Activists raided on "suspicion" of terrorism by FBI

[Broomstick]

And, as I pointed out, that dissent in Czechslovakia was crushed by actual, real-life TANKS. Yeah, tolerance. It doesn't exist in Communist countries.

The CSSR was "Communist" before Brezhnev's invasion. It was in fact this act that started the "2nd fracturing" of the Eastern Bloc since it was the invasion of a Communist nation by another Communist nation. This is what caused fractures between Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, and cause political upheavals in the DDR.

And... where did I ever say CSSR was NOT communist before the crack down in 1968? The "problem" was that while they were still communists they were deviating from the USSR party line too much for Moscow to tolerate.

So, I'm a little reserved on saying anything about this case in particular. While the FBI had warrants on these men, that in and of itself is not particularly indicative of much, as they also had warrants on MLK. Also, I couldn't find much on the FRSO.org website about advocating armed revolution, but, then again, I couldn't find much beyond general statements about things.

There are actually TWO organizations using the name "Freedom Road Socialist Organization". The two websites are "freedomroad.org" and "FRSO.org". It is my understanding that the FRSO.org are the Chicago/Minneapolis group, though honestly I'm not certain, and it is true that they don't have many specifics on their website. Freedomeroad.org does have more specifics, and makes it clear that the two groups were originally one. Freedomroad.org is actually backing the FRSO.org folks over the FBI matter.

Thus, I can't really conclude anything, given that the US has been rather happy to jail Socialists and Communists, regardless of how willing to commit armed insurrection they are, since Woodrow Wilson was in office; they support FARC-EP, so they might be involved in things that aren't so nice. As I said, hard to really say anything in particular without more knowledge.

Which might be why the FBI was investigating them...?

Without more information, it is difficult to make a decent conclusion on the matter.

This is true.

Because they are the first two links? Because your definition means that no member of this forum could count as antiwar because they would have supported the government during the second world war?

Why is it a problem that no one on this forum may fit the definition of "anti-war"? Is one required to be anti-war now? If you are attacked is it better to capitulate or to fight back?

There were people who were opposed to WWII during its entire span. Not a lot, to be sure, but the notion that it's impossible to be against all war is ridiculous.

The Chinese forcing the urban people to move to the rural countryside?

During the culutral revolution? That wasn't to kill people but to make them closer to the peasents (Mao was a nut).

It had the effect of killing millions.

Given that, no one but an idiot could possibly believe that Belarus, the Ukraine, or Transcaucasia could actually secede from anything.

Except they did secede from the Soviet Union peacefully in 1991.

Sure - AFTER the soviet government was losing power and the USSR was being dismantled. It wasn't a unilaterial decision by those countries.

It's like asking if a serial killer has right to defend himself - yes, actually, he does have such a right, both physically and legally.

Resisting arrest is illegal.

Being arrested is not typically a life-threatening event. At least not in the US. Therefore, the idea that resisting arrest via violence is somehow justified as self-defense is ludicrous.

Let me clarify. If a serial killer is walking down the street and someone jumps out of an alley he has a right to defend himself. If he is caught and accused of murder he has a right to defend himself in court. However, if he's in the act of killing one of his victims - that is, he is being the aggressor - then the victim has a right to fight back. When the serial killer is commiting murder it is NOT self-defense, it's murder.

So - during WWII the Nazis were the agressors - they were invading other countries and killing those who didn't surrender, then killing yet more people in the name of more living space and improving the race. That's NOT self-defense, that's agression. Poland didn't invade Germany, Germany invaded Poland. At that point opposing Germany, the agressor, is not beeing "oo, evil, attacking the Nazis!" it's opposing agression. In other words, the Nazis started it.

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source in a debate. I also reject this "Answers.org" since as a website run by evangelical Christians I can not trust it to be rational or to give answers without a religious agenda. Why would you go to those sites instead of a simple dictionary?

I went to a dictionary (m-w.com), it wasn't in there. Type the words "define anti-war" into google and see what you get.

There are more dictionaries than Merriam-Webster, you know. Try a dictionary.

Of course, I still use hardcopy dictionaries, as I have three, but then I'm a dinosaur.

Yes, suspicion of communism was why they were accused - you DO know the difference between accusation and conviction, don't you?

No, communists were used as a boogey man to target domestic political opposition, even non-communist parts.

While there were certainly some abuses in the past, there really were and really are communists who seek to overthrow non-communist governments by any means required including violence. The threat, while overblown during the Cold War, was not empty.

The documents they are allowed to search for solely relate to the premise that the FRSO is supporting foreign terrorists. Or does the government normally raid people's houses and not look for documents relating to the crimes it believes they've committed?

Supporting foreign terrorists is a crime. If the FBI thinks someone such as Michael Kelly is supproting them then it is entirely reasonable for them to seek a search warrant. What, exactly, is the problem here?

The man in Colorado Kelly wants freed was extradited to the US for trial for, among other things, acts against the United States. FARC is seen as a terrorist organization by the US government. While it is legal for Kelly to state that he thinks whats-his-face is innocent, and that he views FARC as freedom frighters, if he sends them money or material, or he recruits for them he is, in fact, breaking the law. Investigating such a thing is the job of the FBI.

You're trying to say we were evil for fighting the Nazis?

These days Nazi Germany would be described as a criminal regime for genocide and various other war crimes - REAL war crimes, not what gets bandied about these days as "war crimes" which are most often friendly fire or mistakes, not pre-meditated destruction of civilians.

