Comments on Homeland Security Monitored Students

• Difficult Balancing Act
• Posted by Belle on July 20, 2006 at 8:25am EDT

• Given the fact that several of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country on student visas, it would be suicidal to ignore that tactic. Innocent students are among the terrorists' victims. I do not see how we responsibly ignore such a threat.

• The real terrorists
• Posted by Hoosier Prof on July 20, 2006 at 9:40am EDT

• As anyone who has attended anti-war protest events knows, the main "threat to security" at these demonstrations is from pro-war counter-demonstrators. Disrupting anti-war demonstrations, violently if possible, seems to be an acknowledged tactic. I do hope that Homeland Security has clued in to this potentially terroristic group. I'll sleep more comfortably in my bed if I know they are watching the really violent ones.

• Balancing?
• Posted by Mike on July 20, 2006 at 9:45am EDT

• Thos ewho give up some liberty for some security desrve neither

• DHS surveillance of students
• Posted by Margee , Professor at Maryalnd Institute College of Art on July 20, 2006 at 9:45am EDT

• Unlike Belle who seems to have succumbed to the paranoid rhetoric of the Bush Administration in the so-called "war on terror," I defend the students' rights to assemble and speak freely on campuses without the fear of government spies watching and recording their activities. Even the threat of government surveillance impinges on those rights, for that threat is intimidating. Why are we sacrificing our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly, ostensibly, to "defend our freedoms against terrorists" (according to this Administration)? This is the same kind of logic that McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover used in the 1950s and 1960s during the Red and Lavender Scares and during the Vietnam War. Freedoms do not come without risks. We may well be less "secure" than we were before 2001, but the world, life itself, is never perfectly safe or secure. We take risks every day, if we are trying to live fully. And that means we must continue to take the risk of free speech and free assembly without government interference and intimidation. That, it seems to me at least, is fundamental to what democracy means in this country.

• Let's not panic either way
• Posted by Larry on July 20, 2006 at 11:00am EDT

• You will note that the ACLU is currently not alleging that anyone’s freedom of assembly or speech was actually violated.

  It is rather silly to take a quote from an “assistant professor of homeland security”(an undergraduate program) on whether someone else’s civil liberties were violated. While Mr. Parish has long record of service to the country as a Marine, he lacks a law degree. Indeed, seeing that the ACLU's position is “we have more questions” and his response is “it is obvious that you are wrong” he looks a tad clown-like. Mr. Parish was also the former “Acting Associate Director for Homeland Security, Terrorist Threat Integration Center” at DHS.

• Posted by abby on July 20, 2006 at 11:00am EDT

• We are seeing a dangerous reprisal of COINTELPRO and spying on young Central American activists in the 80s. It is time for University presidents to speak out as a group and demand that Congress stop this. The federal bureaucracy is predisposed to this wacky confusion about terrorism, and the FBI has shifted its structure post-9/11 to redeploy resources to "counter intelligence." They need something to do and justify their organizational innovation and money. Domestic spying can only be stopped with enormous publicity and effort.

  Gee, the ACLU also found they are spying on the Quakers in AFSC too, Greenpeace and the Steelworkers. What judgment!

• BS
• Posted by Don't be fooled on July 20, 2006 at 11:05am EDT

• It's unfortunate many in higher ed. still think like Belle and actually believe the administration's BS about 9/11 and "those terrorists" who came into the US on student visas. 9/11 was an inside job, period. The evidence is overwhelming if one just stops to take a closer look. Belle and all others not offended by the government spying on students are the reason why US society will soon see our cherished civil liberties as a nostalgic memory of the time before our country was co-opted by the TRAITORS running "our" government.

• Sincere Regret
• Posted by Belle on July 20, 2006 at 11:05am EDT

• "Unlike Belle who seems to have succumbed to the paranoid rhetoric of the Bush Administration in the so-called “war on terror,”

  I sincerely regret that people cannot refrain from personal insults. They are not productive.

  As for Benjamin Franklin's quote, he would be the first to recognize necessary limits to freedom (George III was certainly not free to prey on the colonies). That recognition would not imply sacrificing security for freedom; rather, it would affirm and distinguish it from anarchy and mayhem. We are free to assemble and speak freely only because terrorists are limited in their "freedom" to slaughter thousands of innocents at a time. In utopia, no concern about student assemblies would be necessary, but since in the real world terrorists have repeatedly abused student status to organize slaughter, it is suicidal to ignore that fact.

• civility ?
• Posted by Larry on July 20, 2006 at 12:45pm EDT

• Hoosier, If you are around, can you tell me how one should respond to Don’t Be Fooled’s Comments. At first I wrote a sarcastic response. Then I wrote an angry one. Now, I think maybe you could help me out and tell me how to civilly respond to a comment like DBF’s. Assume for the sake of argument that not only think that Arab terrorists were behind 9/11, but I am unconvinced by an argument that uses terms like “period” to make its point.

