FBI Raids Homes of Antiwar and Pro-Palestinian Activists in Chicago and Minneapolis

[Love As Arson]

Antiwar activists are gearing up for protests outside FBI offices in cities across the country today and tomorrow after the FBI raided eight homes and offices of antiwar activists in Chicago and Minneapolis Friday.
The FBI’s search warrants indicate agents were looking for connections between local antiwar activists and groups in Colombia and the Middle East. Eight people were issued subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury in Chicago. Most of the people whose homes were searched or who were issued subpoenas had helped organize or attended protests at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, two years ago.
The federal law cited in the search warrants prohibits, quote, "providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations." In June, the Supreme Court rejected a free speech challenge to the material support law from humanitarian aid groups that said some of its provisions put them at risk of being prosecuted for talking to terrorist organizations about nonviolent activities. Some of groups listed by name in the warrants are Hezbollah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The warrants also authorized agents to to seize items such as electronics, photographs, videos, address books and letters.
Friday’s raids come on the heels of a Justice Department probe that found the FBI improperly monitored activist groups and individuals from 2001 to 2006.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/27/fbi_raids_homes_of_anti_war

[Miketheunicycle]

:thisissparta:

[jawstheme]

There should be fine print underneath any sign that reads 'Land of the Free'

[MyNameIsRoss]

so fucked up..

[Midget Pirates]

why is this fucked up? they had warrants and I sure do think that some of these people having links to groups like Hezbollah gives them the right to these searches.

[caveBEAR]

:popcorn:

[peder458]

one of them was my high school government teacher. pretty strange...

[jawstheme]

why is this fucked up? they had warrants and I sure do think that some of these people having links to groups like Hezbollah gives them the right to these searches.

Oh well if they had warrants then by all means...

Maybe you should do some legitimate research on Hezbollah.

Edit: And this doesn't bother you

"Friday’s raids come on the heels of a Justice Department probe that found the FBI improperly monitored activist groups and individuals from 2001 to 2006."

[x togepi x]

why is this fucked up? they had warrants and I sure do think that some of these people having links to groups like Hezbollah gives them the right to these searches.

It's fucked up because right wing paramilitary organizations are a legitimate threat in the united states yet they get completely ignored by the FBI (well...they did put out a paper saying they were one of the biggest domestic terrorist threats but then conservatives complained so they recanted).

[peder458]

I just watched those interviews; that is pretty disturbing.

[Kozzy333]

It's fucked up because right wing paramilitary organizations are a legitimate threat in the united states yet they get completely ignored by the FBI (well...they did put out a paper saying they were one of the biggest domestic terrorist threats but then conservatives complained so they recanted).

Any specific organizations? I'm generally interested to know about them.

[Midget Pirates]

Oh well if they had warrants then by all means...

Maybe you should do some legitimate research on Hezbollah.

Edit: And this doesn't bother you

"Friday’s raids come on the heels of a Justice Department probe that found the FBI improperly monitored activist groups and individuals from 2001 to 2006."

research on Hezbollah? good idea, why don't you try it sometime.

What major attacks is Hezbollah responsible for?

Hezbollah and its affiliates have planned or been linked to a lengthy series of terrorist attacks against the United States, Israel, and other Western targets. These attacks include:

a series of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon, including several Americans, in the 1980s;
the suicide truck bombings that killed more than two hundred U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983;
the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane's pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head;
two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina--the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing twenty-nine) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing ninety-five).
a July 2006 raid on a border post in northern Israel in which two Israeli soldiers were taken captive. The abductions sparked an Israeli military campaign against Lebanon to which Hezbollah responded by firing rockets across the Lebanese border into Israel.http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah_aka_hizbollah_hizbullah.h tml

It's fucked up because right wing paramilitary organizations are a legitimate threat in the united states yet they get completely ignored by the FBI (well...they did put out a paper saying they were one of the biggest domestic terrorist threats but then conservatives complained so they recanted).

in this particular case, i think the FBI had proper cause to go through with this search due to the possible Hezbollah links. Maybe they aren't do enough to combat domestic threats and they ignore that. if that is true, then it's fine that you take issue with that. I'm merely commenting on this specific instance not really bothering me.

