Full Version: Protests and Civil Rights
As outspoken as I am I would never risk going to a protest due to the danger of speaking out in this country. The people who go there are brave indeed. I read stuff like this and wonder about those who are now voluntarily handing over all of their rights and trust the government not to abuse them.
Speech in this country is not free and innocent people can and do end up paying a price for it simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are peace protests scheduled in several cities through out the MLK holiday weekend including D.C.
Last September 27th, during the last peace protest, the police were organized and waiting. The number of arrests for the day was 649. Protesters and bystanders, nurses on their way to a convention, lawyers on their way to work, a woman training for a bike race—all rounded up, seized without warning, without orders given, and arrested en masse. They were then tied up like farm animals for hours. If you think all of these people got due process I suggest you read the story about the lies they were told and how they couldn't get their day in court to fight the charges.
Keep in mind the city agency charged with pursuing the cases, declined to prosecute a single demonstrator caught up in the police's dragnet because they, "did not feel ....that the witness statements and the evidence that we had [presented] probable cause that a crime was committed and/or that a specific individual committed a crime." So far, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of arrestees. One of the lawsuits filed counts 22 plaintiffs.
I've only quoted part of the article per the rules but the entire thing is worth a read.
WA City Paper
Speech in this country is not free and innocent people can and do end up paying a price for it simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are peace protests scheduled in several cities through out the MLK holiday weekend including D.C.
Last September 27th, during the last peace protest, the police were organized and waiting. The number of arrests for the day was 649. Protesters and bystanders, nurses on their way to a convention, lawyers on their way to work, a woman training for a bike race—all rounded up, seized without warning, without orders given, and arrested en masse. They were then tied up like farm animals for hours. If you think all of these people got due process I suggest you read the story about the lies they were told and how they couldn't get their day in court to fight the charges.
Keep in mind the city agency charged with pursuing the cases, declined to prosecute a single demonstrator caught up in the police's dragnet because they, "did not feel ....that the witness statements and the evidence that we had [presented] probable cause that a crime was committed and/or that a specific individual committed a crime." So far, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of arrestees. One of the lawsuits filed counts 22 plaintiffs.
I've only quoted part of the article per the rules but the entire thing is worth a read.
QUOTE
By 2:25 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 28, lawyer Julie Abbate had arrived at D.C. Superior Court under the close watch of U.S. marshals. Once in the building, Abbate says, she was put up against a wall and patted down. The officers then told her to pull down her green slacks and underwear, squat, and cough. "I thought they were kidding," Abbate says. "They weren't." She felt stupid. "Every order I obeyed...'" Orders to take off your pants and cough are standard operating procedure for processing an arrestee in D.C.
But standard procedure took on a new meaning in the mass sweep that corralled Abbate and more than 400 other innocent people in Pershing Park on Friday, Sept. 27. It was the first day of a protest that was supposed to shut the city down, spread the gospel of anti-globalization, and plead for a U.S. foreign policy based on peace and love.
Many bystanders, such as Abbate, wandered into the fray, unaware of the police department's protocol for handling civil demonstrations....The charge was failure to obey a police order, the same rap applied to her fellow arrestees. She spent five hours handcuffed on a bus. Eventually, she was hogtied wrist-to-ankle on the floor of the police academy's gym. That lasted for another 12 hours.
On Saturday morning at 5 a.m., Abbate was transferred to central booking downtown. She and other Pershing Park arrestees crammed into a cell consisting of cement floors, one bench, and one toilet. They had to form a "pee wall" to prevent officers from watching them go to the bathroom. Officers took their time processing them; some even threatened to leave them in custody through the weekend....
Eight hours later, they were transferred to Superior Court, where they went through the squat-and-cough routine. They were moved to a cell that became so crowded that arrestees had to stand on the toilet to make room. "It was exhausting, infuriating, bewildering, maddening," Abbate says. "It made me feel really, really helpless."
But standard procedure took on a new meaning in the mass sweep that corralled Abbate and more than 400 other innocent people in Pershing Park on Friday, Sept. 27. It was the first day of a protest that was supposed to shut the city down, spread the gospel of anti-globalization, and plead for a U.S. foreign policy based on peace and love.
Many bystanders, such as Abbate, wandered into the fray, unaware of the police department's protocol for handling civil demonstrations....The charge was failure to obey a police order, the same rap applied to her fellow arrestees. She spent five hours handcuffed on a bus. Eventually, she was hogtied wrist-to-ankle on the floor of the police academy's gym. That lasted for another 12 hours.
On Saturday morning at 5 a.m., Abbate was transferred to central booking downtown. She and other Pershing Park arrestees crammed into a cell consisting of cement floors, one bench, and one toilet. They had to form a "pee wall" to prevent officers from watching them go to the bathroom. Officers took their time processing them; some even threatened to leave them in custody through the weekend....
Eight hours later, they were transferred to Superior Court, where they went through the squat-and-cough routine. They were moved to a cell that became so crowded that arrestees had to stand on the toilet to make room. "It was exhausting, infuriating, bewildering, maddening," Abbate says. "It made me feel really, really helpless."
WA City Paper
I support the citizen's right to assemly, demonstrate and protest - if done according to the laws set out for such a purpose. However, I do have a problem when the purpose of the demonstration is as follows:
At that point the demonstrators are beyond exercising their rights, and infringing upon the rights of others.
As to the particular article cited above and what happened, I would need to read more than one source.
Interesting topic.
QUOTE
It was the first day of a protest that was supposed to shut the city down
At that point the demonstrators are beyond exercising their rights, and infringing upon the rights of others.
As to the particular article cited above and what happened, I would need to read more than one source.
Interesting topic.
Both Denver and Colorado Springs police departments keep files on known activists. These files have recently been opened to the public, which means those who have been and are being watched now know that this is going on.
Many have been shocked because their activism consists of volunteering for non-protest type of work. Others are the genuine thing: protestors for peace and other "left wing" causes. I'm sure my name is in there somewhere due to my presence at political activities as a freelance writer trying to get an article or grist for a book. I've had a lot of letters to the editor published locally too, and I have signed petitions for various changes to our state constitution.
I'm in agreement that protesting must always be done in a peaceful manner. Once you go violent, even if violence is perpetrated upon you first, you have lost the cause. I've witnessed very passionate displays but no violence (yet). Here's to a lot of activity and no violence over the MLK weekend. I, too, admire people who take these chances in this political climate. I also admire the police officers who try to keep things in line, so I always take a few photos of them when I'm doing my research.
Many have been shocked because their activism consists of volunteering for non-protest type of work. Others are the genuine thing: protestors for peace and other "left wing" causes. I'm sure my name is in there somewhere due to my presence at political activities as a freelance writer trying to get an article or grist for a book. I've had a lot of letters to the editor published locally too, and I have signed petitions for various changes to our state constitution.
I'm in agreement that protesting must always be done in a peaceful manner. Once you go violent, even if violence is perpetrated upon you first, you have lost the cause. I've witnessed very passionate displays but no violence (yet). Here's to a lot of activity and no violence over the MLK weekend. I, too, admire people who take these chances in this political climate. I also admire the police officers who try to keep things in line, so I always take a few photos of them when I'm doing my research.
I do not think cowering, or claim to cower in the face of governmental intelligence gathering is the way to be in America. I do not actively protest because I am not driven into the streets about today's issues. But increasingly I can see myself taking part in public protests. In fact I think recent legislation has made these concerns about public protesting more obsolete.
The government today broader rights in collecting information from us in our daily transactions and activities. Our activities on this post are enough to land us in files. We might as well take to the streets where we are not leaving electronic footprints everywhere we go.
The government today broader rights in collecting information from us in our daily transactions and activities. Our activities on this post are enough to land us in files. We might as well take to the streets where we are not leaving electronic footprints everywhere we go.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 18 2003, 11:50 AM)
Our activities on this post are enough to land us in files. We might as well take to the streets where we are not leaving electronic footprints everywhere we go.
Thank you for bringing this up, Eeyore. I completely agree.
The last time I think I wanted to take to the streets to protest was over ten years ago at the onset of Gulf War, Part I. Since, I've grown away from that. Mostly due to the respect I give to my time. I think it is better spent writing letters to my representatives and to the media, and of course, running a forum like this.
Not to say protesting in anyway is bad or I find what they do to be a waste of time. It just doesn't suit me (the fact that I am barely 5 feet tall and could easily be crushed is always a factor).
I wonder how much power online protesting holds. I mean look at us. We peacefully assemble and protest here everyday all day. AuthorMusician alluded to the power of online representation in the House of Representatives, We need more representatives thread. I also think there is quite a bit of untapped power in online protesting
(
yeah, go ahead and add that to my file 
)
Eeyore,
You said it. Not only should I be able to collect compensation for my personal information, I should be able to sell my urine in those silly drug screens for employment!
Yeah man, I am a urine factory--$20,000 per ml. Pony up!
It sure seems like the chipping away of rights started with the war on drugs and has extended to the war on terror. Ultimately, this becomes a war on US citizenship.
We need to stay vigilant, eh?
You said it. Not only should I be able to collect compensation for my personal information, I should be able to sell my urine in those silly drug screens for employment!
Yeah man, I am a urine factory--$20,000 per ml. Pony up!
It sure seems like the chipping away of rights started with the war on drugs and has extended to the war on terror. Ultimately, this becomes a war on US citizenship.
We need to stay vigilant, eh?
A couple more links to the original story.
Washington Times
Common Dreams
And one mention made as it relates to today's protests by the Washington post said:
WA Post
Washington Times
Common Dreams
And one mention made as it relates to today's protests by the Washington post said:
QUOTE
They have permits, so D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey may not be tempted to use his favorite demonstration-suppression tactic of late: mass arrests followed by hogtying.
WA Post
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 18 2003, 08:50 AM)
The government today broader rights in collecting information from us in our daily transactions and activities. Our activities on this post are enough to land us in files. We might as well take to the streets where we are not leaving electronic footprints everywhere we go.
This is what concerns me. It's one thing not to be able to stand outside the Capitol and yell your opinion and block traffic. It's another thing to have an online discussion that's monitored and kept on file in case you ever get caught up in the radar even for something simple like a traffic ticket.
If your record comes back saying that you are an anarchist or support terrorist propaganda how difficult are your legal problems now? What is considered propaganda might mean different things to different authorities. Opinion's on message boards for example.
It may be fine for everyone who is happy with their current administration and policies but the next administration may have a very different view. The laws will still be there when the next President is sworn in, whomever that may be and whatever he may stand for.
What would you feel strongly enough to protest over? Your property? Your job? Your religion? What will could speaking out on a site like this cost you in the long run. Can it be used against you in a court of law? If they can legally gather the info without cause and without a supeana I would think so.
I know it sounds very paranoid but we just threw out the laws that protected us from this kind of thing. It's naive to think that it will only affect the terrorists or criminals or 'other people'. They are YOUR laws and YOUR freedoms and eventually will effect YOU.
Peaceful protest is absolutely protected by the Constituion, and it should be. But, what defines peaceful? This is a great topic to speak out on, especially since I have been watching in utter disgust for the last half hour or so this freak show known as an anti-war rally. I get sick to my stomach when someone says that the most popular anti-war song in Korea is called "Fu**ing US" and people in the crowd cheer. This was in San Francisco, I think, and I cannot find that hard to believe in the least 
. I honestly don't think even Barnum & Bailey's Circus could compete with the amount of freaks present at this thing. But, I'm getting off topic, and my whole purpose for bringing this up is that I can't see how this blatently un-American protest is considered peaceful. They're not talking peace, they're talking attack on America IN PLACE of attack on Iraq. These are obviously people who just never fit in and are now massing together in one big celebration of freak-dom and to protest against non-freaks. I am glad that police monitor these things so closely, because you can never underestimate the power of freaks en masse. If somebody said the right things, they'd all be rampaging through the city, destroying everything in sight to make an example of their influence. Peaceful? I think not! I support my country and the government because they are trying to protect us from people who want us dead, like Osama bin Laden, who has already killed many more Americans than he should have. How can you argue with the people who are trying to protect you and gave you the right to argue and protest in the first place? This just makes me so sick...I think maybe it's time for a anti anti-war rally.