• clarification from Belle needed
• Posted by Larry on July 20, 2006 at 1:20pm EDT

• Belle, I read your post a few times, and I am curious. First of all, nobody asserts that terrorists have a right to kill anyone. Indeed, the constitution, which many see as recognizing pre-existing rights of man, has never been interpreted to provide a right to undertake any sort of holy war. It does, however, guarantee a right to express onself, assemble, worship, and print stupid things.

  Are you saying that it is time to revisit the concepts of freedom embodied in the constitution. If so, I am with you. I don’t think, for instance, that people should have a right to bear arms, nor do I think that people should be able to go to a church that isn’t approved by the government. All of these things have been shown to be dangerous. Perhaps we can advance the conversation if you explain which constitutional rights should be eliminated, and who should make that judgement. It has been almost five years since 9/11, and there has been no serious attempts to amend the constitution in any ways that you speak of. Instead, the only serious proposed changes to the constitution involve gay marriage and flag-burning (both of which failed.)

  Or, are you saying that Art. V is inadequate, and that Congress or the executive or the courts should not be bound by the constitution because it is outdated. I am very curious to hear your views on this issue.

• Response to Larry
• Posted by DBF on July 20, 2006 at 5:30pm EDT

• - The evidence is in, the analyses have been made, and conclusions have been drawn by scientists, engineers and other experts: the so-called terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were faked. There is, moreover, independent evidence from multiple and credible sources that Al Qaeda is the creation of western intelligence agencies.

  If you have any questions concerning these assertions, visit http://www.physics911.net

  The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven has formed around this website. The Panel consists of over thirty experts in the fields of science, engineering, architecture, intelligence, the military, medicine, Islamic studies and other disciplines. The members are willing to stand up and be counted, even the ones with the highest public profiles. You will find them listed on this page: http://physics911.net/spine.htm.

  Also, try taking a look at
  http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

  Respectfully yours in solidarity,
  DBF

• Posted by Hoosier Prof on July 20, 2006 at 5:55pm EDT

• Larry -- Do you have to respond to DBF? I think s/he is getting us off-track so I recommend ignoring him/her simply because the post is not germane to this discussion.

  But if you must, you could try any of the following: (1) You could decide the SPINE conspiracy theorists are nutso and ignore them (my initial reaction), (2) you could decide they are nutso and tell them so (but not my recommended course of action since it violates my code of civility); or (3) you could ask yourself how anyone could come up with ideas so different than your own, marvel for a moment how it takes all kinds to make a world, and wonder at how dull a world would be where we all thought alike. Then you could visit the websites, expand your mind, learn something new, and decide for yourself whether the evidence is compelling. I did, and I'm not convinced, but I still respect them for speaking out. After all, that WAS what this discussion was about, right? Free speech??

• Posted by Larry on July 21, 2006 at 7:30am EDT

• Hoosier, See, on one hand, we can ignore folks like this. It makes sense. It is a fair bet that this person is not an academic or even a professional. On the other hand, a failure to address their arguments means that somehow some academics’ ideas have less value than others, and should be dismissed out of hand. Complicating this issue is the fact that this conspiracy theory is now championed by a few people with at least some academic credentials (not that this make them smart.)

  So, the only thing that people have to do is call conspiracy-theorists nuts. It acknowledges their presence, but doesn’t give them a platform to engage in “dialogue” which is really nothing more than just repeating the same mantras over and over.

  (I think it is cute, however, when she says that the “evidence” is in and the “analysis” is “done.” The references to URLs is sort of clichéd by now.)

• Posted by Hoosier Prof on July 21, 2006 at 9:30am EDT

• Boy, Larry, if you have the time to tilt at that many windmills, then by all means challenge their premises. Just do it politely. Miss Manners would probably say that a simple statement would suffice such as "your 'evidence' does not meet my definition of evidence, so we will have to agree to disagree."

  And to be honest with you (and with myself), I don't see how calling anyone "nuts" accomplishes much of anything. It's tempting to do so because it gives us license to ignore ideas we don't easily accept. Thus getting us off the hook from actually taking the time and effort to explore new ideas and to try to see the world differently.

  To put it another way, why would anyone expect everyone else to think the same way as he does? I see a lot of posts that clearly don't accept even this first simple premise. But when we are willing to acknowledge that there are differences of opinion, it's a simple step of logic to remind ourselves that surely WE cannot be the only sane, rational people in the world, and everyone else is nuts.

• Posted by Hoosier Prof on July 21, 2006 at 9:30am EDT

• ... and you make another interesting point about the efficacy of debating someone who "just repeats the same mantras over and over." I hear you. I get equally tired of engaging someone in a discussion, to be met instead with some version of "yo mama." I expect a lot of the mud-slinging that goes on in IHE is led by people who don't understand how to debate (much less how to be polite). But after a year of reading IHE, I've figured out who some of the worst offenders are, and they definitely get ignored.