Okay, so what's your point? You have just defined a criteria by which one can be morally justified in violence against the state, and in such a case the state is morally unjustified to counteract rebellion. These people (i.e. the FRSO) just disagree with your criteria and have their own.

The difference is that the Nazis agressively were conquering one nation after another and slaughtering people by the millions. Yes, the US had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. If you forgot, Afghanistan was harboring the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the latter of which attacked the United States (in other words, they started it). The Taliban, who at that point were in charge of Afghanistan, were asked nicely to hand over the guilty parties. They didn't. So the US started the war to get the people who had attacked them.

I do agree we had no business starting the recent Iraq war. However, we are now pulling out of Iraq. We are not keeping Iraq and making it part of the US.

As to the serial killer analogy - I have the right to defend myself against a serial killer. I don't have the right to kill him just because he is a serial killer. Do I have the right to overthrow the Nazi state just because it is the Nazi state? Or am I only allowed to do so if the Nazi state busts down my door and points a gun at my face?

If the serial killer attacks you, yes, you have a right to defend yourself, up to an including deadly force. You, as a citizen, do not have a right to go over the serial killer's house and put a gun in HIS face if he has not yet threatened you..

Where it breaks down, of course, is that with a serial killer the government has police to track him down and arrest him. There is no police agency for entire nations. That is why nations ally with each other against a common threat.

The de facto rule up to and through the 20th Century was that if a nation stayed within its own borders it was pretty much allowed to do whatever the hell it wanted to, including genocide within its own borders. It's when a nation goes outside its borders in an agressive manner that other nations take action.

So... in WWII the Nazis crossed over their borders and started killing people in other countries. Therefore, other nations opposed them violently.

FSRO does, in fact, support FARC which does in fact want to violently overthrow the Columbian government.

And the US government wants to violently overthrow the government of Venezuela.

Well, if a group of people in Venezuela were assisting the US in accomplishing that goal then the Venezuelan government could legitmately see them as a threat. If they were Venezuelan citizens they would be guilty of treason. They might be heros to the US government, but that doesn't rule out them being criminals in Venezuala.

FSRO does, in fact, advocate dividing the United States into three or more nations and approves the use of violence to do so, and doesn't give a flying fuck what the majority of people in the US may or may not want, they feel they're correct even if their a tiny minority.

Everyone feels they're correct even if they're a tiny minority.

But, seriously - do you honestly think the south, with its nuggets of pro-Conferedate good ol' boys, would peaceably become a one-party nation (because that's what FSRO wants) by and for blacks (because that's what FSRO wants) without a bloodbath? And in a one-party system if you aren't in the party you're dirt. And since the party will be based on ethnicity anyone who isn't black won't be able to join - not just the whites but all those Vietnamese fisherman down in the Gulf, the Hispanics, the Natives who still live there...

Like I said, you're coming up with a pretty crazy result for a system that has been repeatedly applied and not ever resulted in this. Between 1924 and 1985, there was no large-scale ethnic violence in the USSR, for example.

stormthebeaches addressed these points adequately, I do not feel a need to add more words to what he said, especially as he accurately grasped my position on the matter.

And? I quite clearly said that "while one can certainly criticize a number of Communist nations and groups, that doesn't mean one can instantly conclude that the US government is arresting these men because they actually are a threat, given the US's past history of brutally repressing those who are not politically correct." It is, frankly, irrelevant to my point how repressive totalitarian states are, when my point was that the US isn't exactly a shining light in the world and we shouldn't necessarily trust it when it is arresting people.

You DO realize that no one has been arrested? NONE of these people who were served search warrants has been arrested. Not one. A search warrant is not an arrest. Being called before a Grand Jury is not an arrest. They are subjects of an investigation, they have not, in fact, been accused, they have not been arrested.

And, frankly, I'm much less worried about some FRSO d-bags than Tea Partiers who have openly said that some senators need to face "second-amendment solutions," and haven't been arrested.

I agree, such people should also be investigated. Let's face it, if they had said that to the President the Secret Service would be paying them a visit.

Oh, hey, good thing my entire point was about how the US's past behavior should make us consider this arrest with a grain of salt, then!

Except, as I have pointed out, no one has been arrested.

Then there's Fred Hampton and several of his compatriots, who were brutally murdered by the Chicago police and the FBI. ( FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose by Swearingen)

I would find more, but I'm pressed for time. I will redact my claims about the CIA in particular, though, as I can't seem to find anything on that.

Solid evidence will be required. Keep in mind that the Black Panthers had many internal power struggles and were not above petty violence and street thuggery (which would have made them quite a few enemies).

It's actually pretty accepted at this point that Fred Hampton & Company were essentially assasinated by the Chicago Police. I'm not sure how solid the link between them and the FBI might have been, and as far as I know the CIA are not connected with the particular travesty. That colleciton of murderers don't require Federal involvement, the Chicago establishment could have planned and executed that one all on its own.

[Samuel]

Their were several civil rights movements throughout American history. I was referring to the most recent one in the 60s that was tied to MLK, Malcom X and the counter culture movement.

Which started earlier- in the 50s at least with Brown versus Board of Education. So you have a minimum of 14 years.

Why is it a problem that no one on this forum may fit the definition of "anti-war"? Is one required to be anti-war now? If you are attacked is it better to capitulate or to fight back?