. I honestly don't think even Barnum & Bailey's Circus could compete with the amount of freaks present at this thing. But, I'm getting off topic, and my whole purpose for bringing this up is that I can't see how this blatently un-American protest is considered peaceful. They're not talking peace, they're talking attack on America IN PLACE of attack on Iraq. These are obviously people who just never fit in and are now massing together in one big celebration of freak-dom and to protest against non-freaks. I am glad that police monitor these things so closely, because you can never underestimate the power of freaks en masse. If somebody said the right things, they'd all be rampaging through the city, destroying everything in sight to make an example of their influence. Peaceful? I think not! I support my country and the government because they are trying to protect us from people who want us dead, like Osama bin Laden, who has already killed many more Americans than he should have. How can you argue with the people who are trying to protect you and gave you the right to argue and protest in the first place? This just makes me so sick...I think maybe it's time for a anti anti-war rally.
One of the dangerous things about debating is bouncing ideas off of other people. Let's say I defend the right of some people to commit terrorism and next week I decide that was a ridiculous idea. Or ten years later I have to pass a government security clearance to keep my job. Living in fear of these things is no way to live, and the possibility of this type of problem is not new.
During the Great Depression the capitalist economies of the world were collapsing in a manner that Marx predicted while the Soviet Union was reporting dramatic growth. Also the Stalinist ring of worldwide communist parties (Commintern) adopted a popular front system of cooperating with and supporting democracies in the face a the more dangerous fascist threat. I could see myself being curious about such an organization and attending a communist meeting or two if I was young in the 1930s. But after the Stalinist party line changed fifteen years later I could have found myself black listed from the government, the entertainment industry, or from labor unions because of the record of my attendance in those meetings.
During the Great Depression the capitalist economies of the world were collapsing in a manner that Marx predicted while the Soviet Union was reporting dramatic growth. Also the Stalinist ring of worldwide communist parties (Commintern) adopted a popular front system of cooperating with and supporting democracies in the face a the more dangerous fascist threat. I could see myself being curious about such an organization and attending a communist meeting or two if I was young in the 1930s. But after the Stalinist party line changed fifteen years later I could have found myself black listed from the government, the entertainment industry, or from labor unions because of the record of my attendance in those meetings.
CTE:
So, free speech is ok as long as you don't critisize the government or our country's policy? That's exactly the kind of speech it's in the constitution to protect along with religion.
Are you worried that these people might get others to listen? Good, that's why they are there. This is what a free country looks like. Love it or leave it. Just because you believe our current government is trying to protect our lives and our freedoms doesn't make it true.
So, free speech is ok as long as you don't critisize the government or our country's policy? That's exactly the kind of speech it's in the constitution to protect along with religion.
Are you worried that these people might get others to listen? Good, that's why they are there. This is what a free country looks like. Love it or leave it. Just because you believe our current government is trying to protect our lives and our freedoms doesn't make it true.
To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, yes I dare speak out. In fact, I've already demonstrated during a couple of Dubya's visits to Orlando - and joined a peace demonstration in progress two weeks ago (there's one every Saturday morning on West Colonial Drive should you happen to be in the neighborhood). The more this administration attempts to stifle free speech in this country, the more vocal I will become - they will have to hog-tie me - and drag me off screaming - before I stop letting these [expletive deleted] trample on all of our rights without protest.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jan 18 2003, 12:14 PM)
The more this administration attempts to stifle free speech in this country, the more vocal I will become - they will have to hog-tie me - and drag me off screaming - before I stop letting these [expletive deleted] trample on all of our rights without protest.
Wertz is my hero. 
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jan 18 2003, 02:14 PM)
The more this administration attempts to stifle free speech in this country, the more vocal I will become - they will have to hog-tie me - and drag me off screaming - before I stop letting these [expletive deleted] trample on all of our rights without protest.
