Well, the G-8 Summit will officially start tomorrow.

The terrorism, however, has already begun.

The citizens of my fine city are currently under the control of 25,000 federal, state, and local policing authorities.

My house has been shaking from the military helicopters flying overhead at about 1,000 feet. My cats are freaking out every time a parade of 50 police cars with sirens and lights drives down my quiet residential street in the middle of the night. Our riverfront is being protected by boats armed with machine guns.

Just walking down the street, it is obvious that you are being watched. In the ultimate irony, my tax dollars are paying for the dirty looks being dished out by the police on every street corner. What a mess.

Anyway, I have setup a little G-8 mini-site that will detail my skewed, conservative experiences with the G-8. The site can be found here:
http://www.americasdebate.com/g8

If you have any comments, feel free to post them here. I may end up using some of them on the mini-site.

Thanks!

Mike

I'm curious Mike, if you will still consider it a police state if those law enforcement officers stop a riot.

These guys protest the G8, the IMF and all other world financial summits. They do tend to get testy.

I know that you know all of that, but add in anti-Iraq protestors and you could get a healthy dose of civil disobedience in your quiet neighborhood.

Yes, I most definitely will consider it a police state.

As of right now, our governor has declared my county, and several surrounding counties, a state of emergency. The reason behind this is simple: It gives non-local policing agents the ability to impose jurisdiction upon our county.

As I see it, this is in direct violation of our 5th amendment rights.

No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Due process under the law, to me, dictates that we have the right to be policed by the police force we maintain. If I improperly park my car in front of the post office, I am to be granted due process. That due process involves being ticketed by a local parking authority, and being asked to move my car.

As it is right now, an agent of the US military can force me to submit to search and seizure of my car at gunpoint, bypassing my due process rights.

Our governor, by ceding his power to the federal government and ceding the power of the State of Georgia, has violated the due process rights of all citizens of the "emergency" counties. He has submitted our rights as a citizenry as a whole to remain as an independent governing body.

As for the protesters...

For one, federal agents and law enforcement outnumber the largest estimates for protesters by a 2.5 to 1 ratio. That means that we're expecting a maximum of 10,000 protesters, and we currently have 25,000 government agents in and around Savannah.

Additionally, our city council passed a blatantly unconstitutional "Protest Permit" ordinance just months before the G-8. In order to protest, you must secure a permit from city council. You must secure a security force. You must secure insurance. You must specifically spell out what you are protesting.

Congress shall make no... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

The permit costs money. The security costs money. The insurance costs money. By limiting the ability for those without the financial resources to protest, the city of Savannah has shamefully stripped its citizens of their 1st amendment rights.

There is no need for a permit-- the 1st amendment dictates that. There is no need for a security force-- we already pay for one in the form of the police. There is no need for insurance-- civil and criminal law has established a clear path for addressing such crimes as criminal damage to property and assault on a police officer.

There is no need for any of this, other than to impress upon your citizenry that they best keep their mouth shut, their eyes closed, and their cameras in their drawer.

If you were here, you would agree-- police state, hands down. The ends (supposed security) do not justify the means (stripping us of our rights, and intimidating us into staying home).

Mike

That's really scary Mike, I must admit I was completely in the dark about what was going on over in GA.

Have you thought about writing an Op/Ed piece for your paper or writing your politicians? Anything to get more exposure to this whole thing, I haven't seen a peep abot it in any national news outlet. The whole thing sounds like something straight out of 1984.

Are you saying that they are using soldiers to search vehicles and make arrests at gunpoint?

No, I'm not saying that the military is doing this, I'm saying that they can. The forcing would be implied by the fact that they have guns, and there are 24,999 others with guns in the surrounding area. Who is going to refuse a search? It is not ok to ask to search someone without a darn good reason, and it is not ok to submit just because you have nothing to hide.

I'm not sure who will be running the checkpoint over the Talmadge Bridge to South Carolina. I wonder if it will be the military, federal agents, or the local police (city and county are merged).

Here's an interesting tidbit from our local paper (link):



No, no gunpoint. Not the military, either. But does the Constitution give federal agents the power to search someone for looking at them wrong? ...is that even enough basis to approach and ask to search someone?

Nope, but these two PDF executive orders give the federal government the power to do whatever they want, irrespective of our state's constitution or any recourse to the citizens:

This one gives the state prison & police workers the ability to work in any of the specified counties. No big deal, Georgia cops working in a different county.

But this one contains this little gem:



So, what the fed wants, they get. How can that be constitutional?

Give them a read...

