In the "post 9/11 world". does the kkk have a right to exist?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

A friend of mine made a great point the other day. And this point has been made on DU but I think its worth restating and exploring. She said, all fired up, essentially "how can we claim to be waging a war on terrorism when we don't have the temerity, the will, or the 'right' to go after our domestic terrorists with lethal military or paramilitary force."

The differences between Al Qaeda and, say, the KKK are few - and the differencs that do exist are essentially aesthetic. Different religions, languages, appearances etc. In the end both advocate the violent overthrow of everything that we consider American and replacing it with rigid fundamentalism. Are they not both equally dangerous and committed enemies who have openly stated their goals, and openly advocated violence? What is the death toll of the KKK and other militant domestic terrorist groups? What if the KKK or another militant group strengthens to the point of attacking us, and really haven't they already? Weren't their sufficient enough warning signs?

I had entertained this thought before but never truly thought deep enough about it, it took somebody less interested in politics to get fired up about it to really convey how true it was. I responded to her that we let the KKK exist because there is freedom of expression in this country, and unless we want our rights removed we should defend another's right to express themselves. But she was right, I determined, this was a contradiction to the rhetoric of the "war on terror." Terrorists don't have a right to advocate our destruction - we have a duty to stop them using any weapon at our disposal. What gives the KKK and other, perhaps more powerful, militant groups a right to exist?

[wtmusic]

1. False dichotomy

We can have freedom of speech and punish those who harrass or threaten.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

13. false false dichotomy.

i never said we couldn't.

[wtmusic]

21. Yeah, you did actually

You say we can't allow free speech and allow the KKK to exist. False dichotomy.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

31. actually i said it was a contradiction to the rhetoric.

i didn't say that it has to be one or the other, just that the reality doesn't coincide with the rhetoric of what exactly we are at war with.

I can see where you'd think i made that dichotomy, but I didn't mean to imply that one couldn't crush militant groups with the military and at the same time allow free expression in society. In fact that's what this entire post was about, how is crushing our enemies at odds with the constitution? It's not.

[wtmusic]

34. Got it, and we agree

We have to draw the line at threats to our safety. That illuminates a classic flaw in the WOT ideology -- Saddam never threatened the US, but we invaded anyway. We are now reaping what we've sown.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

45. exactly.

thanks so much for your reasoned discussion. I've learned a lot in this thread.

[BuyingThyme]

2. Yes.

And there's no such thing as a post-9/11 world; it's just fascist monkey-talk.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. i know it's fascist monkey talk.

it's kind of a device used to show the contradiction.

I put in quotes for you, and also because I don't want people to think that I just go around parroting fox talking point horseshit.

[muntrv]

3. By the way,

do you know who killed more Americans on U.S. soil than Al-Qaeda? The Confederate states during the Civil War. The Confederate states gave rise to the kkk.

[realisticphish]

Confederates were Americans too

:shrug:

[muntrv]

10. Not during the Civil War.

The Confederates seceded from the Union and were waving Stars and Bars, not Stars and Stripes.

[realisticphish]

20. secession was not a constitutional option

thus they were americans in rebellion, not a seperate state.

[CatholicEdHead]

12. KKK was formed in the Reconstuction era, post-Civil War

or "War of Northern Agression" as some people call it.

[realisticphish]

24. as an aside

"war of northern aggression" is a stupid term. Who shot first?...

[realisticphish]

5. The KKK might be hateful

(no shit) but it doesn't openly advocate violence. Thus, not a terrorist group.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

9. Grant saw things differently.

from the wikipedia "The organization was in decline from 1868 to 1870, and was destroyed in the early 1870s by President Ulysses S. Grant's vigorous action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act)."

[realisticphish]

22. good for him

but the KKK now, which is what we're discussing, does NOT advocate violence, because they'd obviously get shut down immediately if they did. Would I like to see the KKK gone? Yes. But I want it to be gone because no one WANTS to be in it, not because it's illegal

[SlavesandBulldozers]

46. excellent point of wanting it to disappear because no one wants to be in

it.

That's an interesting point in the WOT, you essentially win when you make the other side unable to recruit. You make the enemy's message unattractive to potential recruits.

So by that standard this admin has really fucked up bad. Makes you really wonder about what their metrics for success are, if not exactly opposite of what they should be. or if there are any metrics at all really.

[realisticphish]

51. yeah

but somehow I doubt the admin is going to change strategies anytime soon...

[SlavesandBulldozers]

52. what makes you think that.

i mean aside from them never adjusting or admitting a mistake. aside from that? ;)

[realisticphish]

57. well, that

and Iran, and syria, and jordan.... :D

and for the love of god, don't tell * we get most of our oil from Canada

[muntrv]

17. Uh, yes it does.

How else to explain why they distribute "The Turner Diaries," the inspiration for Tim McVeigh?

[realisticphish]

26. so i can't

tell people to read 1984, because it advocates subversion of the government? Literature is a whole different area of free speech on top of the KKK's rights.

[muntrv]

33. No, I'm saying

that the kkk does advocate terrorism and has practiced it. Congress in the 1960's declared it a terrorist organization. Remember Birmingham and the 16th Street Baptist Church? The klan has a longer history of terrorism than Al-Qaeda.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

36. ding ding ding.

thank you sir/ma'am.

[muntrv]

39. Thank you too, sir/ma'am!!

I'm a sir.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

41. sir here too.

lol

[realisticphish]

37. i'm not saying they weren't INVOLVED

cause fuck knows, they were. But if you find 4 members of the KKK who did something... that's all you found. The KKK has never (or at least not in the last 40 years) PUBLICALLY advocated violence, which is what a terrorist group does. In other words, you can't prove anything. Again, you'd have to be an idiot not to think that they really did commit violence, but it's about what can be proven.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

43. its interesting.

that's the argument that would be used in defense of the KKK. I'm not saying you're defending the KKK i know youre not. But that would be the defense of the KKK.

How are they any different from AQ, who I think is justifiably an avowed enemy? What is the distinction between the two? Does AQ have a constitutional right to exist? To me the answer to that question is laughingly obvious, to others there are more nuanced answers. In the end though can the constitution co-exist with an entity that advocates its destruction?

[realisticphish]

55. that is an interesting point

I am a member, and stauch supporter of, the ACLU. And one of our ironic positions is that we would defend the rights of someone demonstrating saying that we shouldn't exist.

Does AQ have a constitutional right to exist? No. They are not only not subject to the constitution, but they actively advocate and claim responsibility for terrorist violence against the United States. That is NOT what the KKK is doing. They are advocating change (even though it is hateful and bigoted, and just plain disgusting) within the United States, and do not publically condone violence.

As I said before, I don't want the KKK to exist. Most people don't. But we can't wish it away, because they have every right to hold those opinions, and to publically assemble and declare them. As much as I dispise the KKK, I refuse to move towards banning them, because we shouldn't apply the freedom of speech based on emotion.

sigh. i can't believe I got myself into defending the fucking KKK

[SlavesandBulldozers]

56. hahahah! don't worry man I don't think you're defending the kkk!

lol, that must seem awkward though! no, i hear exactly what you're saying and agree with you, and the ACLU.

[realisticphish]

59. cool

and, I must say, this has been a damned civil discussion, all around :thumbsup:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

61. yeah.

it's been quiet. too quiet.

[realisticphish]

65. FUCK YOU FREEPER SCUM

BRUN IN HELL!!!1!11!111!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

67. hahah1

all your stickily lies!!1!1! hugh moran!1!1!

[SmokingJacket]

6. People have the right to believe whatever they want.

But they can't harrass, threaten or torment.

Our constitution has this covered pretty well.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

8. the KKK hasn't harassed, threatened, or tormented?

interesting. It's basically like a knitting club or something?

[SmokingJacket]

14. I didn't say that.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I meant they have the right to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to harrass, etc.

In other words, I don't think you can prevent people from belonging to a racist group -- but you can and SHOULD prevent them from taking illegal action on behalf of this group.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the ACLU's take on it. (And if they have a different take... I'll change my mind. The ACLU rocks.)

[SlavesandBulldozers]

18. i disagree.

i think if you go around telling people you belong to AQ, you probably ought to get your door kicked in, since AQ is justifiably considered an enemy of the state. You don't have to take action as an AQ operative in order to get your door kicked in,all you have to do is claim association and the deed is done.

Why not so with the KKK or another militant group?

[SmokingJacket]

29. Well... I hate to drag in the slippery slope...

but I'm gonna. Okay, if it's illegal to be in the KKK, is it because it's racist, or because it advocates illegal acts? It's pretty easy for the KKK to take a stance that officially disavows violence, which -- if I'm not mistaken -- they have.

So.... we're going to make the KKK illegal because they're racist? Now, does that mean we make racism illegal, or just being in a racist group illegal?

I actually have a big problem with rounding up ANYONE just because they associate with a group. I don't think you should be able to arrest members of Al Qaeda unless you can trace them to specific conspiracies or criminal acts.

I think it's VERY IMPORTANT to distinguish between ACTIONS and THOUGHTS, here. We should be able to think and believe whatever we want, no matter how vile, and even have friends who think the same thing. But once we step over the line toward taking action -- that's different.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

35. i agree. it was bound to come to the slippery slope.

that's kind of why I posted this.

I just wanted to find where others draw the line. I agree with you entirely.

[SmokingJacket]

42. Well, thanks for an interesting discussion! nt

[Proud_Democratt]

58. Rights are one thing...but

the KKK is ARMED!!! If the KKK organization is protected by law, then they should be forced to adhere to "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION". Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Gays should be active members.

[realisticphish]

68. does that mean

that the NAACP has to have white supremacists?

[Proud_Democratt]

70. How many people...

got hanged or dragged behind some redneck's pickup truck, by members of the NAACP???

[realisticphish]

72. what does that have to do with affirmative action

I know it was a facetious post, and it would be amusing to see their reaction, but a group does NOT have to enforce quotas just because it's recognized as "not terrorists"

[SlavesandBulldozers]

82. that's true too n/t

[Proud_Democratt]

86. When their gatherings are held in public,

they are protected by the local and sometimes, state police forces, using tax dollars to do this.
Shouldn't they be held to Affirmative Action" like all businesses and organizations?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

81. lol

true.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

80. i'm sure they have their share of gays.

lol.
i mean they cannot stop talking about black men.
<drums>
folks I'm here all week, don't forget to tip the waitstaff.

[muntrv]

7. According to the Bush Administration,

the kkk is not as dangerous a terrorist group as environmental extremists.

[BIgJohn83]

11. It may not be what folks want to hear but...

Yeah. The KKK has a right to exist. Al Qaeda has a right to exist. Hamas has a right to exist. And in fact if you hold the first ammendment as sacred they have the right to voice their beliefs... their rhetoric, however distasteful is important in a true democracy. Their rights end when their rhetoric and actions infringe on the rights of others. Al Qaeda had every right to voice anti-American sentiment, obviously they stepped way over the line with the events of Sept. 11th. Timothy McVeigh had every right to voice his thoughts and exercise his first ammendment rights, he too stepped way over the line in Oklahoma City. When you take that step from agitation to violence. Then you need to live with the circumstances. I can disagree with the Klan, I work hard to impede their agenda, but I stand by their right to organize and demonstrate and voice their (albeit whacked out) views.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

27. excellent answer. thanks for your well-thought out words.

:toast:

i don't think i agree that AQ has the right to exist. But you have explored the issue well and brought up interesting points so thank you.

[BIgJohn83]

40. thx... n/t

[BlooInBloo]

15. Right? They have an OBLIGATION to exist!

the original anti-brown people in da HOUSE representin the good pure white man, against the brownies trying to take over what the white man has worked so hard for - the white woman.






















For those intellectually-challenged enough to need it:
:sarcasm:

[AndyA]

16. If the KKK were to be disbanded, what would all the Republicans

do with their white sheets? :rofl:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

23. it was only a matter of time before this one came up.

lol!

:applause:

[BIgJohn83]

38. Ha! great shot! n/t

[muntrv]

44. Lincoln & Grant

are spinning in their graves over today's GOP, considering that the kkk's original enemy was the Republican party. Throughout the South, there are many landmarks honoring those who fought against the Republican carpet baggers during Reconstruction.

[Xithras]

49. Few KKKers are Republicans

I've met a couple of KKKers (they used to have a strong presence here, but have largely faded out in Central California over the past few decades). KKKers typically see the Republican party as a "jew" party...it's dominated by corporate interests, which their conspirarcy theories claim are in turn dominated by Jews.

KKKers are an odd bunch, and their hatred colors everything they do. I was in Jamestown California several years ago, enjoying a beer in a bar, when a couple of Mexicans in the bar started arguing and were thrown out. The guy next to me started whining about "those people" and started referring to them with every racist term you can think of. I didn't want to argue with the guy (he was much larger than I was) so I just said "Well, you better get used to them...they'll be the majority in this state in a few years". The guy fired back with a "Not if whites like us fight them!". That sparked a conversation where he admitted to being in the KKK and described how his family had been KKK since the 1920's. He started talking to me about them, and after a minute I realized that he was TRYING TO RECRUIT ME!