[Love As Arson]

The problem is, one can have links to Hezbollah that relate to humanitarian efforts and not terrorism itself.

[Simulcast]

The problem is, one can have links to Hezbollah that relate to humanitarian efforts and not terrorism itself.

What has Hezbollah done to promote humanitarian efforts?

[Love As Arson]

What has Hezbollah done to promote humanitarian efforts?
Well, after the conflict in Lebanon, Hezbollah was there helping people to rebuild and giving out money.

[Simulcast]

Well, after the conflict in Lebanon, Hezbollah was there helping people to rebuild and giving out money.

They started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar'it-Shtula_incident) that conflict though.

[Nevuk]

They started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar%27it-Shtula_incident) that conflict though.
I don't understand what your point is.

[Love As Arson]

They started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar'it-Shtula_incident) that conflict though.
The standard Western version is that the July 2006 invasion was justified by legitimate outrage over capture of two Israeli soldiers at the border. The posture is cynical fraud. The US and Israel, and the West generally, have little objection to capture of soldiers, or even to the far more severe crime of kidnapping civilians (or of course to killing civilians). That had been Israeli practice in Lebanon for many years, and no one ever suggested that Israel should therefore be invaded and largely destroyed. Western cynicism was revealed with even more dramatic clarity as the current upsurge of violence erupted after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, on June 25. That too elicited huge outrage, and support for Israel's sharp escalation of its murderous assault on Gaza. The scale is reflected in casualties: in June, 36 Palestinian civilians were killed in Gaza; in July, the numbers more than quadrupled to over 170, dozens of them children. The posture of outrage was, again, cynical fraud, as demonstrated dramatically, and conclusively, by the reaction to Israel's kidnapping of two Gaza civilians, the Muamar brothers, one day before, on June 24. They disappeared into Israel's prison system, joining the hundreds of others imprisoned without charge -- hence kidnapped, as are many of those sentenced on dubious charges. There was some brief and dismissive mention of the kidnapping of the Muamar brothers, but no reaction, because such crimes are considered legitimate when carried out by “our side.” The idea that this crime would justify a murderous assault on Israel would have been regarded as a reversion to Nazism.The distinction is clear, and familiar throughout history: to paraphrase Thucydides, the powerful are entitled to do as they wish, while the weak suffer as they must.http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060819.htm

[Simulcast]

I don't understand what your point is.

My point is that Hezbollah is not, by nature, a group concerned with promoting humanitarian efforts.

[Simulcast]

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060819.htm

I can't seriously consider the position of a holocaust denier on this topic.

[Love As Arson]

My point is that Hezbollah is not, by nature, a group concerned with promoting humanitarian efforts.
The political framework being what it is in the Middle East, groups like Hezbollah often serve as the providers of the basic necessities. One can move to ignore them and their place in a given country or deal with them. The former, it seems to me, is much more destructive.

I can't seriously consider the position of a holocaust denier on this topic.

Show me where Chomsky denied the Holocaust?

[Nevuk]

I can't seriously consider the position of a holocaust denier on this topic.
Well, that's one way to avoid the foremost intellectual critic of your position.

[Simulcast]

Show me where Chomsky denied the Holocaust?


His defense of Faurisson coupled with his writings on Nazi Germany have me somewhat convinced.

[sweepthenation]

They clearly must have had some kind of reason, when you title an article saying Pro-Palestinian activists houses raided you are trying to generate controversy. Frankly, all Islamic terrorists and charities support the Palestinian cause, so it is not a major leap to think that perhaps in some way there might be a connection we don't know about because we aren't privy to this information. If instead it had been Pro-Israel and Pro-War protestors, I'm sure everyone here would be agreeing.

[Love As Arson]

His defense of Faurisson coupled with his writings on Nazi Germany have me somewhat convinced.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm

[Simulcast]

Well, that's one way to avoid the foremost intellectual critic of your position.

There are other (http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm) considerations (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf).

[sweepthenation]

[quote=Love As Arson;76035162]The political framework being what it is in the Middle East, groups like Hezbollah often serve as the providers of the basic necessities. One can move to ignore them and their place in a given country or deal with them. The former, it seems to me, is much more destructive.

quote]

They use that to gain the favor of the population in the first place. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, all started as terrorist organizations that over time evolved into more official humaniatrian operations which none the less still engage in terrorist activities.

In terms of dealing with them, when they have renounced terrorist activities that can take place, as happened with the PLO and Fatah. Hamas and Hezbollah all still actively promote the defeat of American aid, the killing of innocent civilians, and deny the right of Israel to exist. While I can see why it might be easy to say, "Well, they are the only government in place (in terms of Hamas in Gaza) so we should deal with them," what would instead be better is a form of reconciliation. Unfortunately, no one will ever engage with Hamas while it denies the right of Israel to exist, a) because most Arab/Islamic governments (outside of Iran and Libya) recognize that there will never be peace without a two state solution and b) it is simply unfeasible to expect that any government in the modern world would just let Israel succumb and be defeated.

Quite frankly, the repeated calls for one Palestinian state are simply rhetoric in order to engage the masses. 38 years ago was probably the last time it was anywhere near feasible to wipe Israel off the map, now it is common sense that any sort of peace will have to include both sides (something Israel most certainly wishes to ignore as well).

[sweepthenation]

There are other (http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm) considerations (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf).

THANK YOU

[Midget Pirates]

The political framework being what it is in the Middle East, groups like Hezbollah often serve as the providers of the basic necessities. One can move to ignore them and their place in a given country or deal with them. The former, it seems to me, is much more destructive.


terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah use this tactic to gain the sympathies of the people and win propaganda battles. I think it is far more destructive to fall for the trap of legitimizing them because they occasionally provide humanitarian help, while behind the scenes they still wage terror. Trying to act as if they are legitimate political institutions only further impedes any progress for peace as long as they engage in terrorist acts.

[Nevuk]

There are other (http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm) considerations (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf).
It's fine to criticize him as a person or as a critic or as a linguist. There's plenty of room to do that. But to entirely reject even addressing his presented argument?

[Midget Pirates]

[quote=Love As Arson;76035162]The political framework being what it is in the Middle East, groups like Hezbollah often serve as the providers of the basic necessities. One can move to ignore them and their place in a given country or deal with them. The former, it seems to me, is much more destructive.

quote]

They use that to gain the favor of the population in the first place. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, all started as terrorist organizations that over time evolved into more official humaniatrian operations which none the less still engage in terrorist activities.

In terms of dealing with them, when they have renounced terrorist activities that can take place, as happened with the PLO and Fatah. Hamas and Hezbollah all still actively promote the defeat of American aid, the killing of innocent civilians, and deny the right of Israel to exist. While I can see why it might be easy to say, "Well, they are the only government in place (in terms of Hamas in Gaza) so we should deal with them," what would instead be better is a form of reconciliation. Unfortunately, no one will ever engage with Hamas while it denies the right of Israel to exist, a) because most Arab/Islamic governments (outside of Iran and Libya) recognize that there will never be peace without a two state solution and b) it is simply unfeasible to expect that any government in the modern world would just let Israel succumb and be defeated.

Quite frankly, the repeated calls for one Palestinian state are simply rhetoric in order to engage the masses. 38 years ago was probably the last time it was anywhere near feasible to wipe Israel off the map, now it is common sense that any sort of peace will have to include both sides (something Israel most certainly wishes to ignore as well).

damn, beat me to it.