I realize there is another thread on McCain-Feingold. The fact is McCain-Feingold is evidence that the attempts to curb free speech is bipartisan in nature.
Protest is as American as apple pie, I say. If you really believe in your cause, then you should speak up for it, even if there may be consequences. I've become very fond of the phrase lately that, "Freedom Doesn't Defend Itself", and I choose to live by that credo.
For as long as breath remains within my body, I will continue to pursue, and speak for everything I believe in, and against that which I do not. It is vitally important that we ALL do this, be it online, or on the street in a peaceful demonstration. God bless the 1st amendment.
For as long as breath remains within my body, I will continue to pursue, and speak for everything I believe in, and against that which I do not. It is vitally important that we ALL do this, be it online, or on the street in a peaceful demonstration. God bless the 1st amendment.
No, I am not afraid to speak out. (As most of you have probably already gathered! 
)
I have been in a couple of marches - but they were non-violent, law abiding. That's important to me. I value my right to peacefully assemble, but the emphasis is on 'peacefully.'
On a couple of occasions my courage has been tested in life threatening situations (not on a march or demonstration) and I was happy with how I responded, but I would never seek out disruptive and/or violent situations in which to participate.
)I have been in a couple of marches - but they were non-violent, law abiding. That's important to me. I value my right to peacefully assemble, but the emphasis is on 'peacefully.'
On a couple of occasions my courage has been tested in life threatening situations (not on a march or demonstration) and I was happy with how I responded, but I would never seek out disruptive and/or violent situations in which to participate.
The problem with the theoretical right to protest in America is that dissent is increasingly viewed as treason, and that is a VERY dangerous area of definition to start blurring.
JonBon,
I disagree. Rather, protests are increasingly just EXCUSES to BE violent themselves! People are realizing that the debate is not what many of these people are interested in. They want to forcibly change the process to one of fear NOT peaceful protest.
And when people discover that the groups that are sponsoring these protests are often socialist or communist organizations Americans KNOW that these groups hate everything America stands for INCLUDING the right of peaceful protest (which can be proven by Tienimen Square!).
So it is a natural, though sometimes regrettable, jump to assume all protesters are unpatriotic, anti American people.
Now, if protesters distanced themselves from socialists and communists it might be different. Lets make a for instance... If a person attends a KKK rally but later says that they only went to support the KKK’s anti-communist point of view would that cut it for you? Or would you assume they are not telling the truth and REALLY were racists?
Same for the current protesters. If they go to a communist rally, financially support them but then turn around and try to claim they are only for these communists’ anti-war stance it is not very easy for anyone to believe them.
I disagree. Rather, protests are increasingly just EXCUSES to BE violent themselves! People are realizing that the debate is not what many of these people are interested in. They want to forcibly change the process to one of fear NOT peaceful protest.
And when people discover that the groups that are sponsoring these protests are often socialist or communist organizations Americans KNOW that these groups hate everything America stands for INCLUDING the right of peaceful protest (which can be proven by Tienimen Square!).
So it is a natural, though sometimes regrettable, jump to assume all protesters are unpatriotic, anti American people.
Now, if protesters distanced themselves from socialists and communists it might be different. Lets make a for instance... If a person attends a KKK rally but later says that they only went to support the KKK’s anti-communist point of view would that cut it for you? Or would you assume they are not telling the truth and REALLY were racists?
Same for the current protesters. If they go to a communist rally, financially support them but then turn around and try to claim they are only for these communists’ anti-war stance it is not very easy for anyone to believe them.
Not all communists and socialists are revolutionary. The KKK has a right to assemble and protest. The right to demonstrate in public is a right I choose to abide by.
Blanket statements saying protests are unpatriotic lead us to a place where there is no right to protest. Most protests are about government policy or an appeal to government action. This can make them anti-government, which can lead to the argument that they are unpatriotic.
Let's have the demonstrations and use our police to stop crimes not lawful dissent.
