DEA Authorized To Conduct Surveillance On Protesters (buzzfeednews.com) 186
An anonymous reader quotes a report from BuzzFeed News: The Drug Enforcement Administration has been granted sweeping new authority to "conduct covert surveillance" and collect intelligence on people participating in protests over the police killing of George Floyd, according to a two-page memorandum obtained by BuzzFeed News. Floyd's death "has spawned widespread protests across the nation, which, in some instances, have included violence and looting," said the DEA memo. "Police agencies in certain areas of the country have struggled to maintain and/or restore order." The memo requests the extraordinary powers on a temporary basis, and on Sunday afternoon a senior Justice Department official signed off.
The DEA is limited by statute to enforcing drug related federal crimes. But on Sunday, Timothy Shea, a former US Attorney and close confidant of Barr who was named acting administrator of the DEA last month, received approval from Associate Deputy Attorney General G. Bradley Weinsheimer to go beyond the agency's mandate "to perform other law enforcement duties" that Barr may "deem appropriate." In addition to "covert surveillance," the memo indicates that DEA agents would be authorized to share intelligence with local and state law enforcement authorities, to "intervene" to "protect both participants and spectators in the protests," and to conduct interviews and searches, and arrest protesters who are alleged to have violated federal law. Here's why Shea says the agency should be granted extraordinary latitude: "In order for DEA to assist to the maximum extent possible in the federal law enforcement response to protests which devolve into violations of federal law, DEA requests that it be designated to enforce any federal crime committed as a result of protests over the death of George Floyd," Shea wrote in the memo. "DEA requests this authority on a nationwide basis for a period of fourteen days."
The DEA is limited by statute to enforcing drug related federal crimes. But on Sunday, Timothy Shea, a former US Attorney and close confidant of Barr who was named acting administrator of the DEA last month, received approval from Associate Deputy Attorney General G. Bradley Weinsheimer to go beyond the agency's mandate "to perform other law enforcement duties" that Barr may "deem appropriate." In addition to "covert surveillance," the memo indicates that DEA agents would be authorized to share intelligence with local and state law enforcement authorities, to "intervene" to "protect both participants and spectators in the protests," and to conduct interviews and searches, and arrest protesters who are alleged to have violated federal law. Here's why Shea says the agency should be granted extraordinary latitude: "In order for DEA to assist to the maximum extent possible in the federal law enforcement response to protests which devolve into violations of federal law, DEA requests that it be designated to enforce any federal crime committed as a result of protests over the death of George Floyd," Shea wrote in the memo. "DEA requests this authority on a nationwide basis for a period of fourteen days."
Temporary and government (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing is temporary for the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why's it gotta be the DEA?
Because that's the primary domestic slave catcher arm of the government. You know, because 4 police officers killing a black a black man requires the government to look tough, and get tough on those slaves out in the streets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
JMP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is slashdot. Half of us know how amplifiers work.
When it goes to 11, you're over-driving it. Gain control is not a volume control. That's why you're confused; you think it is volume that goes to 11. It isn't. It is the gain.
And 10 is determined by the level of distortion. It is arbitrary that 10 is the highest gain with less than a defined level of distortion, but once you've decided that is what 10 means, then 11 is not arbitrary, it has clear technical meaning.
You're just repeating something really s
wow... (Score:3)
Whooooosh!
Re: (Score:2)
mobilize the fake news and undercover agitators
LOL. I read this as undercover alligators at first. They might be effective at reducing the population as well :)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the police officers - one of which has already been arrested and charged? No, it's because protesters allowed their ranks to be infiltrated by anarchists and thugs who destroy property and kill people. Riots are typically suppressed quite strongly; protests, not so much.
It's the difference between the Black Panthers (militant terrorist group) and Martin Luther King Jr (law-abiding protestor). People have the freedom of expression, but that freedom ends when they start breaking laws. It's legal for you to burn an LGBTQ+ flag which you bought, but against the law to burn a flag you stole. It's legal to march on public property with signs protesting just about anything, but illegal to threaten people or destroy property.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Temporary and government (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, it's apparently ok to use tear gas and rubber bullets to drive members of the clergy off private property belonging to their church and then march onto that private property without permission to get a cheesy photo op. That's ok, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it's apparently ok to use tear gas and rubber bullets to drive members of the clergy off private property belonging to their church and then march onto that private property without permission to get a cheesy photo op. That's ok, right?
Tear gas was not used in that incident, FYI. Just smoke [nps.gov]. If you watch the videos it's clearly not affecting the demonstrators the way tear gas does.
Re: (Score:3)
I think everyone should see the photo in question, that people were forcibly removed to take:
https://www.wmagazine.com/wp-c... [wmagazine.com]
Reverend Trump wants you to know he's the most Christlike. The best Bibles, he's got 'em. I just find it a bit strange he never talked about Jesus before he was running for office.
Re: (Score:2)
The Black Panthers were militant, but they weren't a terrorist group by any measure.
Martin Luther King Jr. was an advocate for peace, but he didn't always abide by laws when he was protesting.
Re: (Score:3)
And people frequently forget many of the peaceful marches and protests led my MLK and others during the civil rights era were met with disproportionate police violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Most don't forget that. They acknowledge that from record and are glad that it's not like that anymore.
What a few people do is make false analogies between heavily reported contemporary edge cases with the blatantly unethical historical responses of 60 years ago and keep claiming that it's never been worse and the sky is falling.
I like MLK, from what I've read of his. He treated humanity as an entity, bound by ethical considerations and was pretty spot on about those ethics.
What I didn't like, but accepte
Re: (Score:3)
You use the past tense but they're still around.
They're still a lawful fraternal organization.
That's why they're still around.
And the complete 100% lack of illegal activity on their part is why you didn't even realize that they're still active.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Here is some video that includes the Black Panthers at protests this week. Black supporters, white supporters.
I'd feel safer with the Black Panthers patrolling my neighborhood. Here they are stopping white morons from rioting. They don
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the difference between the Black Panthers (militant terrorist group)
100% of the reason you just falsely called them terrorists is that they are black and exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
Your hood is crooked, too.
Re:Temporary and government (Score:5, Insightful)
"Allowed their ranks to be infiltrated"?
Did you even watch the riots in Minneapolis?
You make it sound like these were top-down organized protests with some organization actually running the whole thing on ground and in perfect control. The problem was it was spontaneous and with essentially no organization or control. There wasn't anything stopping people (like the mysterious umbrella man) from just showing up and conducting their own burn, loot, pillage agenda.
As the week wore on in Minneapolis, I think the protests became more actually organized in terms of some kind of leadership and a very real acknowledgement that they were being used as cover by outside agitators to pursue their own agenda of destruction. I've read a lot of social media (since it hasn't been directly reported much if at all) where protesters were actively resisting people trying to perform criminal destruction and looting.
I think this has actually contributed a lot to the protests since then becoming a lot less violent, in addition to the curfews, which have prevented unorganized protests after dark, denying looters and arsonists the crowd coverage and confusion in the dark to burn buildings down.
Re: Temporary and government (Score:2)
No, it's because protesters allowed their ranks to be infiltrated by anarchists and thugs who destroy property and kill people.
Oh, like all the white supremacists groups that were allowed to operate with minimal to no opposition for generations now? Or maybe "heroes" like Dylan Roof? You know that "lone wolf" that behaved like the other dozen or so psychotic white shooters?
Shit, maybe you're talking about the white men stomping around Flint recently with zero police action. You know, the ones with rifles sl
Re: (Score:2)
That's an extremely racist rant. -1 racist. -1 sexist.
Re: (Score:2)
Liar liar, hood on fire.
Re: (Score:3)
Now I can understand increased surveillance (but I would say on both the police and the protesters), as when things settle down. We are going to need to figure out who where the innocent folks. Peaceful protesters, Cops trying to keep people safe. And the trouble makers, Violent protesters or other fringe groups trying to make the protesters look worse, police who are being brutal towards citizens.
This is going to take a long time to clean up.
However when you say Temporary, you are going to need to give
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably unwise to try to prosecute people who anything but the most serious crimes (like murder) over these riots. It will just be seen as the cops getting their revenge.
It's a shitty situation but right now it needs to be de-escalated and the issues addressed, not inflamed by adding surveillance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prosecuting rioters is an obligation to the hundreds of millions of Americans that are not rioting, burning, vandalizing, looting, and attacking people.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people felt that way about crimes committed by the IRA and other groups involved The Troubles. Also in South Africa after apartheid ended, and in East Germany after the USSR fell...
It's a difficult call to make but sometimes the decision is made that the system was at fault and there isn't much to be gained by going after the individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing like any of those situations.
The system is not at fault. Shitty management is at fault.
It's just like legions of issues where enforcement of rules and regulations are ignored only to have something worse happen later. Case in point is this cop who had 18 instances of excessive violence complaints. Amy Klobucher had an opportunity to charge and prosecute this cop and declined.
People don't do their fucking jobs and everyone pays for it later.
Re: Temporary and government (Score:2)
The system that aided and abetted institutionalized racism is absolutely at fault. Saying it's something else is just more smoke from burning bullshit. Please stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so we'll rebel against positive discrimination and such. That's pretty much institutionalised racism. That fit what you imagined?
Re: (Score:2)
The system isn't broken.
There's a record of violence in this guy's history. He could (and probably should) have been taken off the street before this, so it's a failing in management at that point.
When he stepped so far over the line that there was no option but to come down hard, I believe the charges that are going against him are manslaughter, which is correct (as far as I can tell, and as far as could be legally proven). And from everything I hear, that charge is very unlikely to not stick.
As an ex-co
Re: (Score:2)
Prosecuting rioters
Good luck, almost none of the people arrested were rioting, and the behavior of the cops will make it pretty hard to get any evidence admitted. Fruit of the poison tree, nearly all of it.
Re: (Score:3)
FYI, the Brits got rid of slavery long before the American Civil War, not to mention the decades of abuse and oppression that White Southerners heaped on Black people since then.
One of the root causes of police brutality to minorities came from brutal practices from the American South, and was spread across the entire country by DEA practices under Anslinger
But sure, try and trump it up and blame others while fanning the flames of division
Re: (Score:2)
This is not really true. They got rid of local slave markets, but they still recognized slave contracts from other places as being valid.
Some revisionist assholes will claim that slaves were free on entering England, but that is a total lie; that only applied to slaves who had been enslaved unlawfully inside England.
Re:Temporary and government (Score:4, Informative)
They got rid of it about 20 years before the US. Right around 1835-1840, I believe?
Not exactly. By the end of the 12th Century, chattel slavery disappeared in Britain. Of course they became serfs and the last of the very few remaining serfs were free by Elizabeth I in the 1570s. There's a bunch of murky legal precedent going in both directions for slaves brought into the country from outside.
By the late 1700s it was established that any slave became free on entry to England. Based on that a similar case was brought in Scotland with the same results.
There were two acts which ablolished the slave trade, in the early 1800s and slavery in the empire by the mid 1800s. By the early 1800s, the Royal Navy was actively fighting against the slave trade, including interception of American vessels.
VAST majority of slaves in the US were brought over by the English, when we were still an English colony.
The history of the US is much more complicated than "was a British colony then wasn't".
It doesn't surprise me that your view of things is wildly simplistic though, dividing the world into "goodies" and "baddies". I have no particular horse in this race. My ancestors were busy being oppressed elsewhere at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So the UK actually had some slavery past some of the US.
The UK? No. Some parts of the British Empire, yes. And during that time, the Royal Navy was intercepting American slave ships and freeing the slaves. So you know neither side really has it's nose clean.
And they're the ones that set it up in the original colonies.
Texas was never under British rule...
As far as ancestors, mine were under British (or Austrian) thumbs until the 1920s, when they came to the US.
And you're still sore about it it seems. By t
Re: (Score:2)
It is also worth pointing out that, since there was no mass media, most people in the UK would not have known anything about slavery whatsoever. And when they found out, the an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Temporary and government (Score:2)
Can we be done with this herring now? It's my least favorite fish, especially the red variety. Always trying to make the water murky so you can't see a damn thing...
Re: (Score:2)
Shea wrote in the memo. "DEA requests this authority on a nationwide basis for a period of fourteen days."
Emphasis added.
Re: (Score:2)
You are making assumptions about intentions that I find, at best, dubious and contradicted by a long prior history. The records can be expected to be manipulated to exonerate most of the police actions. And a most of the infiltrators will also escape either identification or punishment. If one can track them down, many will turn out to be agents for some arm of the government or other...at least it's often happened that way in the past. I'll admit that this time there may be a lot more free-lancers...an
Re: (Score:2)
Things are different, though. You can't only use history for that part, because there were never so many cameras. And facial recognition technology continues to improve; it may be that many people photographed now will be identified in the future.
Corrupt government (Score:2, Insightful)
Just another act of a very corrupt government
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. This probably won't stand up to a court challenge, but the time it will take for it to move through the courts is enough time for them to shift the narrative to, "We've been doing this for so long....congress might as well make it legal."
Not His to Give (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless that same statute that limits the DEA's authority also allows this type of expansion, Associate Deputy Attorney General G. Bradley Weinsheimer doesn't have the authority to grant this authority.
Re:Not His to Give (Score:4, Interesting)
That's okay - the federal government doesn't have the authority to ban drugs in the first place (except for interstate commerce), but that hasn't stopped them either.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to enforce the law, you have to break it.
I am so glad, (Score:3)
that I don't live in the States. But I wish to hell that I didn't live right next door.
I also wish the sensible, level-headed people who live there weren't being subjected to the lunacy currently unfolding. My condolences, and best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs (Score:2)
I figure the protesters have a lot of drugs. So this makes sense.
FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have too many three letter agencies as is and I can't see a good reason to expand their authority or scope either.
Re:FBI (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't the FBI already responsible for investigating and otherwise dealing with federal crimes, so is there some particular reason that the DEA needs to be dragged into this?
They are bringing in the DEA because they have access to drones, helicopters, and other aviation assets. They've already pulled a bunch of CBP agents to help with the protests as well. The FBI has helicopters, but those are meant more for tactical situations rather than surveillance, with DEA has surveillance aircraft since that is a big part of their duties.
+1 (Score:4, Insightful)
The FBI has tactical units, but they are geared toward small manhunt-style operations. When they are involved in larger operations they call in local police or national guard for backup.
The DEA has large tactical units meant to break up large drug operations. Watch Youtube videos of DEA drug busts - they have a LOT of officers in armor.
So if your goal is crowd control, the DEA is better equipped.
Of course, this goes way out of their pervue, and is most likely unconstitutional. It's the state's job to handle civil unrest, unless a state government specifically calls for federal backup.
I'll be great when (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot can go back to reporting on local American news rather than 3rd world authoritarian shithole nations who suppress protestors with government force.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying either side of politics isn't filled with retards? Oh man you Americans are hilarious..
Re: I'll be great when (Score:2)
Agreed.
They've got people convinced that there's only two "teams" and the other "team" is where all the "bad" people are. Add in willful ignorance that gets rewarded and racism, you got yourself a election winner.
There's a few of us still here who think there are other solutions, but Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner by having a vote.
Why don't they assign the DEA (Score:5, Insightful)
to investigate police brutality claims instead? It doesn't seem like anyone is interested in doing that.
Protesters should be free to protest. Peacefully.
Rioters and looters should be identified, detained, and charged appropriately.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why don't they assign the DEA (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't even need to justify it any more. A lot of it is getting caught on camera and none of those responsible will be prosecuted. This is exactly what the protesters are angry about, there is almost zero accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of accountability overall.
What is happening though is that there is context put into account. If you have the police as a touchy feely group, they'll never be able to catch the real bad guys (just the token ones).
If you have the police too tough so that they're really good at capturing the real bad guys, you'll be hiring people who are really too brutal to be truly effective at protecting the civilian population (which they're tasked to do).
What many of the people seem to be saying is "Protec
Drones (Score:2)
DEA has drones, that's the basic reason I suspect.
There aren't enough DEA agents vs FBI or other agencies to meaningfully change the dynamic, but they do have a lot of drones. So I imagine the real goal here is to get around pesky surveillance rules. Particularly after the blowback from using ICE drones in Minnesota.
Oh good (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh good, the Drug Enforcement Agency https://www.dea.gov/about [dea.gov] is being tasked with watching protesters. I mean, who really cares about the opioid epidemic anyways, right?
This just seems stupid to me. The FBI and likely one or two other massive government agencies already do this and if they need help doing this then the DEA can lend them help and resources. I mean, by the time the DEA reorients itself to this completely different objective from their chartered purpose the protests will be over.
I'm not one for conspiracy but if there was ever a situation calling for government creep conspiracies this would be it. Course most of the people who spin those are Trump fans and so far loyalty to the Trump cult has eclipsed (no, I won't use a "Trump" pun) loyalty to conservative ideals (at least the non-social ones)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oh good (Score:2)
Mmmhmm...
How's that "FREEDUMB" act they 'temporarily' passed 19 fucking years ago working for you? Feel safer yet?
Nope, because of you did all that money going to the ruling class would dry up! Can't have that!
So is it Eastasia or Eurasia that we're at way with today? Oh sorry, the Three Minute Hate is on Fox news and CNN, gotta go before someone reports me to the thought police!
#BrotherTrumpLovesYou
Re: Oh good (Score:2)
I hate autocorrect.
Point still stands though.
Such a relief! (Score:4, Funny)
Since the DEA has done so well at its core function of preventing the distribution of illegal narcotics, and has such an amazing record of respecting civil liberties while searching residences, seizing property, and conducting safe and fair arrests, I can't think of anyone better to undertake this new surveillance program.
I certainly hope that the DEA has the same success in their new duty, and can make these sorts of civil disturbances as rare on the streets as they have made drugs.
Russia / China (Score:2, Insightful)
Makes sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh.. So you advocate anarchy, when it's not the Government that tries to constrain you, but a random person from a few streets away who'll happily murder you for the tin of beans he wants..
Please (Score:4, Interesting)
Could be a good thing (Score:2)
I suppose law enforcers who know a little something about drugs might not get as easily high on their own adrenaline as some cops do.
Who will they be watching? (Score:2)
Here's why Shea says the agency should be granted extraordinary latitude: "In order for DEA to assist to the maximum extent possible in the federal law enforcement response to protests which devolve into violations of federal law, DEA requests that it be designated to enforce any federal crime committed as a result of protests over the death of George Floyd," Shea wrote in the memo. "DEA requests this authority on a nationwide basis for a period of fourteen days."
So the DEA will be there to assist in identification of law enforcement officers that attack peaceful protesters, members of the media, and other non-violent observers?
Amazing how fast Liberty Disappears (Score:2)
It is Amazing how fast liberty will disappear when one side is supporting government tyranny to further their own goals.
This is why you don't vote Republican (Score:5, Insightful)
For various reasons I have stopped voting for Republicans at any level of government. The party has devolved into some weird amalgamation of theological fascism. Their repeated and ongoing violations of the First Amendment's separation of church and state (witness the fiasco of the con artist gassing protestors so he could hold up a bible backwards and in front of a church), the acceptance of criminality and corruption (Iran-Contra and obstruction of Congress), the obeyance to corporations over working for the people, and a multitude of other unforgivable acts which have now culminated in turning a blind eye to white supremacists marching in the streets or murdering civilians, "protestors" illegally blocking streets and hospitals with guns drawn while threatening hospital workers, an anti-science, anti-education platform which has resulted in doctors and scientists receiving death threats, threats which Republicans encourage and condone, as well as the ongoing attempt to insert big government into everyone's daily life and the subjugation of women.
This blatantly illegal and contemptible expansion of a government agency's powers by a group of thugs who deliberately ignore the Constitution, deliberately ignore what the law says, deliberately insert their twisted and warped belief that a president should have the powers of a king until a Democrat gets in office, are more than sufficient to give rise to throwing them all out so the travesties they have inflicted on this country can be undone.
As a lifelong Republican I'm done voting for my party. I vote against anyone who calls themselves a "conservative" and vote against anyone the party deems worthy. Any claim Republicans might once have had about smaller government and limited spending has been demolished by their actions which have resulted in an out of control debt and the boot heel of government pressing more firmly on the public's neck.
At this point, voting for Republicans is equivalent to voting for Nazis. Yes, I went there and yes it is justified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is why you don't vote Republican (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm in a similar boat.
However, in order for this to make a difference, the Democrats also need to give more attention to the needs and wants of extremely rural areas. Otherwise the problem is doomed to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
For various reasons I have stopped voting for Republicans at any level of government. [...snipped drunken rambling...]
So, a vote for a democrat, the party who boasts someone who refused to prosecute Chauvin for his many previous acts of brutality? You know, if it wasn't for a democrat's refusal to prosecute, Chauvin might be in jail now and Floyd might still be alive.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, voting for Republicans is equivalent to voting for Nazis. Yes, I went there and yes it is justified.
Meanwhile, "no borders no wall no USA at all, and this is a gun-free zone, and if you don't use my preferred pronoun you're a hate-speech criminal" Definitely a high regard for the constitution, there.
How about that use of federal agencies and the FISA court to target their political opposition under the color of law? Nothing like the Stasi, nosir, not at all.
As a former Democrat, seems something needs to be done to replace these parties with something sane and not beholden to massive corporations only. But
Eliminate the DEA (Score:2)
The FBI is in a better position to allocate resources to actual criminal problems rather than having to justify their congressional charter. If they figure that people using weed just don't contribute to other problems, then they can shift resources to where they are needed.
Simple workaround (Score:2)
The Drug Enforcement Administration has been granted sweeping new authority to "conduct covert surveillance" and collect intelligence on people participating in protests over the police killing of George Floyd, ...
The them you're protesting about something else - problem solved. :-)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So are we to take it that you're "pro-fa" then? My grandparents whipped fascist ass in the '40s, it's looking like we need to do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the fascists instituted and maintained the Gestapo and the Black Shirts. The antifa groups (and there are multiple, they're not a unified front like the right portrays them) want to prevent things from getting to the point where actions like Chauvin's are considered acceptable.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your brain is broken. Sorry, no it is not fascist to hate fascism. That's like saying it's cancerous to hate cancer. Or it's stupid to hate stupidity.
"Antifa" stands for ANTI-FAscism, and Fascism is a bad thing. Trump is a fascist, and so are you if you're railing against "Antifa". You don't even seem to understand that anyone can be labeled Antifa now, even you if you suggest that you hate fascism.
Re: (Score:3)
Since we're playing bullshit semantics games, I guess we've also settled another debate because by that same logic, clearly the Nazis were socialist. They have it right in their name after all. You wouldn't want to support socialism would you, because that's the same a
Re: (Score:2)
Really? My family arrived in 1784 from Cornwall and went to settle in the wilds of the Vermont frontier. How long do we have to be here to be called "Americans"? There were other relatives who arrived earlier and fought in the Revolutionary War, does that count?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah bullshit. Get out of my country. Another stupid white suburbanite who knows nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
> Sorry, no it is not fascist to hate fascism.
But it is fascist to act like a fascist, e.g. murdering those you disagree with politically, like the cops shot in the back of the head in recent "protests."
You can't just ignore what they do in this analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, Hitler LIED to the German public about the intentions of the party, and actually promoted corporate fascist policies that put corporations and the wealthy in power rather than the people
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, Hitler LIED to the German public about the intentions of the party, and actually promoted corporate fascist policies that put corporations and the wealthy in power rather than the people
And anti-fa are honest?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Antifa (to the extent they're an actual group and not just an agglomeration of random internet wannabes) aren't fascists, they're anarchists who think everyone but themselves are fascists, including communists, socialists, and capitalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, many of the current bunch of Antifa seem to be fascists, but they don't seem to know it. Or they do, and it's just a convenient cover.
P.S.: The Nazi's were socialist, in part. If you were one of their favored groups, there were lots of socialist programs to support you. I suspect they really inherited that part of their program from Bismark, but it was there. Universal health coverage, for the favored groups. Etc. Bismark wanted healthy armies.
Any claim that the Nazis either were or were not so
Re:Antifa (Score:4, Informative)
No you lying moron, Antifa is a movement, not a an organized thing at all. Anyone can claim they're Antifa and so they do.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a moron assuming I'm with either group, I'm not. Antifa is just a movement, no clubs no membership no hierarchy. Trump uses a vague bullshit "movement" to justify going after people he doesn't like, just like he gasses and shoots rubber bullets at peaceful demonstrators.
Antifa is a domestic terror organization. (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit. Saying Antifa is a domestic terror organization is like saying anti-communism is a domestic terror organization.
Antifa isn't even an organization.
Re: Antifa (Score:2)
Still trying to figure out how a thought is a terrorist group. AntiFa - Anti-FAcist. Not sure why this is so difficult for most people. I expect Trump to spout nonsensical bullshit, but I had hoped people would be smart enough to see it for what it is... Bullshit.
Sally, a lot of folks don't want logic, they want their way regardless of who it hurts or kills. This is the same group that went to Flint ARMED because, of all things... "Waaaaaah you aren't my real dad, you can't tell me what to do!"... Nevermind