Uh-oh, I think I hear another police parade coming... is that 7 times today?

Mike

Am I missing something here? How the hell do you declare a state of emergency before any "emergency" takes place? Did they declare a state of potential emergency? A state of "we are scared that an emergency might take place, so let's put everyone on lockdown"?

What's next? Declaring martial law, with curfews and everything, just in case? You know, safety first.

It's a preemptive state of emergency.

Mike...i think you are panicing over nothing. There are going to be major world leaders in the area. Talk about a prime terrorist target.

Heh. I'm not panicing. I am expressing my disgust at how easily people will roll over to the federal government.

The citizens of Savannah didn't want the G-8 here. We had no choice. The president decided to "host" his meeting down here, and there was little the citizens of Savannah could do about it.

As a matter of fact, their was quite a big stink about the fact that our county and our city were each going to donate $25,000 in tax revenue to the G-8 media reception. There was a big stink-- but the money was donated anyway. I'd like to think that the 8 richest nations in the world have the funds to throw their own party.

But no, according to other recent reports, the federal government has also failed to provide funding for several projects they promised as part of the G-8 deal. We were supposed to get an upgraded police radio system to allow for faster response if there was a terrorist attack. As far as I know, it never came.

Our governor signs a couple of slips of paper, and whoosh-- the laws have all changed.

Read the executive orders. Our state's DHS has to accommodate the requests of the federal DHS, CIA, FBI-- whoever, and for whatever reason. There is no system of checks and balances capable of moving fast enough to counter the orders of the governor, and there is no way for citizens to know what special federal standards (laws) are being applied throughout the summit.

If the true concern were for the safety of the citizens, the summit would have been relocated. Or better yet, they could do what the remaining 99.9% of people do and pickup their phone.

Mike

Well it may be too little too late, but I just wrote up a letter and sent it to every politician and news outlet I could think of. The thing that concerns me the most about this is how little coverage this has received.

This is simply outrageous! I had heard very minimal coverage about this, but I certainly didn't realize that it went this far. I have written a letter to numerous members of congress. Don't know how much that will help, but it's something. I'm also going to write a letter to the editor on the issue, because, to my knowledge, it has received no coverage in either of our local newspapers.

that wouldn't happen to be because everywhere the gang of 8 goes there are protests (as with the IMF, WTO, and WB) would it? seems to me the people of the world don't like these organizations. almost every non-violent protest since N30 (WTO, seattle, november 30 (thus N30) 1999) has erupted into violent riots after severe police repression of dissent. (most notable were the quebec city FTAA protests, where riots/protests lasted for days and police used 4,709 canisters of tear gas over a 72 hour period or about 65.4 canisters an hour)

I agree that the laws they have passed for the summit of the gang of 8 have been pretty draconian. I wouldn't expect the police to use as much tear gas (which is banned by the is banned for military use by the 1995 Convention on Chemical Weapons by the way) as quebec's police did (over ONE CANISTER EVERY MINUTE ) but I would expect downtown savanah to resemble a battleground over the next couple days. (avoid that area if at all possible)

edited to add:

I don't think many people will be protesting in savanah mike. I think the bulk of protests will be in brunswick which is much closer to the summit meeting site.

This does seem to be an extension of our national reaction to 9-11. Preemptive strikes to stop terrorist activity. COnsolidation of power up the chain of command. And, most unfortunately, (and admittedly without hard facts to back it up) repeated reports of underfunded local first responders with greater demands placed on them from above.

We have deferred a lot of our civil liberties and many of our checks and balances to deal with emergency situations.

Politically, Bush has much less to fear from angry people in Savannah for being placed under police state powers temporarily, then he does from the fallout of a terrorist attack in the United States.

The WTO, G-8 protesters have been very intense the last few years. I read Misunderestimated and it opens with a turbulent time that Bush had in Portland when they underestimated the amount of local disturbance. (The author uses this as in introduction of Bush to "Bush-haters" a disease that spreads from the radical fringe to the Senate floor through the course of the book)

I think this is an attempt to intimidate protesters from going to Savannah. Their actions can be quite violent and damaging.

Yet, despite all of this, I prefer to live in a society that prepares for, and reacts to emergency situations rather than preemptively strikes against them.

There is a balance that needs to be struck, and the G-8 summits have been the source of some intense protest/crack down confrontations in the past.

Here I am - odd ball out again.

I see these "temporary" precautions as necessary in today's world for these types of events. When major events happen, e.g the Olympics, the G-8, the Superbowl, it is our government's primary responsiblity to make sure we are safe. Events like these are appealing to those who would do us harm.

