Just another form of intimidation. Par for the course for the Bush admin. What better way to quash dissent?
Wow, just wow.
What the heck are they doing with the information anyway? You can’t tell me this is legal!?
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/news2004/0206-09.htm
Hey! It’s a subpoena issued by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. If it’s about terrorism, then it’s OK.
Quite legal.
That is, if a federal judge orders it so.
Is this one of the extensions granted under the “Patriot Act”?
Wow, this is scary.
Whoa.
What do they hope to gain by the subpoenas? Do they really think that a protest group like this would have ties to Al Qaeda?
I have bad feelings about the Republican Convention.
First off, its in NY.
Bad idea.
Gotta up the security way up.
Any protestors there; be careful, I think they’v e got camps ready for ya…
I know you read my posts if for no reason but to denigrate me.
Tell us how this is a good thing. Tell us how it’s ok to stifle free speech in the US.
Man. I’m gettin’ all teary-eyed and nostalgic for the Nixon era.
The rationale for a grand jury proceeding in this instance seems a little flimsy, to say the least.
I’m beginning to believe that this is all a very crafty ploy by Dubya to bring back the free love and drugs days of the late 60s.
Yeah, where’s the usual “Reeder you Bush-hating idiot” ad-hominem “defense” of the administration? Could this finally be the indefensible thing that even the hard-core Bush lovers can’t even work up a Reeder-bashing for?
Of course not, they must just be getting “Database Errors” messages. Give it time. I’m firmly conviced there’s nothing the adminstration can do that won’t get some support.
I don’t their grand jury testomony can even be made public can it? So they’re being subpoenaed to a secret proceeding without any public explanation because they protested a war? WTF? :dubious:
Hey Bushies, come on, ya cowards. Defend this shit.
A letter from Brian Terrel of the Catholic Peace Ministry may be found here
If I were a democrat in the united states, I’d be tickled pink that this happened. I can’t possibly imagine voters taking much more of this.
That assumes, drm. that many voters know about this sort of thing going on, and furthermore that if they have heard of it, they believe it is actually happening. This is not exactly getting mainstream media time. On the other hand, should the POTUS write another poem about his wife, rest assured it’ll be page A6 at the worst.
That assumes, drm. that many voters know about this sort of thing going on, and furthermore that if they have heard of it, they believe it is actually happening. This is not exactly getting mainstream media time. On the other hand, should the POTUS write another poem about his wife, rest assured it’ll be page A6 at the worst.
[/quote]
Good point, that slipped my mind. I rest assured, though, that this will find it’s way into an attack add before too long.
GWB wrote a poem? I can only imagine it was something along the lines of:
There once was a girl from Texas*…
*I really don’t know where the first lady is from, Texas was a guess.
You amuse me. You assume that Reeder gets attacked because he’s biased. In a sense, you’re right, because he starts so many Bush-hating threads that he’s become the most intentifiable voice of the Bush-haters. But really, what it is is that he posts a lot of articles, draws incorrect conclusions, and then takes a beating when it turns out that his conclusions were wrong. That’s not necessarily defending Bush as much as it is giving the other side of the story, the part that was overlooked. The vitriol stems from the overwhelming flood of misinformation, same as when I post a bunch of BS and get called on it. Do it enough and you’re targeted, it’s that simple.
This, however, is not an example of that. This is justifiably upsetting and should be called out. I see no reason why it should be defended. In fact, I think it is indefensible. So how is it “cowardly” that nobody has defended this? I think you’d have to be crazy to try to defend this. Your taunt is pretty stupid in that respect, Diogenes. It’s not cowardice that nobody’s here to defend this. It’s common sense.
I wasn’t addressing you, Airman. I actually consider you one of the few people around here who is intellectually honest and who makes a sincere attemt to look at things objectively.
I wasn’t really trying to make any reference to Reeder, either. I really was just inviting a response from the hardcore Bush apologists who can never seem to admit that he ever does anything the least bit disturbing.
I really want to know how they defend this one. I guess their absence speaks for them.
Defend? No. But I have some questions.
If you were going to crush dissent, why would you do it at Drake College in Des Moines, Iowa? I’m pretty sure there have been one or two other anti-war protests in the US in the past year. What makes this one different? And why now? Why would the government seek a gag order – something that’s guaranteed to stir up a real shitstorm of protest? Is it possible that someone in the organization * has * been a bad boy in a Federal way?
As for the letter Squink quoted, I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t that standard procedure for a Grand Jury probe?
Anyway, if the Bush administration wants to indulge themselves in some bad publicity in an election year, who are we to complain?
And I thought that it was the terrorists who were supposed to scare us and the Department of Homeland Security that would make us feel safe. Funny how these things work out sometimes…