[Simulcast]

It's fine to criticize him as a person or as a critic or as a linguist. There's plenty of room to do that. But to entirely reject even addressing his argument presented?

I've read that argument before. He is intellectually dishonest. Why should I trust anything he says?

[x togepi x]

r
in this particular case, i think the FBI had proper cause to go through with this search due to the possible Hezbollah links. Maybe they aren't do enough to combat domestic threats and they ignore that. if that is true, then it's fine that you take issue with that. I'm merely commenting on this specific instance not really bothering me.

It should bother you because it shows how politicized the FBi is.

Any specific organizations? I'm generally interested to know about them.

I'm not really sure because they seem to be on a regional level. For example, I grew up 15 minutes away from a white supremacist compound vaguely connected to the League of the South (which is a conservative state's rights organization that many, including myself to be white supremacist in itself but one can argue that it's not).

His defense of Faurisson coupled with his writings on Nazi Germany have me somewhat convinced.

I'm fairly certain i've read texts from Chomsky where he talks about the Holocaust under the context that it actually happened so I don't think you can say that he's a denier.

I've read that argument before. He is intellectually dishonest. Why should I trust anything he says?

who do you trust then?

[Simulcast]

I'm fairly certain i've read texts from Chomsky where he talks about the Holocaust under the context that it actually happened so I don't think you can say that he's a denier.

That is fair.

who do you trust then?

That is an excellent question. I'm not exactly sure if I can say I trust someone completely on the topic. I can write off Chomsky without much hesitation however.

[meow]

This is fucked up shit.

[loveisdead]

That is an excellent question. I'm not exactly sure if I can say I trust someone completely on the topic. I can write off Chomsky without much hesitation however.

It's funny cause Chomsky would take this exact position.

[Simulcast]

It's fucked up because right wing paramilitary organizations are a legitimate threat in the united states yet they get completely ignored by the FBI (well...they did put out a paper saying they were one of the biggest domestic terrorist threats but then conservatives complained so they recanted).


I think this had a lot to do with politics as well. I thought the DHS put that out.

[Simulcast]

It's funny cause Chomsky would take this exact position.


Interesting.

[Love As Arson]

[quote=Love As Arson;76035162]The political framework being what it is in the Middle East, groups like Hezbollah often serve as the providers of the basic necessities. One can move to ignore them and their place in a given country or deal with them. The former, it seems to me, is much more destructive.

quote]

They use that to gain the favor of the population in the first place. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, all started as terrorist organizations that over time evolved into more official humaniatrian operations which none the less still engage in terrorist activities.

In terms of dealing with them, when they have renounced terrorist activities that can take place, as happened with the PLO and Fatah. Hamas and Hezbollah all still actively promote the defeat of American aid, the killing of innocent civilians, and deny the right of Israel to exist. While I can see why it might be easy to say, "Well, they are the only government in place (in terms of Hamas in Gaza) so we should deal with them," what would instead be better is a form of reconciliation. Unfortunately, no one will ever engage with Hamas while it denies the right of Israel to exist, a) because most Arab/Islamic governments (outside of Iran and Libya) recognize that there will never be peace without a two state solution and b) it is simply unfeasible to expect that any government in the modern world would just let Israel succumb and be defeated.

Quite frankly, the repeated calls for one Palestinian state are simply rhetoric in order to engage the masses. 38 years ago was probably the last time it was anywhere near feasible to wipe Israel off the map, now it is common sense that any sort of peace will have to include both sides (something Israel most certainly wishes to ignore as well).

terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah use this tactic to gain the sympathies of the people and win propaganda battles. I think it is far more destructive to fall for the trap of legitimizing them because they occasionally provide humanitarian help, while behind the scenes they still wage terror. Trying to act as if they are legitimate political institutions only further impedes any progress for peace as long as they engage in terrorist acts.
So, the population should give up the basic necessities until a pacifist organization comes along?

