1. Given that the DOJ inspector general has concluded that the department "forced many people with no connection to terrorism to languish in jails in unduly harsh conditions," perhaps these protestors have a point.

Of course, it seems the complexities of any issue, however big or small, are always too much for conservatives. And so Stefan ignores the details, ignores the quite possibly valid points of these activists, and says they are "Rioting for terrorism."

Nothing could be more ridiculous. So if I love my country enough to proptest in favor of the principles established in it's founding documents, I'm supporting terrorists? Can I only not be a terrosrist if I fall lockstep behind an Administration that wages war against Iraq while the Taliban reorganizes in Afghanistan? Is questioning the status quo giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Look, these protestors might not be right. They might be paranoid. They might be plain old stupid. But to suggest that their protest is for terrorism is snide, untrue, unfair, and, well, plain old stupid.

2. Read the whole article: "Nollette was reluctant to compare yesterday's disturbance to other recent protests. But she noted there was no extensive property damage done to the downtown retail district." So no big property damage. It seems to me that if the protestors hadn't harmed police or extensively damaged property, shooting rubber bullets at them is indeed a pretty big deal. These are things that can stop a heart.

3. Whatever you think of their methods, these activists were protesting what they believed to be potential infringements on personal liberty by an overactive and unconstitutional response to terrorism. Given that this administration now believes it okay to hold US citizens without a charge and without access to council, perhaps they to have a point. If you ask me, protesting in favor of liberties layed out in the Declaration of Independence and established as law in the Constitution and Bill of Rights demonstrates a love of country much more than genuflecting in front of the flag.

4. "Then there are the photos, including this one of a young shahid." Geez Stefan. This is on-face racist. You're smart enough to rise above this.

Any lifelong Seattle area resident (such as myself) knows that the P-I is a joke. But it sure makes great material for weblogs.

The pundit engages in hyperbole. So what? Mainly, it only shows that he finds the actions of his targets out of line with the reality of their greater situation. Hyperbole makes him unable to grasp complexity? I'd say it rather demonstrates that he grasps it accurately.

Protestors should be out there saying their piece, if so moved. However, they are never justified in damaging property, and are never to be forgiven for merely damaging a little property. Don't invoke the Constitution to justify crime.

Harry,

You didn't carefully read Stefan's post, the main point of which was that the P-I version was slanted. Indeed it was. As Stefan very clearly indicates, you don't find out until well into the story that the police didn't simply assault a crowd of "activists" -- the police were themselves assaulted when they tried to enforce the law by arresting someone for criminal damage to property. Any fair rendering would have had "activist" lawlessness as the lede.

Beyond that, your comments are incoherent. A DOJ functionary criticizes certain detentions? I don't know about you, but to me that suggests a system is capable of self-regulation. I prefer waiting for the government's response to its own investigator than the anarchists' penchant for disorder in the streets.

No one said that merely protesting security measures or government policy makes someone a terrorist or terrorist supporter. Where did you get that odd notion? The problem is that when lawful protest descends into violence then you have to expect a reaction. Did the police overreact in this instance? Doesn't appear so, but that's the issue. And I can tell you this: I simply would not trust the P-I to give me a fair account anyway.

Your claim of racism is the current era's last-refuge-of-the-scoundrel. Silly as well in your instance, because "shahid" carries no racial connotation but is just an Arabic synonym for "martyr": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=shahid+martyr+synonym. An apt usage, certainly, in the case of Evergreen State, whose mission seems to be brainwashing students into becoming shahids.

But I'm glad that Stefan managed to get under your skin a bit. Deep down, you probably know he's right.

wm,

>You didn't carefully read Stefan's post ... Any
>fair rendering would have had "activist"
>lawlessness as the lede

Nonsense. Property damage happens all the time. In fact, you may notice that newspapers don't often run above the fold articles about kids vandalizing neighbors mailboxes. This story wasn't about property damage. It was about a protest. Leading with, "Protesters damage property," would have been grossly slanted against the protesters.

The headline was "Protest turns ugly." Not "Police turn ugly." Lighten up. This isn't your average socialist weekly and it's not freerepublic.com either.

>Beyond that, your comments are incoherent.

Gee, thanks.

>I prefer waiting for the government's response
>to its own investigator than the anarchists'
>penchant for disorder in the streets.

Wow. I bet John Ashcroft will get right on it. (Just like the 9/11 investigation.) Perhaps we should have waited for Nixon's Attorney Generals to move faster on Watergate. Perhaps it would have been better to ask the British nicely not to tax the colonists. Then all that nasty property destruction at the Boston Tea Party and the Stamp Act riots would have been unnecessary.

"Anarchists." Protesting for protection of liberty does not make you an anarchist. You guys certainly didn't care when your goons went nuts during the recounts in Florida.

>No one said that merely protesting security
>measures or government policy makes someone a
>terrorist or terrorist supporter. Where did you
>get that odd notion?

Headline of Stefan's post: "Rioting for Terrorism."

>And I can tell you this: I simply would not
>trust the P-I to give me a fair account anyway.

Fine. Then get the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, MSNBC, all of talk radio, virtually every major television pundit...

>Your claim of racism is the current era's
>last-refuge-of-the-scoundrel.

Just because your claim reads vaguely like a Ben Franklin quote doesn't make it so.

>"shahid" carries no racial connotation but is
>just an Arabic synonym for "martyr"

I think you should read that sentence again.

Look, how would stefan feel if I said something like, "And there are photos, including this one of a young Rosenfeld, at Evergreen State IDF bulldozing camp..." He linked a protester to Arabs and Arabs to terrorism. We're grown up people who know better than to generalize. I don't think all Jews are slimy bankers, all blacks lazy bums, all arabs terrorists, and all whites racist. Neither should anyone.

Harry, your comparison of the word "shahid" to "Rosenfeld" is positively idiotic. I know what a "shahid" is, and the connection this word has to violent protest. What's a "Rosenfeld", other than your own anti-Jewish slur? If anyone is a racist here, it's you.

The rioters/protestors make a self-inflicted wound with their public image. Is there any more an inarticulate way to express oneself than burning a flag?

charlemagne,

It doesn't matter what the word means. The point is that it is an arabic word (and not uncommon arabic name; and, btw, it means "martyr," not terrorist) and it's being linked to terrorism ("Evergreen State Terrorism Training Camp").

Look, calling the protester a terrorist is one thing (albeit a stupid thing) but throwing a sly dig in against arabs in the process is another.

Finally, I don't think Stefan is a racist. This "young shahid" comment, however, is stupid. It's not an argument, it isn't true, it generalizes and distorts. I think Stefan is a smart guy and I appreciate his blog even though I disagree with virtually all of it.

Lord, Harry, you made my day. You're the one bent out of shape, and you're telling me to lighten up. Property damage happens all the time? What's that, the Third Law of Political Thermodynamics? The Second Coming of Prudhomme? Sorry, but intentional damage to someone else's property is a crime in every jurisdiction, even Washington. Even when committed by anarchists.

Yes, the Headline said "Rioting for Terrorism." Read it again. S-l-o-w-l-y. Rioting. Not "protesting." You seem to think that if the riotous anarchists are well-intentioned (and aren't they always?) then they're beyond criticism. Wrong, and not really worth debating.

Stefan's "shahid" reference was right on the money. It's not that he linked protestors (read: rioters) to Arabs but to Evergreen State, which has turned itself into an ISM training camp. Evergreen State apparently thinks it's OK to brainwash its young charges into into martyrdom for the Palestinian cause. defend them if you want, but don't pretend that's not what they're doing, or try to deflect criticism by screaming "racism." If Stefan was guilty of any stereotypical assumption -- the foundation for racism -- it was that Shahid Wannabe's point of origin was Evergreen State. Might make Stefan a bit presumptuous, but hardly racist. And given Evergreen State's track record, his speculation was reasonable.

Now that I think about, Stefan's comment was informed by a certain light-hearted irony: the shahid wannabe is really just a fricking poseur. He has no more intention of martyring himself than you or I. But he wants to pretend that he's really at risk. Thanks, Stefan, for the great image!

Incidentally, I voted for Gore.

eh?