I just looked at him and said, "I don't think you guys want me...I'm Catholic!" The guy practically fell off his stool as he tried to get away from me, called me a "f*&)#NG mary worshipper", and walked out. :beer:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

50. Mary worshipper!

thanks for that story it's hilarious.

A co-worker of mine, who's really a great guy but is a self-admitted "Florida cracker", after some drinks, asked me if I thought it was a good idea to try to preserve "Irish heritage". I told him that I considered myself an american and think that if everybody who came here thought the same way we would be in a better spot. I told him that I couldn't wait for america to "fuck itself light brown" (i had been drinking too). I could tell that i made a light-bulb go on, because essentially he was admitting that he had the same problem he accused others of having, ya know that typical argument "when they come here why can't they just be american?"

anyway, thanks for your story. Fucking KKK man, good god what a waste of a life.

[Charlie Brown]

19. Both technically have a right "to exist"

The free-market of ideas includes elements which may be detrimental to that very market. Our founders wisely recognized that their own rebellion had depended on freedom of association and assembly to promote change. This pressure from below places an obligation on the government to stay subjugate to the wishes of the people and avoid becoming corrupt. If the government goes too far, then the people can organize and work to install a new regime. The downside of this freedom is that it necessitates the existence of hate-groups and other detrimental organizations that seek to abuse the system in the name of racism and elitism. If the government (I assume that's who you're looking at to shut the KKK down), establishes itself as the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable for private associations, then it will only be a matter of time before the policial process becomes a shooting range as each political side tries to have the other "outlawed" for similar reasons.

We can proesecute lawbreakers, conspirators, and public hate-speech without prosecuting ideas.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

25. excellent answer.

thank you. Again i don't think AQ has a right to exist any more than I think Nazi Germany had a right to exist, and thusly to the KKK, but you have brought up great points and I thank you.

[karlrschneider]

28. Well said, Charlie Brown! I'll hold your football any time and promise

not to pull a Lucy. :D
:toast:

edit: "Flowery Branch"?? :D

[shance]

30. Of course it does. Just look at our Congress.

n/t

[SlavesandBulldozers]

32. LOL

good one.

[Xithras]

47. There's a difference between advocacy and action.

Their bloody past aside, the KKK today is a political advocacy group (albeit with some particularly nasty points to advocate). They express opinions, they hold rallies, they yell and shout a lot, but the KKK as an organization hasn't participated in...and has condemned...acts of violence. They may state that they WISH to see a government overthrow, but they'll never openly advocate it.

This kind of speech is not only protected, but there are many other groups of other political stripes who advocate the exact same thing. I've heard Muslims, Black Panthers, AIM supporters, Marxists, and members of a half dozen other organizations call for the US government to be overthrown and replaced with something that better fits their worldview.

Speech doesn't cross the line and become "terror" until its acted on. If the KKK were funding bombers, church burners, or lynchings today, they would be a terrorist group. Since they don't, they're not.

The ACLU made this all very clear when they defended the KKK's right to march a number of years ago. The ACLU wouldn't support a terrorist organization, and they made it quite clear that what they were defending was the right to free speech and the right to free political assembly.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

48. what do you think the likelihood

that there will be, in 30 or so years - hell 70 years - an AQ group that disavows violence and seeks mainstream acceptance? Do you think they will be given first amendment protection because, well, they put all that ugly past of killing thousands of people behind them and are moving on? How is that different than what the KKK have successfully done? What reaction do you think that might get?

Do you think that if the KKK's central historical feature was the subjugation of all white people they would have been allowed to reform as a group that disavows violence (they must really get a kick out of that little nugget).

I think it speaks volumes about the power of the constitution to be able to tolerate a group with a violent past reforming under the auspices of a non-violent group. I don't exactly get the difference between AG and the KKK in this manner, and think it was a mistake for the government to allow the KKK to reform in any way.

[Xithras]

53. The AQ type groups you point to DO exist in the US.

You should look up the Islamic Thinkers Society and related groups. They openly advocate Islamic dominance in the US and regularly call for an Islamic uprising in the US to replace our democratic government with a Muslim theocracy. They are a tiny whacked out fringe group, but they do exist and regularly hold protests in the northeast. Their platform is essentially identical to that advocated by AQ, they just disavow violence.

They are the Muslim equivalent to the KKK, and like the KKK they have a right to express their beliefs without government harassment. They only become "terrorist" if they act on those beliefs.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

54. thanks

I had no idea. I'm not going to go look them up, for reasons that should be completely obvious, but thanks for your input!

