Posted on 12/13/2005 5:16:49 PM PST by ADemocratNoMore
> when is the government going to start throwing people in jail for leaking secret documents?
My question exactly.
I don't care who they are... you want to change the law and give the government powers it shouldn't have just because of these lame-ass, tie-dyed twerps? .. Then when a different president, oh let's say their initials are HRC takes over, you'll still have those annoying twerps, but President HRC has the power you thought you were handing over to another president. WOW! Think she'll want to give the power back?
It's against the law to threaten or assault military recruiters. If they do it, they'll be arrested. Typically, these guys never DO anything. Do you think our military is intimidated by these guys?
Do you think they should ignore threats of physical violence against them?
Agreed, the military is subordinate to the civilian government. The military was ordered to keep an eye on these people, I'd bet money on it. With that said, I believe there are traitors among us and the last time I looked at the constitution that was a violation of it. Wishing our defeat at the hands of our enemy is not protected by our constitution and too many of these groups are doing just that. Telling our troops to kill their officers is not protest. Helping and encouraging enemy combatants to kill our troops is not protest. Sending money to terrorist organizations is not protest. Protest is a differing opinion, agreeing with the enemy is sedition. Sedition should be investigated.
Listen carefully or take notes sweetie cups. I am not taking exception to protests, I am taking exception to people involved in subversion.
Those activities whose goal is to hurt morale, cause insubordination and alike are subversion, not protest. And subversion is illegal.
And all you have to do to determine whether the goals are protest or subversion is to read their websites.
The military doesn't act on its own, it's under the command of the President.
There are many things that the military does on it's own, subject to Presidential review if warranted. This would be one of them. The President doesn't give every order in the military. You sound as lame as the liberals who claimed Abu-Ghrab was directed by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. That Lindy England was only following orders. We Lindy would follow orders to stay out of her boyfriend's bunk from her immediate CO, what makes you think Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had any influence.
And you know this because...
If someone is interfering with a recruiter, they should be arrested. If I said that the planet would be better off if HRC had an, um, accident, should the Feds come in and shut this site down?
Oh-uh... apparently I just did.. JOKE JOKE JOKE.... See what I mean? As people on this thread have posted earlier, the kinds of arguments for spying on those who are protesting lawfully (as opposed to vandalizing or causing real violence) can be used in a different context against anyone opposing anything the government does..
Careful what you wish for, and so on...
I'm saying there was, likely as not, NO story. We all saw the same mindset just last night during "Tookie Watch" where the mindless crowd insisted they'd just come up with all sorts of witnesses and new evidence.
There is abundant evidence to support the sighting of "John Doe #2". As earlier stated, Jayna Davis has compiled evidence of him along with Mike Vanderboegh.
There is nothing that says they are Quakers. It said they met in a Quaker facility.
I want to know who in the Pentagon is trying to muck up the works. If you listen to Murtha he almost regurgitates the talking points of Joe Galloway from Knight Ridder news. I think both of them have friends in high places at the Pentagon and someone there has loose lips.
Deliberate actions intended to interfere with the military mission is not protest. The attempt to get West Coast stevedores not to handle military cargo was intended to interfere with the military, not make one's views known.
Here's the problem...and there's no good solution...
Forget 911 and the Islamo-fascist people.
This country has to decide what it wants.
Every time we have a Columbine school shooting (which were a group of white, "clean cut" kids) or an Oklahoma City bombing, or a Waco, everyone says "we should have done more. we could have stopped this".
If we had the exact same scenario happen tomorrow as what happened in Oklahoma City, the media would crucify...absolutlely crucify this President. They blamed the man for a freakin act of Nature and for not being able to personally deliver pizza to every hurricane survivor's house and give them a lift to higher ground in his own Presidential hover jet. What do you think they would do to him if we had another Timothy McVeigh where hints were dropped what was going to happen, just nobody took it seriously enough.
So, here's the question. Do we want absolute protection all the time or do we want our absolute privacy? It's a tough question, but we can't have it both ways. If we want to prevent another Waco or another Timothy McVeigh, then this article explains part of how ya do it. If we don't allow the government to monitor people, then we can't have people calling for official's heads on a platter because the government didn't read the signals that the crazy person has decided to blow up a building.
Can't have it both ways. We're going to have to pick one and go with it. Otherwise, we're going to keep sliding the way we're sliding every time we have a 911 or a Waco or a Columbine or an Oklahoma City happen.
Rant over.
Appoint a special prosecuter to find out who leaked the secret documents. This really is a crime, unlike the Plame case.
Oh they did..."white guys" in "camo" and all.
You'll find it's the AMerican Friends Service Committee, who while Pol Pot was killing millions defended Pol Pot and blamed "American propoganda".
Also, the people who run the AFSC aren't Quakers. The guy in Philly is named Carlos. How many Quakers named "Carlos" have you met?
Before the PC afflicted get their panties in a knot or wet their beds, Carlos admits he's NOT a Quaker and that he doesn't believe in God. He does believe in screaminh though.
The U.S. has been watching people within our borders for many years. When the Cold War raged, non-citizens and citizens alike were under scrutiny.
Nothing much has changed. Today we're watching out for spies who wouldn't hesitate to sell out the U.S. These people dispise our nation. I've seen them face to face. I know what I'm talking about.
If HRC gets into office, she's not going to catch me selling out this nation. She won't see me carrying signs that support our nation's enemies. She won't catch me placing known terrorist on the stage in Washington, D.C. at the mall, so they can market themselves to our nation.
I do understand the premise you're presenting. In some ways I agree. None the less, I have to come down on the side of keeping a close eye on these folks. They are not just common protesters. These are spies and inteligensia within, IMO.
According to your buddies at DU??????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.