Documents reveal FBI surveillance of Kerry in early 1970s

[Gustaf]

Where are the usual Democratic suspects posting to defend Kerry in this thread???

You're asking for it, I...ehhh...I didn't really have the energy tor read the whole thing, but it seems pretty non-story for me, basically.

1. Yes.

2. It, as far as I can see, says meeting, not meetings...there's no indication of how serious it actually was...

3. This is done before the meeting in question, right?

4. Yeah...?

IF they had been systematically advocating violence, it would've been another thing, but under the circumstances...anyway, Nixon and threats...you know...

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

You're just playing devil's advocate. The meeting in question was the final straw which made Kerry quit. There were actually NUMEROUS examples of members of this group advocating politically-based murders of US officials. Fortunately, the FBI did have them under surveillance before Kerry's departure, plus they had them infiltrated with undercover agents.

So you say it's only proper for them to be under surveillance if they were "systematically" advocating violence??? So announcing your intention to overthrow the government of the US is not enough to get them on the FBI list???

I usually play devil's advocate, it's one of my cahracteristics...

I didn't see any numerous examples getting states in the article, but if you say so, then it's different.

And I do think that if one, or a few, members make the odd statement about overthrowing the government, which is often not seriously meant anyway, then it isn't that a big deal to get under FBI surveillance. Of course it would have to be case-by-case, but I think you know what I mean. But I really don't know much details about this movement, so I'm not really taking a stand or anything. But from what was in the article it didn't seem like such a big deal to me...a lot of prominent Swedes were registered by a secret police, who's whole operations and almost existence was secret, as Communists during the Cold War. It was a big fuss as the time, but not really a big issue today.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

OK. Let me engage in a hypothetical here. Let's keep the same fact pattern, but replace Vietnam Veterans Against the War with the White People's Militia of Missouri, and replace John Kerry with George Bush. Would you and other Democrats still be as dismissive??? The answer is NO WAY...and you know it.

No, of course not...if we're assuming this article topic being the news, the WHOLE topic would be new. Everyone already know about Kerry beig part of the VVAW, so this story isn't that interesting in light of that.

But I'll readily admit that the 'White People's Militia of Missouri' would be worse to me than the VVAW...

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

Nice...so you admit that it's OK for Vietnam Veterans Against the War to advocate murdering the President of the United States, but it would bother you if a racist organization wanted to murder the President??? Nice consistent values there kid....perhaps I misjudged you in prior comments...perhaps you DO belong in the Democratic Party. You have their power to rationalize ANYTHING that suits your political views...


Angus,

I'm not working right now!!! I took off time to be with the baby.

That wasn't my point at all and I thought you'd notice...if we're talkng strictly about murdering the president I don't make a differece. I just pointed out that I did see a difference in an organization that by the name you gave it sounds like a KKK organization and VVAW. That's all.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

I picked my example for a reason, to illustrate the inconsistency in defending an organization which advocated the muder of prominent government officials. So did I misunderstand what you said? Would you treat the Vietnam Veterans Against the War members exactly the same as the White Militia Group if both groups advocated killing the President?

In that regard, yes I would. My only point was that I would probably view membership in a militant racist group with KKK-characteristics somewhat differently than membership in the VVAW.

As I said, it would have to be on a case-by-case basis when it comes to evalutaing threats.

[Gustaf]

Where are the usual Democratic suspects posting to defend Kerry in this thread???

Some parts of this seem too good to be true.  "He looks like Kennedy and talks like him, too".  Come on, give me a break.  Your reading into this wrong MarkDel, the Dems will love this, they won't see any need to defend it.

He looks like Kennedy? No
He talks like Kennedy? No

Whoever said that has no credibility in my eyes lol.

Yes it is wrong to discuss the assassination of leading US officials, although it says Kerry strongly opposed that. Also, I think, although I could be wrong, former US presidents and probably the current have held meetings in which they discussed the assassination of world leaders.......

Yes, but those weren't Americans, so they don't count, silly.