[Rocknrule]

60. But the KKK is right-wing

Everyone knows that RWers are never terraists, right? Just ask Timothy McVeigh.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

62. right.

terrorists are tree hugging hippies that burn suv's. Why do they hate america so?

Right wingers are patriots protecting our liberty from fundamentalists. LOL

[Proud_Democratt]

63. The KKK is an

"under the radar" hate group!!! Don't believe me??? Here's their main link.
http://www.kkk.bz/index1.htm
They qualify as a terrorist group,IMO!
Our current Administration is the equivalent to KKK "lite".

[SlavesandBulldozers]

64. hell yes they qualify as a terrorist group.

when can we expect the bradleys to move into tennessee and smoke em out?

[Proud_Democratt]

66. It would not surprise me...

if Bush and/or Cheney were secret members. I'm not joking, either.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

69. i don't know, it's not like them to pick sides.

generally they just straddle the fence and profit off the conflict. Picking sides really isn't their style.

case in point.



and

[Proud_Democratt]

71. You do have a point there

brown rich folks are okay for greedy GOPers.

[The Straight Story]

73. Actions are punishable, not beliefs generally

If the KKK is doing something illegal as an organization, then bust em down. If they are just promoting a different way of thinking - monitor them and see where it leads.

Terrorist groups seem to have one goal in mind, kill us all or convert us. KKK has a different view (ie, their goal is not to kill but to seperate).

[SlavesandBulldozers]

78. funny i always thought of the KKK as having a violent history.

i mean you can pretty much confirm that they are violent, wouldn't take a whole lot of monitoring LOLZ.

[The Straight Story]

79. were as opposed to are is the key

Are they violent now, as much so as some other groups?

If we had to prioritize which groups are worse, where would they end up in it all?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

84. right.

but do you think in 70 years the US would tolerate an AQ that disavowed violence? I would argue no, AQ will never be a tolerable group. They get lit up. What's the difference really, both have operated in secrecy, ununiformed, and have historically advocated and perpetrated violence for political ends, against citizens of this great Democratic Republic, and are thereby terrorists n'est-ce pas?

[Beelzebud]

74. 9/11 is no excuse to abolish the 1st amendment.

If you are never offended you are not living in a free society.

These are the same reasons Noam Compsky went to the mat for a holocaust denier. Not because he agreed, but because he wanted to preserve the 1st amendment.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

76. who said anything about offended?

i argue that the kkk is a terrorist group with an historically violent m.o.

who said anything about being offended? the kkk is a violent hate group by its own history, if not by its own begrudging admission. I don't really think that the simple existence of violent hate groups is any barometer of a free society any more or less than anything else.

In Germany you can't be a Nazi nowadays, its not legal. That doesn't impede freedom, Jesus who would want to be a goddamn Nazi anyway except for the most criminally insane people possible? People don't point to Germany and say "OH MY GOD LOOK WHAT THEY"VE DONE TO FREEDOM!" or "Jesus, those Germans are just so sensitive and don't like being offended so they banned Nazism and that's a slippery slope to them losing all of their freedoms of expression". No, not really, really they just banned Nazism and that was that no big deal.

BTW i like your Lateralus avatar, can't wait for the new one.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

75. I live in ALABAMA and as best I can tell the KKK doesn't exist anymore

once a decade I hear some nut-case Republicans up north try to cook up a Klan rally but never here. Prejudice, I'm sad to report, is still rampant in the deep south.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

77. that's true.

the kkk has waned, other groups spring up then subside I don't want to conflate their numbers or anything, lol, they are pretty small in number all around. But they're still terrorists, as bumbling and hick-like as they are.

[tom_paine]

83. You know why that is? They are now all Busheviks.

They are now the CCC.

They have shed their skin like a snake, but they are still here.

You will see them in Halliburton Homeland Detention Camps.

They'll be the guys beating the shit out of you in the exercise yard.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

85. that was a thought that came to my mind too when i read that post.

you have the delivery and cynicism of a tom_paine that used to frequent DU a while ago that I haven't seen in a while.

One of my favorite DU'ers to read.

good to have you on the thread, whether or not you are that old tom_paine. and if you are that old tom_paine I consider it an honor for you to have posted here.

[Proud_Democratt]

87. Their Headquarters is in

Harrison,AR. now.
http://www.kkk.bz/index1.htm