›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Food Not Bombs

lifecirclelifecircle
edited March 2012 in Politics
I did not hear about these people until i read a recent article on US domestic terrorism.

Domestic Terrorism...describing people who advocate less wastage, the right to not go hungry, and social advancement. At that point i simply threw up my hands in the air at the sheer ridiculousness of it all and sighed long and hard. It was one of those: "humanity i am disappoint" moments for me.

I cannot believe this, its sickening to me, that people are arrested, and resources spent on said arrests and unjust detainment and harassment. If you tell me that these people actually were domestically violent like PETA, i would have understood. These guys hand out fruit salad.

And the FBI and other police agencies actually infiltrated their offices and gatherings, actively encouraging violence from within to give them an excuse at arrest. I find this statement particularly horrifying, which i took from their main website and have double checked with official news sources online:

"In what appears to be the first use of criminal charges under the 2002 Minnesota version of the Federal Patriot Act, Ramsey County Prosecutors have formally charged 8 alleged leaders of the RNC Welcoming Committee and Food Not Bombs with Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism. Monica Bicking, Eryn Trimmer, Luce Guillen Givins, Erik Oseland, Nathanael Secor, Robert Czernik, Garrett Fitzgerald, and Max Spector, face up to 7 1/2 years in prison under the terrorism enhancement charge which allows for a 50% increase in the maximum penalty."

IN FURTHERANCE OF TERRORISM. REALLY??

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ramsey-county-charges-nonviolent-food-not-bombs-volunteers-under-minnesota-version-of-usapatriot-act-alleges-acts-of-terrorism.html

My heart goes out to these people, and im not even american.

Im scratching my head over why there is such a backlash. Is it because America does not want its social structures to look deeper at itself, realize that less wastage and a more peaceful, socially advancing mindset is possible. Is the military worried that a less emphasis on playing the "Big brother" to the world, and a more socially consciouss and peaceful citizenry would mean the start of the end of their power? Is it the american political climate post 9/11, where any sort of notion that war and military might should not be the focus in this age, be considered acts of potential "terrorism"?

Or i may be talking out of my ass till now, and an actual american may inform me of my ignorance. I do hope so.




Comments

  • GregGreg
    edited March 2012
    Conspiracy to do anything is a bullshit crime. Remember back in the good old days, when you could have 150 people testify as saying you were conspiring with the Brits to form a new country just north of Mexico and the courts would find you innocent on the basis of unsubstantial evidence (Burr conspiracy. I have a source but now I can't find it and Wikiped is down)? Now we get bullshit rulings on bullshit crimes. I say we revolt; not because I will, but because saying so could make me a martyr and someone else will.

    EDIT: Wikiped isn't down, just having internet trouble of the strangest variety. You can check the article yourself.
    Post edited by Greg on
  • johndisjohndis
    edited March 2012
    Im scratching my head over why there is such a backlash. Is it because America does not want its social structures to look deeper at itself, realize that less wastage and a more peaceful, socially advancing mindset is possible. Is the military worried that a less emphasis on playing the "Big brother" to the world, and a more socially consciouss and peaceful citizenry would mean the start of the end of their power? Is it the american political climate post 9/11, where any sort of notion that war and military might should not be the focus in this age, be considered acts of potential "terrorism"?
    The entire world is pretty much a plutocracy, and has been that way basically since human civ got post-tribal. It has a lot of iterations within different kinds of economies and governments, but the people who control the wealth and resources just run shit however it suits them. It's never not this way on a large scale afaik. The domestic terrorism thing is moreso a restructuring of rhetoric, and not so much mentality. PLutocracies have always hunted down people who threaten their established order and power, 9/11 just allowed politicians to change the "reasoning," which is realistically just an excuse. Think of the reasons as a means to an end; the end mostly stays the same, but the means change when a better one comes along.

    Interestingly enough, I would also say that this power structure coupled with globalization might lead to world peace (or rather, no more large scale war fare) anyhow. There's not much reason to invade another country when your economies are pretty tightly wound together. That's why most recent war-like activity from America has been focused on the middle east, however, OPEC doesnt act in our plutocracy's best interests.

