(no subject)

[pearwaldorf]

No-fly list targets anti-war activists

After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that they were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports.

The list had been kept secret until its disclosure last week by the new US agency in charge of aviation safety, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). And it is entirely separate from the relatively well-publicised "no-fly" list, which covers about 1,000 people believed to have criminal or terrorist ties that could endanger the safety of their fellow passengers.

*is torn between hiding in corner and rocking back and forth or taking napalm to the streets of DC*

I really shouldn't read the news anymore. It's not good for my health.

Comments

[lordcorvy.livejournal.com]

Oh, come, how many anti-war activists are really anarchists at heart, and revel in disrupting the peace? This news is not that bad once you consider the damaging effect of so-called "peace activists".

[sonatine.livejournal.com]

And how exactly are a bunch of anarchist activists going to disrupt the peace more than a crowd of armed policemen and National Guards? I don't know if it's different in Australia, but not all protestors here are interested in facing off with the police. Those who do usually make themselves known with separate rallies, mostly because they don't want to be associated with those who aren't willing to bang some heads. I find your comment more than a little bit condescending and presumptuous, especially when you have no idea of the type of people who are on the list. Not that I do either, but to presume that the majority of them are actively interested in something more than a peaceful protest makes you no better than this paranoid slapdash administration of a government.

[lordcorvy.livejournal.com]

Ah, really? Well if these people's names were indeed on a list, they'd be on the list for a reason. And, after admitting you have no idea what kind of people are on that list, your original post is no less presumptuous as mine, with the "*is torn between hiding in corner and rocking back and forth or taking napalm to the streets of DC* thing.

In Australia, a large group of peace activists broke away from a peaceful protest and went on a rampage in Sydney, vandalising houses, war memorials and even a church! That is how I justify my view, and that just might be the reason for the prevalence of armed policemen and National Guard.

I also never said the majority of activists are interested in anything more than a peaceful protest. But you must admit, some do exist. Maybe even a thousand, which isn't much once you consider how many people took part in the protests. If I had to guess, the source of this list of names would have come from prior arrests, although I can't be certain. It had to come from somewhere.

[lordcorvy.livejournal.com]

Ah, reading the article again, I see that two of the activists on the list claim to have never been arrested. Still, the rest of the list had to come from somewhere. If they were trying to stop people from protesting, a list that is "possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long" is a pretty half-arsed attempt, considering the extent of the protests.