Why Would Peace Protesters Be A Threat To A President?

Question

From the 60's to today, it seems like all the US presidents think peace protesters need to be watched, restricted, arrested, or worse. Can someone tell me wherein lies the threat?

Answer 1

As one of those peace protesters from the late '60's, early '70's - anyone is seen as threat if they disagree with the status quo. If your thoughts are contrary to the current party line - you are a dangerous individual and if there are a bunch of you, then you become even more dangerous. Some politicians - such as the current occupant of the Oval Office - and I suppose some thin-skinned Bush supporter will report me for this (gimme a break!) - are totally incapable of accepting criticism which is why demonstrators/protesters are not allowed anywhere near him.

Fortunately, past presidents (Johnson, even Nixon to a certain extent) were not that thin-skinned and while they disagreed with the protesters 100%, at least believed in the American right of protest and dissent as permitted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obviously, the current administration does not believe as strongly in those rights and fears the protesters as being un-American who are "out to get him." I think its called paranoia.

There is no threat - the right to protest is a Constitutional guarantee - its too bad a certain person in DC doesn't recognize that fact. In that respect, the current administration is worse than the Nixon administration which was probably the most paranoid in history.

Answer 2

The government does not like the forming of Anti-Political campaigns against it's rule of the President. Protesting should get officials into offices that change things but protesters never get elected into office. Protesting does no good unless you have a political support system. That is why the government dislikes protests because there is a process of policy change and it involves elected officials and not street hippies holding signs.

Answer 3

The threat is that the protesters might call attention to the real scandals behind the face of war. Most war is a phony propaganda campaign foist on the population while those in power pursue another agenda behind the scenes. http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
If you click on the link you can see up close how much money is spent on the war in Iraq. Individuals and corporations are raking in huge profits as this goes on, and would not like attention put on what they are doing. And that is only the tip of the usual iceberg that floats during war.

Answer 4

protesting isn't the same as it used to be. showing descent and attacking someone are two way different things. MOST protests are not peaceful just like most other leftist Ideologies they have gone way to far with it.

Answer 5

Check out the history of the radicals from the 60's and 70's that will answer your question. Peace and protesters don't always go hand in hand.

Answer 6

A lot of people in a small area all of whom are pissed off about something in a country where owning firearms is legal. Does this make any sense?

Answer 7

They embolden and aid the enemy. If America shows a unified front the enemy will feel they cannot win or out wait us. This has been the best war ever waged. The deaths are minuscule compared to other wars. It is a just war. Radical Islam plans to take over the world. They are patient and will wait 50 years . Liberals want us out 2 years ago. We cannot lose this war.

Answer 8

If someone wanted to assassinate "Chicken George" Bush, they wouldn't get anywhere near him if they were a protestor.

But they might if they were pretending to be a campaigner for him.


.

Answer 9

Huxley, during WW II said "Pacifism is objectively pro fascist. If you hamper 1 side you help the other".

Answer 10

I think it would be a threat to Dick Chainey, since he's making a lot of money off this war.