    But yeah, I do think that in the future, taking any aggressive action towards another country will be considered a bad move. I could see a lot more espionage and economic "war," but having literal governemtnal control over another nation could be less desirable than having access to their people and resources via cooperation. Like think of how much better it is for US companies to have manufacturing located in countries with looser human rights legislation. Think of US-China relations as an example of a post-total-globalization world. More passive-agressive than just straight up agressive, with both countries' leadership and powerful citizens reaping more reward than any full fledged war ever brought about (all with less risk).
    Post edited by johndis on
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    It is bullshit, that's entrapment if the FBI moles were the ones suggesting violence, and even if they were planning a protest I expect it was going to be as peaceful as one can get. My heart's out to them too, but by this point I have no confidence in our justice system.
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    edited March 2012
    How could an organization with a banner this bitching be commiting terrorism:
    image
    Answer me, Washington!
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • NeitoNeito
    It is bullshit, that's entrapment if the FBI moles were the ones suggesting violence
    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Entrapment is a very, very specific defense.
    In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
    Emphasis mine.
  • ChurbaChurba
    Agent provocateur : not just a brand of Lingerie.
  • NeitoNeito
    Agent provocateur : not just a brand of Lingerie.
    We should make a line of spy-themed lingerie named Agent Provocateur.
  • ChurbaChurba
    Agent provocateur : not just a brand of Lingerie.
    We should make a line of spy-themed lingerie named Agent Provocateur.
    I'm pretty sure that the actual Agent Provocateur lingerie would sue us till we went blind.

  • NeitoNeito
    Huh. Didn't know that was a thing.
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    It is bullshit, that's entrapment if the FBI moles were the ones suggesting violence
    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Entrapment is a very, very specific defense.
    In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
    Emphasis mine.
    Just means that they have to prove they were not ready and willing to break the law, or rather, the prosecution has to prove that they were.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    As someone who has both worked with and taken advantage of Food Not Bombs on different occasions, this is just disgusting.
  • lifecirclelifecircle
    As someone who has both worked with and taken advantage of Food Not Bombs on different occasions, this is just disgusting.
    Its becoming readily apparent for some time that the word "terrorism" has become a catch all phrase by the western authorities against groups with supposed "questionable political agendas"

    And what better way to tap the collective citizenry's fear and anger towards 9/11. The authorities just have to point at a group and call them "in league with terrorists" to elicit a visceral reaction from the public, its especially dangerous if said public does not bother to dig further and simply trust in the authorial and judiciary system, since hey, thats what citizens are supposed to do are they not?

    Quoted from Keith McHenry, the FNB cofounder on the main site

    "I have lived under very intense government and corporate scrutiny for much of the past 30 years. When you are first aware that you have been the target of an intelligence operation it can be unsettling. Over time you will become accustom to the attention and develop a philosophy. Since you can not hide or have any secrets you will find that you must always seek to be as honest as possible and only take actions you can be proud of. While you may believe you know who the informants are it is best not to make any public accusations to their employment but be prepared to limit their destructive behavior. Any suggestions of violence should be loudly objected to while suggesting they are involved with the wrong organization. The most important thing is to continue with our work. If they frighten you into quitting they have succeeded. The struggle to bring democracy, a safe environment and a sustainable future is so important we must stay focused on our good works. We also need to figure out how to remove the threat of covert activity to disrupt our ability to build a positive society."

    I wish America as a whole all the luck it can find in the future. However 9/11 has been too scarring perhaps on Her political landscape, and has forced the populace away from social agendas and human advancement. I cant back that statement as concretely as i could or should, but articles like FNB's story is pretty telling of a wider undercurrent of deep political control and fear
  • GregGreg
    For the record, Hunter S Thompson saw this all coming. Under a week after 9/11 he was writing about how there was going to be a whole shit-storm and America would be permanently worsened for it. That being said, he became a Truther and now they're saying he committed suicide because government was trying to shut him up.
  • highdefinitionhighdefinition
    As someone who has both worked with and taken advantage of Food Not Bombs on different occasions, this is just disgusting.
    Its becoming readily apparent for some time that the word "terrorism" has become a catch all phrase by the western authorities against groups with supposed "questionable political agendas"

    And what better way to tap the collective citizenry's fear and anger towards 9/11. The authorities just have to point at a group and call them "in league with terrorists" to elicit a visceral reaction from the public, its especially dangerous if said public does not bother to dig further and simply trust in the authorial and judiciary system, since hey, thats what citizens are supposed to do are they not?
    In conversations about "terrorists" i exclusively use the words "enemy combatants"
Sign In or Register to comment.