Because most people use the word pacifist for such a context. The antiwar movement doesn't make sense if you apply the word so rigirously because then you get crazy situations like the majority of people in the antiwar movement not being antiwar.

It had the effect of killing millions.

Er, what? I was under the impression that people died during the cultural revolution because they were being shot, not because they were being forced to move to the countryside. Can you give numbers for people who died in the forced relocation as compared to people who died in the street fighting?

Let me clarify. If a serial killer is walking down the street and someone jumps out of an alley he has a right to defend himself.

That is only if you don't know he is a serial killer. If you do know than it is acceptable to use force in order to arrest him (although obviously the police have to know as well or else you are a crazy person commiting kidnapping).

That's NOT self-defense, that's agression. Poland didn't invade Germany, Germany invaded Poland.

What? Are you claiming Goebbels was lying about Polish aggression? If you can't trust the minister of information, who can you trust

Remember, this point was

You have specifically stated that you believe that the state is allowed to defend itself. Well, Germany between 1933 and 1945 was a state which was attacked (sometimes violently!) from within by opposition groups. Does that make those opposition groups wrong, or Germany's suppression of them right?

So claiming that Germanies aggression against foreign countries was an example of self defense... by internal opponents of the regime doesn't work.

[Cycloneman]

So - during WWII the Nazis were the agressors - they were invading other countries and killing those who didn't surrender, then killing yet more people in the name of more living space and improving the race. That's NOT self-defense, that's agression. Poland didn't invade Germany, Germany invaded Poland. At that point opposing Germany, the agressor, is not beeing "oo, evil, attacking the Nazis!" it's opposing agression. In other words, the Nazis started it.

Jesus Christ, we're not talking about whether defensive wars are justified, but whether violent opposition to ones own government is justified.

There are more dictionaries than Merriam-Webster, you know. Try a dictionary.

Of course, I still use hardcopy dictionaries, as I have three, but then I'm a dinosaur.

Why don't you consult them then? I'd be happy to hear what yours contain.

Supporting foreign terrorists is a crime. If the FBI thinks someone such as Michael Kelly is supproting them then it is entirely reasonable for them to seek a search warrant. What, exactly, is the problem here?

The man in Colorado Kelly wants freed was extradited to the US for trial for, among other things, acts against the United States. FARC is seen as a terrorist organization by the US government. While it is legal for Kelly to state that he thinks whats-his-face is innocent, and that he views FARC as freedom frighters, if he sends them money or material, or he recruits for them he is, in fact, breaking the law. Investigating such a thing is the job of the FBI.

Yes, yes, blah blah, so you admit that the FBI has no suspicion that the FRSO is currently trying to overthrow the government of the United States? And that your claim that the FRSO is trying to overthrow the government of the USA is therefore groundless?

If the serial killer attacks you, yes, you have a right to defend yourself, up to an including deadly force. You, as a citizen, do not have a right to go over the serial killer's house and put a gun in HIS face if he has not yet threatened you..

Where it breaks down, of course, is that with a serial killer the government has police to track him down and arrest him. There is no police agency for entire nations. That is why nations ally with each other against a common threat.

The de facto rule up to and through the 20th Century was that if a nation stayed within its own borders it was pretty much allowed to do whatever the hell it wanted to, including genocide within its own borders. It's when a nation goes outside its borders in an agressive manner that other nations take action.

So... in WWII the Nazis crossed over their borders and started killing people in other countries. Therefore, other nations opposed them violently.

So if I was a citizen of the German Reich between the years 1933 and 1938, would I be justified in the use of force against the state?

Please provide evidence.

Okay.

First of all, Broomstick was referring to the idiotic goal of FSRO to split the USA up into three racially segregated nations. That will require mass deportations to ensure that only people of the "correct" race live in each nation. Secondly, there have been mass deportations under Communist regimes. Stalin had millions of ethnic minorities deported. Mao's cultural revolution resulted in tens of millions being deported into the countryside. And do I really need to bring up Pol Pot.

Stalin was in the middle of the worst war of all time, "urban dwellers" is not an ethnicity yet, and capitalist governments have their fair share of genocidaires as well. You want me to bring up Rwanda, Darfur, Nazi Germany and Saddam's Iraq as examples of why capitalism is genocidal?

I want evidence of multiple political parties in Cuba.

Manuel Cuesta Morúa is the secretary general of the Socialist Democratic Current, a dissident movement in Cuba, and who currently lives in Cuba freely as far as I can determine.

And Cuba was never under American control. The US and Batista didn't see a eye to eye. In fact, one of the main reasons why the Cuban revolution was successfully is because the US had recently had a falling out with Cuba.

According to Amnesty International, there were 57 political prisoners in Cuba in March, 2009. A number of them have since been released (I've seen the number at 28). On the other hand, there are 176 people currently in the Guantanamo Bay holding facility; only three have been convicted of any crime. Do the math.

[Samuel]

capitalist governments have their fair share of genocidaires as well. You want me to bring up Rwanda, Darfur, Nazi Germany and Saddam's Iraq as examples of why capitalism is genocidal?

Capitalism doesn't include a required political system while so far communist states have had a consistent political system. It is also worth noting that the genocides in Germany and Iraq were due to state and not market mechanisms (and so can't really be blamed on capitalism) and the ones in Rwanda and Darfur were a combination of ethnic violence and resource scarcity. You can blame Belgium Congo on capitalism (aka extract as much wealth while working the population to death), but most genocides are not good for business.

