News Item Showdown looms in 'treasonous' Berkeley

Teri B. · 02-12-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Showdown looms in 'treasonous' Berkeley

Story Highlights:
*Pro-military groups demand Berkeley to take back vote urging Marines to leave
*Military supporter: "Their treasonous action ... is not acceptable,"
*Anti-war groups also gather, stand toe-to-toe against military supporters
*City Council is to meet later Tuesday to discuss its previous vote

By Wayne Drash
CNN

(CNN) -- Military supporters descended on Berkeley early Tuesday, demanding the famously liberal California college town rescind its vote that says Marine recruiters are "not welcome in this city."

The pro-military demonstrators were met by anti-war protesters who had camped out overnight, setting the stage for a dramatic showdown late in the day when the City Council is to discuss whether to revoke its previous vote.

"Their treasonous action, especially at this time of war right now, is not acceptable," said Mary Pearson, a spokeswoman for the group Move America Forward.

"It's very, very important for everyone to stand united ... to give our Marines and all of our military the greatest respect and honor that they deserve."

Before the sun was even up, about 300 demonstrators -- both pro-military and anti-war -- were already standing toe-to-toe in downtown. Many traded jeers and sneers.

"Code Pink doesn't stand for us," one sign said, held by a man in military fatigues. Signs held by anti-war activists read, "End the War" and "Bring the troops home now."

The City Council is to meet at 7 p.m. PT on whether to take back its previous measure urging the Marine recruiters to leave town.

"If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders," the measure says.

It went on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that "volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley."

Ever since the council measure, protesters with the anti-war group Code Pink have camped outside the Marine recruiting office on Shattuck Avenue, singing peace songs and chanting slogans for an end to the Iraq war. See photos of Code Pink protesters outside Marine office »

Republican lawmakers in Washington fired back last week, threatening to recall more than $2 million of federal funding to the city as well as money designated for the University of California-Berkeley, the campus that became a bastion of liberalism during the Vietnam War.

The Marine Corps has said it has no plans to move its office, which is located about a block from the college campus.

Whether the City Council reverses course remains to be seen.

Max Anderson, a Vietnam war veteran who serves on the council, said he fully supports the measure to get Marine recruiters out of town -- despite receiving more than 8,000 e-mails, most of them harsh in tone, on the matter.

"If the aim was to shut us down, get us to back up, get us to eat our words, get us to retreat from our position with the war, they can forget that," he told CNN Monday.

He said he was recruited by Marines after he graduated from high school in 1963 and was promised that he and his friends would serve together. But once they enlisted, he said, they were separated and shipped off to Vietnam.

"We're not against the Marines per se," he said. "We're against this war. We're against the mechanisms that support this war and send our young people over there."

Kriss Worthington, a progressive Berkeley activist and council member for 11 years, believes the council overreached.

"The inflammatory language in the City Council item is really outrageous -- not just to right-wing people, but to mainstream liberal people and even to some peace activists who have said they're insulted that the city would have such language," Worthington said.

He said Berkeley owes an apology to the military and to the peace movement "for having such embarrassing language allegedly trying to promote peace."

"When you make a colossal blunder, you can't just sort of ignore the mistake and go about your way. You have to do something to fix it," Worthington said.

CNN's Chuck Afflerbach contributed to this report.

Wow! It's one thing to be anti-war, but this is anti-military, and seems to me to be unconstitutional. Now cities can decide who's allowed to enter?

Jonesy · 02-12-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teri B.

Wow! It's one thing to be anti-war, but this is anti-military, and seems to me to be unconstitutional. Now cities can decide who's allowed to enter?

In this case, constitutionality depends on who is defined as the 'enemy'. I agree, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are currently or ever were enemies. In this case, we are the enemies of ourselves... the institution is the enemy... or you could argue our 'ally' is actually our enemy.

Governments have no good reason to keep secrets. If they are being secretive, they're doing something wrong. Only the military needs to be secretive.

TrueBlueAmerican · 02-12-2008, 01:17 PM

Its funny how an anti-recruitment campaign gets spinned into "a war against the entire United States military!" by the "pro-war" crowd.

guest1234567 · 02-12-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teri B.

Wow! It's one thing to be anti-war, but this is anti-military, and seems to me to be unconstitutional. Now cities can decide who's allowed to enter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonesy

In this case, constitutionality depends on who is defined as the 'enemy'. I agree, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are currently or ever were enemies. In this case, we are the enemies of ourselves... the institution is the enemy... or you could argue our 'ally' is actually our enemy.

Governments have no good reason to keep secrets. If they are being secretive, they're doing something wrong. Only the military needs to be secretive.

Protesting is neither treasonous or unconstitutional.

However, in this case they are acting cowardly. They are cowards because just in case something happened on their campus, such as a bomb or an attack by a paramilitary political organization looking for an easy target, they would expect the government to come and liberate the students/faculty from the grounds and the citizens from the city. Should any group take a ridiculous stance like this, they should make sure they are ready to be ignored by the people they wanted ousted.

Jonesy · 02-12-2008, 03:32 PM

The major flaw in the constitution comes in the fact you can make anyone your enemy. An enemy, as defined in the dictionary, roughly comes out to 'someone hateful and hostile towards you'. It is incredibly easy to deliberately make someone hate you and become hostile. Basically, the Constitution makes it ok for us to hate everyone and be hostile, but when they do it to us, it is treason. This is why we need to better define 'enemy', as meaning more along the lines of 'someone who puts your life and well-being in danger'.

By this better definition, who would you say has been committing treason?

By the definition, 'a person or group hateful, hostile and threatening to the United States', who has committed treason?

Jonesy · 02-12-2008, 03:46 PM

Another problem comes from the fact people can act non-hateful and non-hostile, while actually being both hateful and hostile, and a threat.

Teri B. · 02-12-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guest1234567

Protesting is neither treasonous or unconstitutional.

However, in this case they are acting cowardly. They are cowards because just in case something happened on their campus, such as a bomb or an attack by a paramilitary political organization looking for an easy target, they would expect the government to come and liberate the students/faculty from the grounds and the citizens from the city. Should any group take a ridiculous stance like this, they should make sure they are ready to be ignored by the people they wanted ousted.

Very true. Well said.

babylonDon · 02-13-2008, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guest1234567

However, in this case they are acting cowardly. They are cowards because just in case something happened on their campus, such as a bomb or an attack by a paramilitary political organization looking for an easy target, they would expect the government to come and liberate the students/faculty from the grounds and the citizens from the city. Should any group take a ridiculous stance like this, they should make sure they are ready to be ignored by the people they wanted ousted.

Meh. I disagree. The scenario described here is action movie stuff. And these people are engaging in a pretty bold (albeit, symbolic) gesture.

They are confronting an extremely well-documented problem, aggressive, near predatory recruiting practices. In their city. Lawfully.
Their city council wrote down their grievances on a piece of paper, and approved it.

They have expressed their feelings to the military, they disapprove of their recruitment practices. It's non-binding. They have no plans to force the recruitment office out of town.

It wouldn't even have been a story, if not for the Bush-ite policy of over reaction to any questioning of their tactics. Both parties know the recruitment office in question isn't going anywhere.

You can't even correctly call it 'civil disobedience', it's that mild. While those of us who have been appalled by the occasional stories of these recruiting sit around and 'tsk', they did something about it. They said 'These are our children, and if you refuse to comport yourself with morality and honesty, we'd prefer you stay away from them.'

No burning flags. No ROTC buildings seized. No effigies.

It's actually kind of quaint. Their gesture comes across as rather calm. The reactions to it, will tell the rest of the story.

W.M.DEEEZ · 02-13-2008, 05:55 AM

I thought we had a similar thread, but couldn't find it.

In that mystery thread, I described how our local recruiters aggressively pursued my stepson a few years ago.

A 4.0 student, and the valedictorian of his class, they kept calling him, using any bullshit story they could, to entice him into signing up.

Some of the claims of this recruiter were laughable. Clearly, he was no match for my stepson's intelligence.

The issue here, as Don correctly points out, is the predatory practices of a desperate military. They should not be allowed to make promises that they know they can't keep.

These are our kids they are preying upon. Signing up for the marines, is probably an even bet that your kid will be killed, or mamed.

babylonDon · 02-13-2008, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.M.DEEEZ

I thought we had a similar thread, but couldn't find it.

In that mystery thread, I described how our local recruiters aggressively pursued my stepson a few years ago.

A 4.0 student, and the valedictorian of his class, they kept calling him, using any bullshit story they could, to entice him into signing up.

Some of the claims of this recruiter were laughable. Clearly, he was no match for my stepson's intelligence.

The issue here, as Don correctly points out, is the predatory practices of a desperate military. They should not be allowed to make promises that they know they can't keep.

These are our kids they are preying upon. Signing up for the marines, is probably an even bet that your kid will be killed, or mamed.

They attended all the Phys. ed. classes in my son's High School. For weeks. Going so far as to request they tailor the curriculum to best serve their observational needs.

02-12-2008, 01:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
TrueBlueAmerican Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,124 Thanks: 25 Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts	Its funny how an anti-recruitment campaign gets spinned into "a war against the entire United States military!" by the "pro-war" crowd.
	Top

02-12-2008, 03:32 PM	#5 (permalink)
Jonesy Truth Lion Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,554 Thanks: 10 Thanked 32 Times in 23 Posts	The major flaw in the constitution comes in the fact you can make anyone your enemy. An enemy, as defined in the dictionary, roughly comes out to 'someone hateful and hostile towards you'. It is incredibly easy to deliberately make someone hate you and become hostile. Basically, the Constitution makes it ok for us to hate everyone and be hostile, but when they do it to us, it is treason. This is why we need to better define 'enemy', as meaning more along the lines of 'someone who puts your life and well-being in danger'. By this better definition, who would you say has been committing treason? By the definition, 'a person or group hateful, hostile and threatening to the United States', who has committed treason?
	Top

02-12-2008, 03:46 PM	#6 (permalink)
Jonesy Truth Lion Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,554 Thanks: 10 Thanked 32 Times in 23 Posts	Another problem comes from the fact people can act non-hateful and non-hostile, while actually being both hateful and hostile, and a threat.
	Top

02-13-2008, 05:55 AM	#9 (permalink)
W.M.DEEEZ I don't exist either Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,598 Thanks: 7 Thanked 50 Times in 38 Posts	I thought we had a similar thread, but couldn't find it. In that mystery thread, I described how our local recruiters aggressively pursued my stepson a few years ago. A 4.0 student, and the valedictorian of his class, they kept calling him, using any bullshit story they could, to entice him into signing up. Some of the claims of this recruiter were laughable. Clearly, he was no match for my stepson's intelligence. The issue here, as Don correctly points out, is the predatory practices of a desperate military. They should not be allowed to make promises that they know they can't keep. These are our kids they are preying upon. Signing up for the marines, is probably an even bet that your kid will be killed, or mamed. __________________ Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got til it's gone
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode