural air currents, which help regulate temperature and climate. Absorbing solar energy stops the ground from it's normal daily temperature changes..
 
2005-07-18 03:46:02 PM  
Baggins

And your homework is to work on those lousy communication skills and write an essay on the difference between real and imaginary as well....unless of course you can actually come up with some documented examples of violent acts committed by Greenpeace.

Yes, and while he's at it, I want a short paper on the history of government employment statistics and the changes in their measure from 1960 to present.
 
Displayed 50 of 443 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report