[Cycloneman]

capitalist governments have their fair share of genocidaires as well. You want me to bring up Rwanda, Darfur, Nazi Germany and Saddam's Iraq as examples of why capitalism is genocidal?

Capitalism doesn't include a required political system while so far communist states have had a consistent political system. It is also worth noting that the genocides in Germany and Iraq were due to state and not market mechanisms (and so can't really be blamed on capitalism) and the ones in Rwanda and Darfur were a combination of ethnic violence and resource scarcity. You can blame Belgium Congo on capitalism (aka extract as much wealth while working the population to death), but most genocides are not good for business.

I didn't want to mention famines in British Raj, genocide of native Americans, et cetera, because they are much better example cases and closer to "normal" liberal democratic genocides, unlike Democratic Kampuchea which is an extreme case.

[Master of Ossus]

Cycloneman, rather than get caught up in an impassioned defense of communism, why don't you explain to us why you think that a search executed pursuant to a valid warrant on an organization that claims to be political must necessarily be invalid. Merely claiming that my company or organization is anti-war should not be a sufficient shield from charges of terrorism, and you have presented no evidence that the legal process involved in the raid discussed by the OP was in any way improper.

[xt828]

Genocide is defined by The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

You realise, of course, that this definition exists because it is the one agreed to by the major powers of the day - powers like the USA, France, United Kingdom and the USSR, who shockingly wouldn't agree to something which would define them as repeat offenders. This is why it explicitly excludes political groups from the list of potential targets. Political groups were actually included in the original proposal for the definition, but they were vetoed by the Soviets.

Addressing generally here, I'm not quite sure where the whole communism tangent came from, but it's worth noting that the Stalin-era 'relocations' and Holodomor, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the 1968 Prage Spring, and the 1991 dissolution of the USSR were extremely complex events what can't really be done justice with a throwaway reference and a statement that it supports your point. On the topic of the Nazis, there are two points I'd make - firstly, and I'm not sure why I even need to bring this up, but the US entered the war against Nazi Germany because Hitler declared war on the USA. Yes, there was some quasi-involvement prior to that, but ultimately the USA was attacked first by both major opposing nations. The second is that when speaking about the internal dissent in Germany, I'd say that speaking for the Nazi regime, their actions were unjustified and a betrayal, but speaking for the state of Germany they were patriots, attempting to return their country to the international community of nations.

Veering on-topic for a moment, if the FBI has reason to believe that the FRSO supports FARC, and they have enough evidence of this for a warrant, why should they not be able to bring in the FRSO leadership for questioning?

[stormthebeaches]

Okay.

Did you even read that link? It states that whilst the US knew of the coup it repeatedly urged the coup plotters not to go through with it and even warned Chavez about the coup a week in advance.

Stalin was in the middle of the worst war of all time, "urban dwellers" is not an ethnicity yet, and capitalist governments have their fair share of genocidaires as well. You want me to bring up Rwanda, Darfur, Nazi Germany and Saddam's Iraq as examples of why capitalism is genocidal?

I am referring to mass deportations. Not genocide. If I was to bring up genocide I'd mention the Holodomor. And no, by the time Stalin started his mass deportations he was not in the middle of the worst war of all time. These deportations occurred when the Russian civil war was over and well before World War 2 began. Samuel already explained why Rwanda, Darfur, Nazi Germany and Saddam's Iraq are flawed examples of the evils of capitalism.

Manuel Cuesta Morúa is the secretary general of the Socialist Democratic Current, a dissident movement in Cuba, and who currently lives in Cuba freely as far as I can determine.

Opposition political parties exist in Cuba but it is illegal for them to take part in any political activities. For all intents and purposes they are worthless.

According to Amnesty International, there were 57 political prisoners in Cuba in March, 2009. A number of them have since been released (I've seen the number at 28). On the other hand, there are 176 people currently in the Guantanamo Bay holding facility; only three have been convicted of any crime. Do the math.

This still doesn't change the fact that you (incorrectly) claimed that Cuba was under American control before Castro.

Which started earlier- in the 50s at least with Brown versus Board of Education. So you have a minimum of 14 years.

I thinking the 60s era stuff, with the race riots, black panthers and counter culture movements. But still, I conceed on this issue.

I didn't want to mention famines in British Raj, genocide of native Americans, et cetera, because they are much better example cases and closer to "normal" liberal democratic genocides, unlike Democratic Kampuchea which is an extreme case.

I would like to point out that the atrocities against the Native Americans would not count as genocide as there was no state run attempts to wipe out the Natives. The atrocities were a series of individual incidents. And most of the Natives were killed by European diseases, something that the colonists couldn't have predicted. Of course, this is all irrelevant because very few people defend the atrocities committed by colonialism and imperialism whilst quite a few people still try to justify Communist atrocities with "the ends justifies the means" bullshit.

[Cycloneman]

Cycloneman, rather than get caught up in an impassioned defense of communism, why don't you explain to us why you think that a search executed pursuant to a valid warrant on an organization that claims to be political must necessarily be invalid. Merely claiming that my company or organization is anti-war should not be a sufficient shield from charges of terrorism, and you have presented no evidence that the legal process involved in the raid discussed by the OP was in any way improper.

It just doesn't feel right. The FRSO is not the only organization that was raided, and having been part of anti-war activism myself, I have a difficult time believing these people have any real money to funnel back to foreign terrorist organizations. Plus, despite this large, coordinated raid, all the FBI is doing now is subpoenas. I would be very surprised if they can find sufficient evidence to get any convictions.

This still doesn't change the fact that you (incorrectly) claimed that Cuba was under American control before Castro.

No, I did not claim that. I stated that "there are fewer political prisoners in Cuba under Cuban control than there are under American control." Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba.

Did you even read that link? It states that whilst the US knew of the coup it repeatedly urged the coup plotters not to go through with it and even warned Chavez about the coup a week in advance.

Uh, one senior diplomat mentioning that they were "very concerned" about "all these rumors of a coup plot" going around is hardly a warning. It also states that once the coup happened, the United States government got right behind the coup plotters. If you say, "No, no, don't do that" and then the group does that and you say "We're glad that you did that," what does it mean?

I would like to point out that the atrocities against the Native Americans would not count as genocide as there was no state run attempts to wipe out the Natives. The atrocities were a series of individual incidents. And most of the Natives were killed by European diseases, something that the colonists couldn't have predicted. Of course, this is all irrelevant because very few people defend the atrocities committed by colonialism and imperialism whilst quite a few people still try to justify Communist atrocities with "the ends justifies the means" bullshit.

If very few people defend the atrocities committed by colonialism and imperialism, what do the first three sentences of this paragraph do? The United States government, over numerous decades, engaged in policies which had the known effect of the mass slaughter of natives.

And yeah, most of the natives were killed by European diseases - mainly because it would have been impossible for Europeans to match the diseases scope, as the number of natives killed lies between 95 and 99% of the population. But the Europeans did their damnedest to finish the job.

[Broomstick]

Cycloneman, rather than get caught up in an impassioned defense of communism, why don't you explain to us why you think that a search executed pursuant to a valid warrant on an organization that claims to be political must necessarily be invalid. Merely claiming that my company or organization is anti-war should not be a sufficient shield from charges of terrorism, and you have presented no evidence that the legal process involved in the raid discussed by the OP was in any way improper.

It just doesn't feel right.

So it's a hunch. Gotcha. You're gut feeling is more impressive than the work of experienced, professional investigators.

The FRSO is not the only organization that was raided, and having been part of anti-war activism myself, I have a difficult time believing these people have any real money to funnel back to foreign terrorist organizations.

The FRSO connection is an example of why the FBI might have their suspicions. It was not the sole explanation.

Do you, yourself, have any experience with the FRSO? If not, how can you be sure they are like the anti-war groups you have been part of? Tokyo Rose was anti-war (at least by your definition), too, but that doesn't mean she was on the side of the Allies.

Plus, despite this large, coordinated raid, all the FBI is doing now is subpoenas. I would be very surprised if they can find sufficient evidence to get any convictions.

I'm not sure this qualifies as a "raid". They went and knocked on some peoples' doors, presented search warrants, searched, and left. Saying "raid" conjures up SWAT teams kicking down doors. That's not what happened.

Of course, the whole POINT of search warrants is to look for evidence. If they find evidence it goes to prosecution. If they don't find evidence it doesn't. This is routine police work. Not every lead turns up a guilty party or evidence of wrong doing. That doesn't make the investigation wrong, or "harassment", or somehow part of a government plot.

Setting up a front is nothing new for either criminals or enemy agents (and the lie between those two can be blurry). Just because the people you were involved with in anti-war activities were clean folks with no malice doesn't mean everyone is so pure and innocent.

[stormthebeaches]

No, I did not claim that. I stated that "there are fewer political prisoners in Cuba under Cuban control than there are under American control." Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba.

I thought you said were. My bad. Still, Guantanamo Bay is not a nation. It is a military base that has been converted into a prison. Not to mention, it is doubtful that any of the people held there could be classified as political prisoners. P.O.W. would be more accurate (and no, I don't approve of Bush naming them illegal combatants).

Uh, one senior diplomat mentioning that they were "very concerned" about "all these rumors of a coup plot" going around is hardly a warning.

One senior diplomat could Chavez that he was very concerned about rumors of a coup plot. That is more than enough of a warning. If you continued to read the article you could see that Chavez dismissed the warning.

It also states that once the coup happened, the United States government got right behind the coup plotters. If you say, "No, no, don't do that" and then the group does that and you say "We're glad that you did that," what does it mean?

That the United States was determined to maintain good relations with Venezuela regardless of the change in government?

If very few people defend the atrocities committed by colonialism and imperialism, what do the first three sentences of this paragraph do? The United States government, over numerous decades, engaged in policies which had the known effect of the mass slaughter of natives.

And yeah, most of the natives were killed by European diseases - mainly because it would have been impossible for Europeans to match the diseases scope, as the number of natives killed lies between 95 and 99% of the population. But the Europeans did their damnedest to finish the job.

I was hardly defending the atrocities committed against the Native Americans you twit. All I did was point out that a) European diseases were by far the biggest killer of Native Americans and b) the atrocities committing against the Native Americans would not count as genocide because there was no intentional campaign to exterminate all the natives. Genocide requires an intentional campaign of extermination aimed at a certain group.

[Samuel]

You realise, of course, that this definition exists because it is the one agreed to by the major powers of the day - powers like the USA, France, United Kingdom and the USSR, who shockingly wouldn't agree to something which would define them as repeat offenders. This is why it explicitly excludes political groups from the list of potential targets. Political groups were actually included in the original proposal for the definition, but they were vetoed by the Soviets.