Sure, there may be a decrease in revenue for some in the historic district and that is a shame. The G-8 should have no permanent affect on the citizens of Savannah.

Increased police presence is one thing, it can probably be argued that is prudent given the number of world leaders in one area. But for all intents and purposes banning protests? I just can't see how that is something any American can condone.

Mike wrote about this on his mini-blog, the original number of expected protestors was about 10,000. Only about 1,000 have turned out. I wonder if that is because they made it prohibitively expensive to protest.

What would have happened if we had these kinds of laws during the civil rights movement or during the Vietnam war? I'd venture to guess we'd still have colored and white water fountains.

Bella, how on earth does 25,000 government agents guarantee security? You could probably make a human fence of people standing shoulder to shoulder 5 people deep around an entire core of the town to be used exclusively by the summit with that number. As history should have taught people through the various terrorist acts over the last 50 years, terrorists operate in a fashion which demands smart security, not an overabundance thereof. There was plenty of security around the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, there was plenty of security around the USS Cole; or the barracks in Beirut. Lets say that the U.S. does get intelligence directing them that a suicide attack is imminent. Unless Al Queda smuggled in 5000 fighters without anyone noticing, the numbers just don't add up. Does it take 3,000 soldiers to stop a truck or defuse a bomb?

Lets put things in perspective. There are what, about 250,000 foreign troops in Iraq, a country of approximately 30 million people. Are you honestly suggesting that 25,000 government officials (1/10th the number) are needed to guard a few hundred dignitaries in a city that has only 130,000 people (1/230th the size)?

Either the security in Iraq is absolutely pitiful, or the security in Savannah is completely over the top. I don't mean to turn this into a security debate but it really bugs me someone, ANYONE invents a threat to violate civil rights; and it bothers me even more when people lay down and take it.

I see the problem here as being two-fold:

1) The citizens had absolutely zero input as to whether the conference would be held in the city. Given the inordinate amount of discomfort afforded to the citizens for reasons of security, people should have been able to voice concerns and express opposition.

2) The G-8 is a violence magnet.

So why not hold the G-8 in the Bat Cave they used to hide the shadow government?

Seriously Mike, this whole episode appears to suck in a grand manner and could be what our futures will resemble whenever something happens around us that might be considered risky. We're back to the argument about how much protection citizens actually desire and how much risk we're willing to take on in the name of liberty.

However, I'll bet the security is more to protect the G-8 participants than citizens of Savannah. It happens around Colorado Springs rather often these days, what with economic meetings, Presidential visits, and just the nature of having more darn military bases than whiskers on the cats. I can hear the whupping of the chopper blades you're enduring. We get them now and then.

Some people around here consider the noise to be the sound of freedom.

Eh, I can understand the viewpoint. Same with the booming of Carson artillery, droning of Academy trainer planes, and the screams of low-flying Peterson jets.

But we have chosen to live with the sounds of freedom that happen here. Savannah citizens have not, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Putting the G-8 underground in some secret government hideout seems to make sense to me. Maybe there's one in Nevada close to Vegas? Terrorists would have a hard time telling the G-8 folks from all the techies hanging out at various trade shows. Plus Vegas has built-in security, and the residents are accustomed to abuse.

Maybe it's too late for this one, but think about the proposal for the next time something like this comes toward Savannah.

Made more tempting by new levels of local, state, and federal authorities and intelligence agencies concentrated in one area for the pickings.


Your first safeguard is information, not mounted cameras and gas-guzzling armored vehicles. Authorities think something may happen. A "25,000 federal, state, and local policing authorities" force is overkill if they know when, where, or how.

The anecdotal response if nothing happens is "See? We deterred an attack through sheer volume, urban logistics and technology. The inconvenience was worth it!" I'm afraid we treat the GWOT as an expanded Cold War model. The incentive to evolve is limited with a security slush fund one preemptive order/emergency away.

For some reason, reading through AM's response here I got to thinking.... Yeah, yeah, yeah, always a dangerous thing for me I know. The G-8 is a pretty darn big deal, certainly classified as a major world event and I'm wondering if cities like Savannah might not be really equipped to handle them. Now I'm not dissing Savannah or anything like that, I know nothing other about it other than what Mike and Jaime have told us about it, but I do wonder if a city like Savannah might lack the everyday resources compared to the resources required for a major event like the G-8. With a city like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, etc., the percentage increase required to handle the G-8 would be nominal compared to what they spend everyday anyway. But with a smaller city like Savannah the additional resources required might be a considerable chunk of the annual city budget, even with federal help. I wonder if that might not be one of the reasons they are asking for things like insurance and the like for the demonstrators.