[Midget Pirates]

So, the population should give up the basic necessities until a pacifist organization comes along?

it's a tough situation I understand because you can't just hope a more pacifist organization comes along. Hamas and Hezbollah are not just going to step aside. I don't expect the populace to not accept any aid from these organizations. I wish I knew the solution.

[sweepthenation]

[quote=sweepthenation;76036742]


So, the population should give up the basic necessities until a pacifist organization comes along?

Not blaming the population, simply pointing out that they can't deal with those organizations and should persecute them when they are attempting to harm civilians or American servicemen.

[jawstheme]

terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah use this tactic to gain the sympathies of the people and win propaganda battles. I think it is far more destructive to fall for the trap of legitimizing them because they occasionally provide humanitarian help, while behind the scenes they still wage terror. Trying to act as if they are legitimate political institutions only further impedes any progress for peace as long as they engage in terrorist acts.

I could stick Israel in this argument and it would hold up just as well. Better, in my opinion.

[Love As Arson]

it's a tough situation I understand because you can't just hope a more pacifist organization comes along. Hamas and Hezbollah are not just going to step aside. I don't expect the populace to not accept any aid from these organizations. I wish I knew the solution.
Well, if you accept that, then imagine what humanitarian organizations have to go through if they want to help the people. So, since we live in reality and those organizations are there, then people should e allowed to deal with them.

[quote=Love As Arson;76045982]

Not blaming the population, simply pointing out that they can't deal with those organizations and should persecute them when they are attempting to harm civilians or American servicemen.
What should they think when American servicemen are harming them and civilians in general? And on top of that, aren't providing any aid to them? I'd probably side with the supposed terrorist group.

[sweepthenation]

Well, if you accept that, then imagine what humanitarian organizations have to go through if they want to help the people. So, since we live in reality and those organizations are there, then people should e allowed to deal with them.

[quote=sweepthenation;76054362]
What should they think when American servicemen are harming them and civilians in general? And on top of that, aren't providing any aid to them? I'd probably side with the supposed terrorist group.

They aren't intentionally though. And they are providing aid. The US is the single biggest provider of aid to many of the countries with these organizations, but the organizations themselves get in the way and often divert or steal the aid. The US always attempts to avoid collateral damage, but in combat it happens.

[Love As Arson]

And they are providing aid
The US does provide aid, usually not without strings attached. So, for example, they give around three billion dollars a year in military aid to Israel, which it uses to murder Palestinians.In turn, Israel remains compliant with its broader objectives in the region. And one wonders why some may turn to terrorist organizations.

The US is the single biggest provider of aid to many of the countries with these organizations, but the organizations themselves get in the way and often divert or steal the aid.
In the countries we're speaking about, it usually takes the form of military aid.

The US always attempts to avoid collateral damage, but in combat it happens.
Well, if you accept that it happens, and it is agreed that civilian deaths are worth it, then it is intentional.

[sweepthenation]

The US does provide aid, usually not without strings attached. So, for example, they give around three billion dollars a year in military aid to Israel, which it uses to murder Palestinians.In turn, Israel remains compliant with its broader objectives in the region. And one wonders why some may turn to terrorist organizations.


In the countries we're speaking about, it usually takes the form of military aid.


Well, if you accept that it happens, and it is agreed that civilian deaths are worth it, then it is intentional.

Or it could be in terms of aid to the people of Somalia, the Sudan, Georgia, Burma, etc, where it is simply aid, with absolutely no military attached to it at all. But I guess you never bothered to think outside of the Israel box huh?

And that is a complete logical fallacy you used in the last statement. It happens, but that doesn't mean its intentional. That is a completely wrong reading of the situation. I know you, as the resident Marxist who must simply hate every good thing the US does for everyone, and has to point out the shortfalls of each attempt at aid, must hate the idea that the US most of the time acts for the good of people. Yes it does act in its own interest as well, and yes it there are mistakes made, but name me a country that does better in terms of helping out other countries.

[jawstheme]

Or it could be in terms of aid to the people of Somalia, the Sudan, Georgia, Burma, etc, where it is simply aid, with absolutely no military attached to it at all. But I guess you never bothered to think outside of the Israel box huh?

And that is a complete logical fallacy you used in the last statement. It happens, but that doesn't mean its intentional. That is a completely wrong reading of the situation. I know you, as the resident Marxist who must simply hate every good thing the US does for everyone, and has to point out the shortfalls of each attempt at aid, must hate the idea that the US most of the time acts for the good of people. Yes it does act in its own interest as well, and yes it there are mistakes made, but name me a country that does better in terms of helping out other countries.

We aren't talking about other countries, we are talking about Palestine. You're pointing to the US and saying "look at all the aid we give" but what the hell does that mean for Palestine if we don't give them anything, and give their enemies practivally anything they want? You're straying from the point.

[sweepthenation]

We aren't talking about other countries, we are talking about Palestine. You're pointing to the US and saying "look at all the aid we give" but what the hell does that mean for Palestine if we don't give them anything, and give their enemies practivally anything they want? You're straying from the point.

In 2009 we gave Palestine $361 million in aid, $65 million of that alone in response to Israel's attack on Gaza. So we are giving them aid (although no military aid). As well, we have been supplying Arab states with military arms for the past 25 years, Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Oman/Qatar/Bahrain/Egypt and Kuwait all have recieved top notch military aid from the United States, and all are "enemies" of the Israeli state and are allies of Palestine.

[Love As Arson]

Or it could be in terms of aid to the people of Somalia
Well, you do realize that three years ago the US played an integral role in Ethiopia's invasion of the country? And up until 1989, it did provide around a hundred million dollars worth of aid to the Siad Barre, a military dictator.

the Sudan,
The US is primarily concerned with Darfur due to China's growing influence and investments in its oil infrastructure.

, Georgia
Under pressure from Russia, the US cannot provide it any military aid.

Burma
For example, how the economic sanctions remained in place, and still do, after the devastating cyclone.

where it is simply aid, with absolutely no military attached to it at all. But I guess you never bothered to think outside of the Israel box huh?
I guess you don't understand how geo-politics works.





And that is a complete logical fallacy you used in the last statement. It happens, but that doesn't mean its intentional. That is a completely wrong reading of the situation
If I say that I am going to do something, take into consideration the consequences, and proceed anyway, then I have accepted the situation and my intent is clear.

I know you, as the resident Marxist who must simply hate every good thing the US does for everyone, and has to point out the shortfalls of each attempt at aid, must hate the idea that the US most of the time acts for the good of people.
Nation-states rarely act for the good of the people, particularly in a militaristic environment.


Yes it does act in its own interest as well, and yes it there are mistakes made, but name me a country that does better in terms of helping out other countries.
Most countries act in a similar manner as the US. They give out social and military aid in exchange for achieving some political/economic end.


In 2009 we gave Palestine $361 million in aid, $65 million of that alone in response to Israel's attack on Gaza.
The issue is, if we didn't give Israel military and political support, then they wouldn't need aid and wouldn't turn to "terrorist" organizations.

As well, we have been supplying Arab states with military arms for the past 25 years, Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Oman/Qatar/Bahrain/Egypt and Kuwait all have recieved top notch military aid from the United States, and all are "enemies" of the Israeli state and are allies of Palestine.
The Arab states may express certain sentiments towards the Palestinian cause, but that does not mean they will bite the hand that feeds. But, I disagree with your initial statement that all our enemies of Israel. Most of the nations mentioned have mended, or are mending, their ties with Israel. Whether or not the settlements will substantially change this remains to be seen.

[jawstheme]

I can't find anything that gives good evidence to the countries you named being solid allies for Palestine. Nothing compared to our alliance with Israel. And I can't find the numbers for aid you said the US gave Palestine in '09, but how are they supposed to thank us when Israel is killing them with our missiles?

[TehVoot]

The Hezbollah is trouble :shrug: