welcome to the USA

RAS, So what ? Shouting and fist-shaking (especially in the air) are generally protected by the US Constitution and have long been considered a normal form of political expression. Indeed, if “wonder[ing] if violence is going to break out” is the test for protection of political activity just about any political activity could be constitutionally banned: from an Anne Coulter-love/hate fest to the Black Israelites to AARP seminars to a televised political debate. Fortunately in my country (USA) people get to yell and scream as much as they want.

Although, I am not taking a position on whether what the FBI did was good (or legal), you seem to live in a rose-colored world where people will either only thing that you agree with or say things very quietly and never express any anger at all.

Larry, at 10:08 am EDT on September 9, 2005

BAMN Deserves Close Scrutiny

R.A.S. is on the mark with his reminders and scooops on BAMN.

What do you think the name itself (derived from a remark by Malcolm X) stands for or means?

I have watched BAMNsters in action in Berkeley and SF and they are anything but “peaceful.” They rip up others’ signs, spit at people, block passageways, scream obscenities, refuse to let people speak at public forums who disagree with them, and generally throw temper tantrums wherever they go.

Of course they are not “terrorists,” because they are patently too unsubtle and too juvenile for that sort of thing.

But their appalling antics in defense of unending racial and gender double standards have helped smear affirmative action.

Chuck, at 10:41 am EDT on September 9, 2005

BAMN

I think the FBI and the Michigan State Police should monitor some of the people who posted these comments. They seem to be subverting free speech....

Kevin, Psychologist, at 2:40 pm EDT on September 9, 2005

Who’s paying for this?

IMHO (and I still have a constitutional right to have one), when you have pushing-and-shoving matches at taxpayer-owned colleges, it is the taxpayer and students who pick up the bill.

The simpletons in the crowd yell, “free speech.” Well, speech isn’t free, when the threat of physical assaults exists.

The campus police cost $$. Attorneys for both sides cost $$. Security cost $$. Administrators’ time cost $$. Maintenance costs $$.

And those of us, poor working schulbs paying these bills, really resent it. That’s one reason why there is support to privatize public areas — reduce payments to unproductive parasites.

B.J., at 2:42 pm EDT on September 9, 2005

Commitment to integration?

In response to michael of AFSCME’s post:

I support the MCRI. I oppose many of the policies called “affirmative action.” I have no commitment to integration, especially if it would mean having to live next door to people with the horrid manners and weird mentality of a typical BAMN member. I support equality under law. I believe that schools and other government agencies should treat citizens without regard to race.

I also believe that if any outfit, left-wing, right-wing or whatever, announces an intention to pursue its goals “by any means necessary,” then law enforcement is simply doing it’s job by paying some attention to their public statements and activities. The ACLU and BAMN seem reluctant to state the plain facts of this issue.

Finally, BAMN is not moving us “toward a ‘more perfect union.’” Equality under the law is the only reasonable unifying concept we have. It is the concept to which BAMN is most rudely opposed.

larry, Right Wing Blogger, at 9:42 am EDT on September 10, 2005

Process vs. Theory

I don’t agree with the concept of affirmative action at all. However, if a group wishs to responsibly and rationally present a case why I should agree, I am more than happy to listen — and I do. When they resort to actions that go beyond protesting (which in a democratic society is little more than throwing a temper tantrum — we have the ballot box to make our stands known), and on into violence and begin to pose a threat to the community, they still have a right to make their views known, but not in a manner than threatens others.

Given the low threshold that many campuses set for something being determined a threat when it eminates from a conservative, it is an unfair double standard on speech that these far more threatening actions are left undelt with.

Local, State and Federal governments have different responsibilities, but they all must cooperate in the prevention of terrorism. BANM does not appear to meet the strict definition of a terrorist group, but their actions merited a limited investigation before being dismissed as a protest group.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 4:13 pm EDT on September 10, 2005

Posting it one more time

Michael, I have tried repeatedly to post the relevant sections of the statutes that people seem to be referring to, but none of my posts make it because people think my ideas are too dangerous. Or something. Instead, the post that personally insult me (or who people think I am) make it.

Anyway, Michael, none of these groups is even eligible to be designated as a terrorist organization. The process to designate groups as “Foreign Terrorist Organization” is found in the INA (though it was amended) by the 411© PATRIOT Act. The statute is currently codified at 8 USC 1189. You can read it here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1189

Groups can challnege such designations in court, though some have argued that that process is not searching enough.

There is no process to designate a group a “domestic terrorist organization.”

Larry, at 1:07 pm EDT on September 12, 2005