Yes, but my point was that Broomstick was being blatantly hypocritical about definitions. She declared antiwar must mean absolute pacifism.

firstly, and I'm not sure why I even need to bring this up, but the US entered the war against Nazi Germany because Hitler declared war on the USA.

Which no one has disputed. The second part is the point of contention.

The second is that when speaking about the internal dissent in Germany, I'd say that speaking for the Nazi regime, their actions were unjustified and a betrayal, but speaking for the state of Germany they were patriots, attempting to return their country to the international community of nations.

So they count as patriots because Germany couldn't win the war it was in? If Germany was strong enough, would they have been unjustified and disloyal to attack it for its actions?

Veering on-topic for a moment, if the FBI has reason to believe that the FRSO supports FARC, and they have enough evidence of this for a warrant, why should they not be able to bring in the FRSO leadership for questioning?

They should. The government usually doesn't bring in communists (there prefered method is to watch and record everything) so if they are arresting either the administration changed its policy or they think they are up to something. Communists are to small a group for the administration to get any political points out of beating them up anyway so for this at least I trust the government has a good reason.

[Broomstick]

I wish to re-emphasize - NO ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED. We are talking about search warrants, not arrests.

Really, it reminds me of the FBI checking out every single pilot in the US after 9/11, all 750,000 or so of them. They knew damn well that the vast, overwhelming majority of pilots were entirely harmless individuals. None the less, ALL of them had to be checked out.

As a pilot myself, I wasn't exactly thrilled with the news. On the other hand, given the events of that day, it did seem an entirely reasonable thing to do. Actually, I expect whoever read my file was bored to tears, I'm pretty harmless and boring in a lot of respects.

Likewise, the vast, overwhelming majority of people protesting war - either a particular war or all wars - are entirely harmless individuals. The problem is that it only takes one or two or nineteen bad guys to ruin everybody's day. Thus, the FBI does keep an eye on a LOT of organizations that seem quite innocuous. Because you only need a few bad guys amongst everyone else to cause problems.

[xt828]

The second is that when speaking about the internal dissent in Germany, I'd say that speaking for the Nazi regime, their actions were unjustified and a betrayal, but speaking for the state of Germany they were patriots, attempting to return their country to the international community of nations.

So they count as patriots because Germany couldn't win the war it was in? If Germany was strong enough, would they have been unjustified and disloyal to attack it for its actions?

That's not what I said. The domestic opposition to the Nazis was fairly varied, from the remnants of the socialists and KPD to the various military conspiracies to the White Rose to the random individuals. Broadly speaking, they disagreed with the goals and means of the Nazi state, both internally and externally.

The reasoning you state was actually mentioned at Nuremburg by the German Generals on trial as logical reasoning for why their inhumanities were criminal - that if Germany had been stronger and won, they would have been morally right, but since they lost the actions were morally wrong.

Apologies for derailing, but I still don't get why this topic is notable. The FBI convinced a judge they had reason to search a place why may be linked with terrorism. Woo.

[Samuel]

but speaking for the state of Germany they were patriots, attempting to return their country to the international community of nations.

That sounds very much like if the Germans had won (and controlled the future international community of nations) what they did would have been okay. This cannot justify rebelion against a government because of foreign aggression on purely internal grounds because if your country has a chance of winning the argument doesn't work.

The reasoning you state was actually mentioned at Nuremburg by the German Generals on trial as logical reasoning for why their inhumanities were criminal - that if Germany had been stronger and won, they would have been morally right, but since they lost the actions were morally wrong.

This is true as far as criminality- if Germany had won the generals would not have been tried for said crimes. So "returning a country to the community of nations" only works if your country is going to lose.

Morality is not a subject under control of the state and that if the state performs immoral actions, it is a persons obligation to rectify it. If it cannot be peacefully fixed, than force is justified in certain cases. Given the chance of a person taking down the government it is almost never relevant, but it does mean that states do not have an unlimited right to self defense- people are only fighting against them in certain cases because what they are doing is wrong.

So yes, that means the states right to self defense is not unlimited or else we'd end up having to defend things like Tiananmen Square.

Apologies for derailing, but I still don't get why this topic is notable.

It isn't. I think aside from the OP, people are just getting involved because they enjoy discussion and there isn't really any other politics to chew.

[xt828]

I think that I'm differentiating between the state and the regime in a way you are not.

I always found the German generals' statement interesting because they did not acknowledge a universal morality, and saw it defined solely in terms of victor and vanquished rather than right and wrong.

[Broomstick]

For some people might really does make right. It's not the morality I hold, but it is a real position some people take.

[K. A. Pital]

These days Nazi Germany would be described as a criminal regime for genocide and various other war crimes

Nazi Germany had violent internal opposition long before it started the war crimes and full-scale genocide.

Following this logic, its violent internal resistance was wrong until Germany started mass murdering people left and right. That's a very shaky road to take. I've read some more and I see that's exactly the road one takes:

At that point opposing Germany, the agressor, is not beeing "oo, evil, attacking the Nazis!" it's opposing agression. In other words, the Nazis started it.

Problem is, violent opposition can develop before large-scale crimes.

You can fairly and accurately state that the reality of the United States of America is an evil, and a deadly one at that based upon the historical record.

The loveliness of USA on paper counts for nothing, at all. We don't exist in an idealized paper world wherein all systems work precisely as envisioned by their creators (who in fact had zero political or leadership experience and therefore can't even have been expected to grasp the implications of the systems they proposed). So however nice one might think the ideals of the USA, might be those ideals are damned irrelevant.

And that's not even tackling how distinctly un-lovely even theoretical United States look, from a viewpoint that doesn't find its conceptions particularly sound.

Sorry, I love fixing stuff.

Samuel already explained why Rwanda, Darfur, Nazi Germany and Saddam's Iraq are flawed examples of the evils of capitalism.

Is the British Raj a good and sound example, or the East India company? Are the Suez and Panama channels a good example? What is?

[stormthebeaches]

Sorry, I love fixing stuff.

This doesn't make sense. For a start you are comparing a nation to a political ideology. Secondly, many of the founding fathers (I assume that's who you mean when you say creator), did have leadership experience. George Washington, for example, used to be an officer in the British army and was a general of the patriots army. In comparison, the only leadership experience Karl Marx had was with his maid (who he treated like shit).

Finally, the ideals of the United States are better to the ideals of Communism. The United States was founded on the ideals of secularism and non-intervention. Communism, even in theory (ignoring the fact that it has failed everywhere and the few Communist regimes that survived are Communist in name only) is a deeply flawed doctrine. Darth Wong himself did a good analysis of why the Communist Manifesto is terribly flawed.

Is the British Raj a good and sound example, or the East India company? Are the Suez and Panama channels a good example? What is?

I'd say cases of colonialism and imperialism committed for the sole purpose of profit are. Belgium's antics in the congo would be a good example, as would the British Raj or the East India company. I don't know much about the Suez and the Panama so I won't comment on those.

Of course, these capitalism vs communism debates are flawed due to the fact that capitalism is merely an economic system whilst Communism is a whole political ideology.

[Samuel]

The United States was founded on the ideals of secularism and non-intervention.

The second is patently false. The US intervened constantly in other countries and groups during its history- even its early history. I'm not positive is secularism was one of the ideals the US was founded upon- it had to be added with the bill of rights so it wasn't important enough to be part of the constitution... and that is forgetting it wasn't included in the articles of confederation.

I think the ideal for the US was simply home rule.

I don't know much about the Suez and the Panama so I won't comment on those.

It turns out construction projects in inhospitable areas that require hard labor cause many of the workers to die. Stas is just annoyed that comparable Soviet projects are included in the evils of communism.

[stormthebeaches]

The second is patently false. The US intervened constantly in other countries and groups during its history- even its early history. I'm not positive is secularism was one of the ideals the US was founded upon- it had to be added with the bill of rights so it wasn't important enough to be part of the constitution... and that is forgetting it wasn't included in the articles of confederation.

Stas and I were talking about theoretical ideals, not what happens in practice. Non-interventionism certainly was important, George Washington was famously urged Americans not to get involved in foreign affairs.

And I don't know why you think that secularism was not an ideal in the early United States. The Church and state were made separate for a reason. And the fact that secularism was put into the bill of rights means that it must have been quite important. Remember that secularism does not mean atheist.

It turns out construction projects in inhospitable areas that require hard labor cause many of the workers to die. Stas is just annoyed that comparable Soviet projects are included in the evils of communism.

No one in these thread as brought up Soviet construction projects. The emphasis has been on Stalin's purges, mass deportations and the artificial famines.

[Broomstick]

These days Nazi Germany would be described as a criminal regime for genocide and various other war crimes

Nazi Germany had violent internal opposition long before it started the war crimes and full-scale genocide.

Following this logic, its violent internal resistance was wrong until Germany started mass murdering people left and right. That's a very shaky road to take. I've read some more and I see that's exactly the road one takes:

At that point opposing Germany, the agressor, is not beeing "oo, evil, attacking the Nazis!" it's opposing agression. In other words, the Nazis started it.

Problem is, violent opposition can develop before large-scale crimes.

I would say internal resistance to the Nazis were justified because
1) The Nazis did not come to power through legitimate means - when they failed to win elections they resorted to brute force, and
2) They were enslaving and exterminating people based upon traits over which no one has control - ethnicity, ancestry, and so forth.

That, by my ethics and morals, makes the Nazis, for lack of a better word, evil and thus opposing them is moral. However, the notion of self-defense is even more widespread than notions of multiculturalism and democracy/representative government and thus provides an even broader base on which to oppose such a regime.

[Samuel]

Non-interventionism certainly was important, George Washington was famously urged Americans not to get involved in foreign affairs.

Because Europe was involved in a massive war (1789-1815) that didn't really concern the US and the US was currently too weak to deal with a full scale war? Given that the US was already expanding west- we had 3 more states before Washington left office- non-interventionism only works if you consider only Europe. If you consider the natives or the rest of the Americas (which gets covered by the Monroe Doctrine) than non-interventionism is really "don't get involved with Europe".

And the fact that secularism was put into the bill of rights means that it must have been quite important.

No, it means it was something the founders didn't find important enough to have in the constitution. I do agree secularism was an important principle for the US, but using the first amendment (which had to be added so was essentially a compromise) as an example of the high value doesn't exactly work.

No one in these thread as brought up Soviet construction projects.

There has been a mention of gulags and since political prisoners were used for construction projects, their death toll gets counted as Soviet atrocities.