I live 4 miles south of Lowe's Motor Speedway in Charlotte, NC. Two times a year (Coca Cola 600/Nextel Cup and UAW/GM500) the streets surrounding my neighborhood become reminiscent of Mike's description though not quite to the 25,000 level in Savannah currently. So I feel your pain a bit, though I do think they've gone a bit overboard. Your blog entry for the 8th gives me hope maybe things will calm a bit for you.

I wonder what's worse, Nascar fans and state troopers or G-8 protestors and 4 levels of police Two weeks ago it would have been a toss up due to personal prejudice. Now I think Mike wins in a landslide

Doc

For those of you who haven't had the fortune of visiting Sea Island, it really is like the Bat Cave. One road in, surrounded by water. Incredibly luxurious resort (low-end room is about $400 per night without food) that has been totally shut down for this meeting. It's also MUCH closer to Brunswick than Savannah. It's about half-way between Jacksonville, FL and Savannah by car... figure about 30+ miles away.

I'm totally unclear why they've decided to clamp down on Savannah, considering how far away it is. Can't be for security of those attending the G-8. Most likely it's all about squelching protesters.

Security for the world leaders attending the G-8 on this island is most likely being handled by the federal government I would think. I think the fears of Savannah itself stem from some of the scenes we've seen of these protesters elsewhere like in Seattle and Italy. I do think there is a genuine fear on the part of the city of Savannah that their city might get trashed.

I'm totally unclear why they've decided to clamp down on Savannah, considering how far away it is. Can't be for security of those attending the G-8. Most likely it's all about squelching protesters.


Protest is taking it's toll on the GW regime, obviously. He can't go anywhere in the world without massive security to hold protestors at bay. GW doesn't give a darn about the constitution, never has- it is all about holding power.



I do think there is a genuine fear on the part of the city of Savannah that their city might get trashed.

To bad, so sad, that is the price of freedom. At this point, if more cities get trashed, they will hopefully step up and start refusing to let the G-8 meet in thier area- snub the regime and all that. Perhaps if GW started listening to those protestors instead of just listening to those voices in his head (he claims they are God's ) he might even gain a little credibility in the world.

Your are exactly right on that, except in that it extends to the media as well.

Today was the first official day of the summit. The dignitaries are here, and the media are heading to Sea Island. Likewise, so did the protection, I assume.

Apparently Savannah today is 1/10th the target of Savannah yesterday. The police presence today seemed to be about 1/10th of what it was yesterday. There is yet to be a parade of dozens of cars with their sirens blaring. I have only heard the helicopter twice, and it has gained enough altitude to stop shaking my house.

We had a protest here today-- I posted some pictures. The turnout was as weak as the message. It seems as though the intimidation tactics have worked.



Hutchison Island, half way between SC and GA, is only accessible by one road. The government decided that the Westin Harbor Resort and the convention center would serve as good media headquarters. They can easily control access to and from the island, and see the entire thing from one helicopter. The government is now selectively regulating access to a public island.

As for the number of protesters in Brunswick, the local news stations reported numbers in the 40s - 60s. Brunswick setup a similar anti-protest law as Savannah. Just ask the ACLU.

I'm also wondering if this 25,000 law enforcement count was just intentional misinformation. The first day they reported it, it was only 20,000. Jaime and I talked about how they must have just added an extra zero on the number-- there was no way there were going to be 20,000 agents here. But then, the next day, they say 25,000! We couldn't believe it. Not only was that last zero intentional, the grand total went up by 25%!

Anyway, time for some food.

Mike

Man, only 50 protestors? 2000 miles away from the summit there were more protestors here in San Francisco this morning protesting than that

If the Bush administration lands another 4 years in office, I have $50 that says this "protest permit" becomes standard operating procedure.

Is there something wrong with a post permit? I think it makes sense. People have to have building permits to add on to their own homes, people have to have parade permits, some one moves in with you, you need a permit in some towns.

$50.00 isn't that much from a group of people. At least that way, it will only be people who are really concerned about the issue. Large crowds of angry people have been known to commit a lot of damage and people behave differently when they are in large crowds. (Crowd mentality, I believe is the correct term).

It's funny, until Mike posted this thread, I thought they were talking about the country of Georgia




edited: oops, you are betting $50.00 that's not the price of the permit.

yes there is something wrong with having to get a permit to protest. ya see, we have this thing here in america called the bill of rights. in this bill, there are 10 amendments, the first states

requiring that people get a permit to protest is a violation of the first amendment, as are "free speech zones" in other words people are free to protest so long as it is not visible, and they have permission. you are also degrading the memories of all the people that have fought and died for the freedom to protest.

If an issue becomes polarized, neither position makes sense.

We can't take the position that freedom of speech and assembly is absolute, unconditional, and limitless. Should a protestor waving a placard be allowed to stand in the middle of a busy street, causing traffic problems and being a danger to himself and others? Should a group of people be able to assemble en masse near a building and make so much noise and commotion that a smaller group of people trying to have a meeting inside the building can't even hear each other talk over the racket? If I follow you around in public screaming at you everywhere you go at all times, is my disruption of your life protected as "free speech?"

Likewise, if society should be able to emplace restrictions, they have to be reasonable as to the time, place, and manner, and not designed to really prevent speech and assembly rights from taking place at all when it isn't going to endanger people or infringe on the rights of others to conduct their business and their lives.

There has to be a delicate balancing act between these competing rights and a decision reached that tries to accomodate both as fairly and reasonable as possible. Most of the time, requiring "permits" is allowed and upheld by the Courts when the real use of the permit system is a method for enabling the city/local government be fully informed as to the nature and extent of the activites being planned by the protestors. Permits are not supposed to be denied on the basis of the content or context of the speech the protestors want to convey; otherwise, a free speech case in the Courts might ensue. Similarly, denial of a permit based on other reasonable grounds (i.e., the downtown area in question cannot reasonable and safely handle X number of people packing into the area) is something that would stand up on review in a court challenge.

I can understand and appreciate that there might be an increasing tendency for city governments to become more and more restrictive in requiring permits for protests in this post 9/11 environment, and that city officials might be tempted to unfairly curtail more speech activities out of less than reasonable concerns (being biased and denying a permit because its more convenient for the city, not because there is truly a civic danger or an unreasonable burden being imposed by the protestors). In such scenarios, I hope groups like the ACLU get involved and help the protestors challenge the city officials in court and call them on their overreaching decision. But requiring permits has been constitutionally upheld by the Supreme Court as being a reasonable and a fair way to balance the interests involved.

Yes, it is too much to ask.
1) It violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution:



2) The Protest Permit as it has been implemented in Georgia is prohibitively expensive.

In order to obtain the permit you have to pay a $2,100 permit fee, a maintenance deposit of $1.50 per person (for cleanup and police protection), must state what you intend to protest, are limited to a demonstration no longer than 2 hours and 30 minutes, and may not carry signs and banners on sticks. (gathered from various news articles describing the permit)

The effect here is pretty clear. Historically the G-8 has had pretty large protests. Georgia was even estimating 10,000 or so protestors for this year's summit. What did they end up with? 50 Demonstrators? Seems to me the protest permit had quite an effect on the projected numbers.

The disturbing implication here is that the government was able to avoid protests for an unpopular summit. They can easily take what they have learned here and apply it in other places under the guise of "we are protecting you from terrorists" or "all those police cost money". Once that is done, we are effectively ignoring a portion of the first amendment.

Requiring a permit is not a violation of free speech. Think of the massive protests/marches that swarm the capital and NYC. Thousands of people showing up without notice isn't spontaneous free speech (a romanticized notion)--it's a damn mob that could turn into a riot without police protection and barricades directing the flow of human/vehicular traffic. Citizens and the local government deserve a head's up, allowing both to make arrangements and preparations.

Alternatively tying up permits with fees does infringe on free speech rights. If protests strain the budget the government needs to deal with tax cuts/taxes/programs/etc. instead of passing the buck on to protesters. They don't have direct control over state and federal budgets.

I have TONS to say about all this but haven't had the time to do it.

I have a quick update - About 20 protesters have blocked off the intersection of Broughton & Bull Streets (major downtown intersection, in front of Starbucks, of course). The ones I saw were wearing bandanas or masks to cover their faces, beating drums, and flying a red and black flag.

Every cop and guard member in the area responded or are responding as I type. I only got a brief glimpse of events, as I had to return to work. I would estimate I saw at least 40 cop cars of various sorts, another 30-40 individual cops and security forces, about 5 mounted police, and maybe 10 or 15 National Guard members responding to the immediate area. In the distance, The helicopters are back out and buzzing downtown and I can hear more sirens responding. Mike is there taking pictures and will be back to tell us about it later.

More to come!!!


Edited to fix spelling that spellcheck can't fix

I know it's a typo, but the image of people using bananas to cover their faces is pretty darn funny!

Think these folks are like the anarchists who got rowdy in Colorado Springs before the war in Iraq started. Hope Mike keeps a safe distance. This'll be interesting -- looking forward to the blog report!

I disagree. Requiring a permit implies that you need permission in order to protest. The Constitution is clear that everyone has a right to peacably assemble for protest.

If I wanted to leave work right now, walk a block or two to downtown Oakland and protest President Bush (or anything for that matter), I should be able to do so without getting written permission from anyone. The same goes for an organized group.

I would agree that large crowds can cause logistical problems such as traffic problems, need for police presence, etc. However, like many of our rights, the right to protest is a double edged sword and this is one consequence. However, the right is absolute and should not be infringed upon.

This is exactly the same problem people have with other parts of the first amendment. Free Speech means that you can say what you want and sometimes people don't want to hear it or consider it indecent, we should limit it because of X, Y and Z. For example, I don't agree with Neo-Nazis, but they are protected to voice their opinion the same as anyone else is, whether I like the message or not.

Large groups of protestors could notify the city as a courtesy, but they should by no means be obligated to seek permission. There most certainly shouldn't be some ridiculous barrier of entry for a protest as I described in my previous post.

Any damages that occur during a protest should be handled through the civil court system, the same way they would be handled if I crashed my car into a lamp post.

BLACK BLOC!!! just so everyone knows, the reason black bloccers cover their face is to erase their identity. it makes one person part of a larger group, prevents identification by police (such as happened in denver with their "spy files") and keeps any one individual from becoming a charismatic leader. *such che guevara or V I lenin)



anarcho-syndicalist actually. (from jamie's description of a red and black flag (split diagonally I assume) AM, I should point out that it was the police that overreacted. this type of thing happens A LOT when black blocs form (Black bloc are NOT a organized group, such as AFL-CIO, AIM, etc...) in seattle, it was the POLICE that attacked first, in quebec during the FTAA protests, the police would attack the black bloccers, let them go and attack again, so as to make it appear it was the anarchists fault. from the colorado springs gazette:

it was the italian police that instigated the violence at genoa as well. it takes a lot of guts to stand up to a force that is better equipped and larger then you are.

and from jamie's description it looks like the authorities will once again try to instigate the violence. what do they expect these people to do when hundreds of riot police show up to stop 20 or so protesters? I would put money on it that they hope the bloc turns violent so they can smear the entire anti-globalism protest movement in georgia by saying "see, they turned violent and we HAD to stop them.

I've spent a good deal of time in the park checking out the "protests." It was so funny on Monday when there were 3 or 4 camera crews for every protester. I did like the way the mounted police had eye protection for their horses. I guess PETA will be happy about that.

For the record, no one had to get a protest permit. Forsyth Park is a historic location. Public funds maintain it in pristine condition. If anyone wants to organize an event in the park they need to get the event approved and pay certain security deposits to cover potential damages. I’ve had to submit to the same regulations for the past 9 years that I’ve been involved with organizing a yearly arts festival in the park.

The organizers of this “protest” were not merely inviting people to come to Savannah and chant. They wanted to use a city-owned mobile stage. They wanted to power the stage, sound system, and bands from city-maintained and financed outlets and generators. They wanted to install a graffiti wall. They wanted to parade down public streets.

If my friends and I want to run down to the park and “protest” the flagrant disregard for bathing, no permit needed. But if you intend an event of such magnitude, suggesting as many as 15,000 might attend, then you’ve got to have at least a minimum amount of control.

You might liken it to limiting free speech to the extent that you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.

Last time I checked 15,000 people converging peacefully in a park does not by itself create an environment that places people at risk; so you COULD liken it to the above example, but you'd be wrong. Very very wrong.

I am sympathetic to the protestors in the given situation if the City demanded a $2,100.00 permit fee plus refused to allow signs and banners on sticks. Its the kind of situation I would like to see challenged in Court.

However, it is only telling half the story to say that the Constitution is clear and that we have an absolute right to protest which cannot be infringed. That does not take into account Supreme Court interpretation and established case law.

The First Amendment does states "Congress shall make no law respecting... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the government cannot restrict the right of the people to peaceably assemble based on the content of their speech or the reasons behind their decision to protest, and this right is absolute.

However, the Court has also ruled that the government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. These restrictions are supposed to be subject to the highest scrutiny on review; government can not use the restrictions as a ruse to restrict the protest based on the content of the speech, and the burden is on the government to show that the regulation serves a significant government interest and leaves alternatives for expression. The restriction must be narrowly tailored and not “substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government’s interest.” Valid and legitimate reasons which have been legally upheld have included public safety, maintaining the public peace, prevention of violence, prevention of a threat of violence, and protection of property. Some good cases to gain an understanding of the Courts rulings are Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), Adderly v. Florida (1966), Cox v. Louisiana (1965), Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), and Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997). Asserting that there is an absolute right to protest with absolutely no restrictions does not take into account the reality of our history and the established case law.


If you crash your car into a lampost, we're talking about a couple hundred dollars in a scenario where you'll probably make good and pay up, right? The damages from the protests at the 1999 World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle was estimated to be more than $13 million. How are they going to make that mob pay up and settle the score? How do we get to the individuals who were truly "responsible?"

Well, as usual, the best take on the whole thing was the Daily Show with Jon Stewart- when they said "gee, what are they protecting them from"- and the reporter said "well, we are dealing with the most powerful leaders in the world, and we must protect them from hearing anybody that might disagree with them"- after that comment, they moved him back- to St Lious LOL because "someone saw through a telescope and he might have frowned"- sums it up pretty good.

Haven't had much time to browse the forums lately so just catching up. Looking at your mini site, Mike, it looks as though your city was a pretty scary place for the duration of the summit. The sheer number of police activity was quite remarkable. Although i can understand that the G8 leaders could very well be targets of attacks, this in my opinion is extreme. If this level of protection was really required, why hold the summit in such a populous place where so many people will be affected?

This holds particular interest for me, as next years G8 summit will be held at Gleneagles; between Stirling and Perth, and not that far from my home. So far I've heard reports say that some 9,000 Scottish police will be called in for this. 9,000! Our country only has 5 million inhabitants, with a total police force of 15,000. I hope that, if this level of policing is neccesary, that reinforcements are called in from England. Having more than half of the force protecting the leaders of just 8 countries is completely bizarre.

unabomber, I find this sort of thing interesting from a journalistic stance of wanting to observe but not participate. I was at the protest that you referred to where the police overreacted, but I left early and missed the fireworks. There sure was a lot of controversy expressed over the CS police. Ironically, I interviewed folks at the CS police academy about a year later regarding what they do to help disadvantaged families at Christmas.

Think it's age, but maybe it's astrology -- can't help but see both sides. The bandana people (one clown does wear bananas -- in my dreams now -- thanks for that Jamie) were making a lot of racket, marching along like a bee swarm on the move, and I can imagine some doing what was reported by others: blocking traffic, jumping on cars. I can also imagine the police overreacting. But I wasn't there for those events and so must take the observations of others with grains of salt.

I did detect something in the police cadets that disturbed me. There's a sort of paramilitary mindset that most have, although the more experienced trainers had softened it. These kids have tough jobs to do, keeping the peace without killing everyone in sight. Their Christmas gig has to do with softening the military stuff while helping community.

Black bloccers have tough jobs to do as well, but I'm not convinced that their ways are effective. The greatest impact on me at the pre-war, pro-peace rally was the lining up of people of many different kinds along Academy Avenue, the line stretching half a mile on both sides of the avenue, people reaching out to others with a simple plea:

War won't work. Try something else.

That the powers are worried is reflected in the enormous overbuild of security forces for the G-8. Descriptions of this from Mike and Jamie remind me of the Blues Brothers getting chased by the entire Chicago and Illinois police forces. All that for two guys.

Ah well, there are people in the world who would like to scrap it all and start from scratch. That might happen anyway, but beating the drums literally to force a realignment is, to me, as useless as war.

Revolution won't work. Try something else.

What? Danged if I know. Maybe it was more than chance that I missed those fireworks, eh? Maybe it was some sort of sense on things.

We now understand better what happens when a world economy develops. We know how, as Third World countries rise, developed nations sink. We also know how a few wheelers and dealers can destroy good corporations and whole national economies. And of course we know that terrorism can and has struck with most not having a clue.

Our world keeps changing at an ever rapid pace. What was once termed "future shock" is now a daily shock. Present shock. I'm feeling more like the mouse than the cat lately. But I'm neither, and neither is anyone else. We are critters of great influence even in our mundane daily lives. I'm studying this situation now and can see that our daily decisions, exercises in courage and compassion, our ability to create and spread, um, love I guess -- this is the stuff that can save this old world. If anything can.

Anyway, the G-8 protests were kept mild, partially through the use of awesome displays of force. That this is necessary for a handfull of world leaders to have their little party at a fancy resort hotel says something about our world leaders. That protesters are considered rabble rousers (and that the rest of us are considered rabble) says another thing about the way things have come to pass.

Neither statement says anything that we'd be proud to speak.

So we need to try something else.

this is what bothers me most. It seems to me that the state tried (and seemingly succeeded) in imtimdating people not to speak. the people that would likely protest are most likely fully or partially aware of past protests, such as genoa (where italian police murdered, then repeatedly ran over, Carlo Giuliani (translated) (note: the person in the orange tee-shirt was seen several times that day talking to police and is believed to be an agent saboteur) and perhaps were afraid with as many police at georgia something similar MAY have happened. to me it seems as if the police intimidated protestors to not show up with the overwhelming force.

while I can understand a need for security, there is a fine line that the police shouldn't cross. when it seems like the police are trying to intimidate protest from even happening, I think that line is crossed.



I just HAVE to address this. there is NOTHING else than revolution that will change things. this doesn't nessecarily mean shoot people and blow things up. an instrumental (though not only) part of the indian revolution was non-violent protests and general strikes. yes there was some "violence" such as blowing up munitions trains carrying british weapons and such. but even ghandi didn't view such acts as violence. as malcolm X said: "it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks." surely, those that have power and benifit most from being in power will not freely give up that power. they NEVER have. I have to wonder what would have happened in america had jefferson and company listened to the people saying "revolution won't work" in their day? often times change starts non-violently (boston tea party etc...) it is when the powers that be respond that it turns violent, often with them (the Powers) starting it.

Unabomber, you give a good answer to the challenge. It is the answer of impassioned youth (relatively speaking, me being an old fart). And at one time I agreed with you with all my spirit. I may still agree.

The non-violence, passive-aggressive approach appeals to me these days. I'd like to see everyone quit watching cable mac-news, return their Hummers for refunds, stop shopping at chain mall stores, start reading good books, and vote the buggers out of office.

I'd like to see everyone get up and walk off the job when an Ebbers or Lay guts a company. Heh, well, that can happen without a voluntary decision.

I'd like to see investors yank their funds out of crooked companies that have no sense of loyalty to any population or any sense of the circles in nature, of which we are all parts.

Well, it'll be a long time before I see any of that. Can't force my ways on others. Can only teach by example, and that isn't teaching as much as suggesting. Besides, who is to say my way is right in the first place? Only those who might think, hey, that's pretty cool. I'm gonna try that.

Bringing this back to protests, yes, I can see where the Powers intimidated protesters away from G-8. I can see that a bunch of fat cats had a party and probably didn't talk about much of anything important to the people they supposedly lead. They sure didn't see or hear anything disturbing to their mellows.

Meanwhile, just because protest was surpressed does not mean some people did get their mellows disturbed. I can imagine that Mike and Jamie were not the only residents of Savanna wondering what the fudge is going on, and when did we ever invite the Police State in?

The US indeed did do a violent revolution to get started. The US indeed has had several internal revolutions that involved violence, the most violent being the Civil War. To this day violence can and does happen in the name of change.

I don't know. Maybe that's just the way things are. The show of force in Savanna was itself an act of violence on the city of Savanna, as I see it. Pushing citizens around and, might I use the term, terrorizing citizens is a form of violence -- potential versus kinetic. The barks before the bites. Intimidation.

In addition, the use of fear to club one's agenda into place is another form of violence, but that drifts into a larger subject.

Unabomber, I know you practice passive aggression regularly from some of the posts you've made. I know you aren't a mac-news junkie, and that you seek out better ways. It may have come to pass that The Powers harrassed you for being different, as happened regularly during my youth. I also know that you'd not harm anyone unless in self-defense. For all that you have my deepest respect.

The only thing that seperates us is a number of years. Guess we'll keep on doing the best we can with what we got, eh?

It's just ironic that after a couple of centuries and several violent internal revolutions, we still treat workers like commodities; we still treat minorities as second-class citizens; we still have taxation without representation (at least in some cases); and we still have a King George with his thumb on the nation. What's been won are compromises that slip backwards, not revolutions of change.

The revolutions of change, I suspect, are like currents in an ocean -- so strong that nothing can resist and nothing human can initiate. Not that we can't try, though, and even have a good time doing so. Somebody somewhere along the line gets an idea, right? Say for a lightbulb as the metaphor. Others think that it's a pretty good idea, and next thing you know the kerosene lamp becomes a decoration rather than a necessity.

Same could go for something like G-8s in cities like Savannah. Someone right now is working on a pretty good idea to never let the terrorism of intimidation come to town again.

Might fat cat parties posing as constructive meetings become kerosene lamps? We need better illumination! Well, enough of the metaphor play time.