The Nazis did not come to power through legitimate means - when they failed to win elections they resorted to brute force,

Just because a government was non-elected doesn't mean it isn't legitimate.

However, the notion of self-defense is even more widespread than notions of multiculturalism and democracy/representative government and thus provides an even broader base on which to oppose such a regime.

My point is that is very shaky grounds. It means if you were a member of the master race you had no reason to oppose them. It doesn't work for internal German dissidents.

[K. A. Pital]

Finally, the ideals of the United States are better to the ideals of Communism. The United States was founded on the ideals of secularism and non-intervention. Communism, even in theory (ignoring the fact that it has failed everywhere and the few Communist regimes that survived are Communist in name only) is a deeply flawed doctrine. Darth Wong himself did a good analysis of why the Communist Manifesto is terribly flawed.

Communism in theory is a stage of development of society, where exploit of man by man is abscent, and, to some extent, scarcity is also abscent (at the very least such a development is desired, even in oldschool Marxism which postulates that scarcity can be eliminated by continous expansion of productive power). Karl Marx was not the only communist (even if the most influential of them). I'm not sure what is particularly bad about the above. On the other hand, the USA was founded by slavers and was, for a good part of its history, a slave-holding state.

I don't know much about the Suez and the Panama so I won't comment on those.

Suez and Panama channels were large-scale engineering feats done by Western companies (or governments, in case of the USA in Panama) at a tremendous human cost. Suez cost roughly 100 000 lives, while Panama cost about 28 thousand. Industrialization, especially rapid and done in a none-developed territory, tends to have huge human costs, regardless of who guides the process.

No one in these thread as brought up Soviet construction projects. The emphasis has been on Stalin's purges, mass deportations and the artificial famines.

Purges, certainly. The artificial famines have also occured in Ireland and British India under British rule (repeatedly in the latter case), quite similar in mechanism and result to the famine in the USSR, similar famines occured in pre-revolutionary Russia and in, say, Bangladesh (a most recent example of an export-driven famine). The mass deportations and mass arrests were used even by the USA (although on a lesser scale), except the USA was several times richer than the USSR and so the death rate among deportees was neglible. Massive arrests were a hallmark of British rule in colonial areas. The degree of severity for the most part is determined by the richness of the nation and the stage of economic development, as well as by political considerations.

On the other hand (returning to the subject of the thread, actually) - being a Marxist-Leninist party automatically means your ideology includes violent overthrow of capitalism at some point. However, for example, in India M-L parties are included in the government. Some of them are also governing their regions quite well. I'm not sure they are subject to state-sanctioned raids and stuff (not knowledgeable enough on India).

Of course, these capitalism vs communism debates are flawed due to the fact that capitalism is merely an economic system whilst Communism is a whole political ideology.

Capitalism is an economic system which has a supporting, wide and developed ideology. It is rather stupid to say that capitalism is not a political ideology (or, perhaps, even a net of several ideologies). Communism is also a set of ideologies (which includes Marxism as the most influential).

I would say internal resistance to the Nazis were justified because
1) The Nazis did not come to power through legitimate means - when they failed to win elections they resorted to brute force, and
2) They were enslaving and exterminating people based upon traits over which no one has control - ethnicity, ancestry, and so forth.

That, by my ethics and morals, makes the Nazis, for lack of a better word, evil and thus opposing them is moral. However, the notion of self-defense is even more widespread than notions of multiculturalism and democracy/representative government and thus provides an even broader base on which to oppose such a regime.

Which nation was formed by "legitimate means"? The USA, perhaps? From the POV of the British Empire, that was just a rebellion and nothing more. The Nazis didn't start massively enslaving and killing people until the war, which brings us to the point first mentioned - either one admits that there CAN be legitimate grounds for resistance even without a war ongoing (in fact, for the USA, the resistance is well legitimate, because there are two ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Alternatively, one would have to say that until there is war, resistance to a government is illegitimate.

I'm also amazed by people claiming that "supporting terrorist organizations" like the FARC somehow makes the government have a moral high ground. Forgive me for reminding you, but the USA has been, much like all other great powers, a sponsor of terrorism. If you don't know the examples, I can bring lots for you. The USA sponsored state terrorism and "cell terrorism" both, throghout history, not only during the cold war but also until how (House of Saud, heh). I'm not sure anyone here can claim a moral high ground.

[Broomstick]

I'm also amazed by people claiming that "supporting terrorist organizations" like the FARC somehow makes the government have a moral high ground.

It doesn't give the government the "moral high ground" so much as it gives a lawful excuse for an investigation. As far as I'm concerned, "legal" and "moral" need not overlap in all cases.

I don't care how benevolent a state might be, if you're somehow connected to an organization that state sees a threat you will come under scrutiny. And let's be clear, that is what is happening to the people served warrants and supoenas. NO ONE was arrested. Jackbooted thugs did not knock on the door in the middle of the night to haul them away. It's ridiculous to equate this with a gulag or whatever.

The FBI had search warrants, obtained in a routine manner through normal (that is, non-Patriot Act) channels. The supoenas in question are formal documents saying "the authorities want to ask you some question". Is being the object of a search warrant or supoena unpleasent, scary, uncomfortable, and so on? Yes, often it is. But don't blow it out of proportion, which, I think, was the whole point of this group going to the media in the first place.

Being an anti-war activist (of any stripe) should no more make you immune to scrutiny than being a member of a church or a member of the armed forces or a member of a old ladies' knitting circle.