Blanket statements saying protests are unpatriotic lead us to a place where there is no right to protest. Most protests are about government policy or an appeal to government action. This can make them anti-government, which can lead to the argument that they are unpatriotic.
Let's have the demonstrations and use our police to stop crimes not lawful dissent.
QUOTE(ColWTH @ Feb 5 2003, 01:44 PM)
And when people discover that the groups that are sponsoring these protests are often socialist or communist organizations Americans KNOW that these groups hate everything America stands for INCLUDING the right of peaceful protest (which can be proven by Tienimen Square!).
Are you implying that the Tienemen Square massacre constitutes evidence that any one with a Marxist, Socialist, Non-Capitalist or otherwise Left-Wing view of politics has no regard for non-violent protest and no hesitation in the use of violence to achieve political change?
JonBon,
Yours...”Are you implying that the Tienemen Square massacre constitutes evidence that any one with a Marxist, Socialist, Non-Capitalist or otherwise Left-Wing view of politics has no regard for non-violent protest and no hesitation in the use of violence to achieve political change?”
No. I am saying that the fact that China is a communist state and they DID crack down immorally on the democracy advocates at Tienemen Americans equate communists with totalitarian murderers.
Just as Americans equate all members of the KKK with racists.
And when they discover that protesters of this war are aligning with communists it is an easy jump to assume that the war protesters are aligning themselves with those who advocate the violent over throw of democracy and the US government as well as the US way of life.
Additionally, when many, many protests across the world (like the enviros or the anti-WTO people) turn violent it is easy to assume that the anti-war protesters will easily turn violent.
So, skepticism toward the protesters is most Americans first reaction.
Also, when people see these protests on TV they see signs about communism, signs about enviro stuff, signs about abortion ... in short they see few signs about anti-war stuff! It looks more like an excuse to protest EVERYTHING American and it looks as though there are few anti-war stances being taken. They need to FOCUS!
Lastly, when more than 60% of Americans AGREE with the war it is VERY easy to look askance at the protesters when they are so badly in the minority of the general American public’s opinion.
Yours...”Are you implying that the Tienemen Square massacre constitutes evidence that any one with a Marxist, Socialist, Non-Capitalist or otherwise Left-Wing view of politics has no regard for non-violent protest and no hesitation in the use of violence to achieve political change?”
No. I am saying that the fact that China is a communist state and they DID crack down immorally on the democracy advocates at Tienemen Americans equate communists with totalitarian murderers.
Just as Americans equate all members of the KKK with racists.
And when they discover that protesters of this war are aligning with communists it is an easy jump to assume that the war protesters are aligning themselves with those who advocate the violent over throw of democracy and the US government as well as the US way of life.
Additionally, when many, many protests across the world (like the enviros or the anti-WTO people) turn violent it is easy to assume that the anti-war protesters will easily turn violent.
So, skepticism toward the protesters is most Americans first reaction.
Also, when people see these protests on TV they see signs about communism, signs about enviro stuff, signs about abortion ... in short they see few signs about anti-war stuff! It looks more like an excuse to protest EVERYTHING American and it looks as though there are few anti-war stances being taken. They need to FOCUS!
Lastly, when more than 60% of Americans AGREE with the war it is VERY easy to look askance at the protesters when they are so badly in the minority of the general American public’s opinion.
QUOTE(ColWTH @ Feb 5 2003, 08:19 AM)
Lastly, when more than 60% of Americans AGREE with the war it is VERY easy to look askance at the protesters when they are so badly in the minority of the general American public’s opinion.
I think the remaining nearly forty percent merit a clear voice. This is not the message of a few disgruntled people.
The percentages change when people are asked about a war that is not approved by the UN. Demonstrate now, because protests may not be allowed during the war. They often haven't been allowed before.
I was thinking about something similar in line with this post recently. Would I be willing to be arrested to protest something that I felt the government was doing wrong? Right now, I would say no since I'm the only bread winner in my family. But, if I was single, I would probably say I would.
No government is infallible. Not all laws are just. And people do need the opportunity to point out the errors of them. I will also say that the use of force is certainly an option. Though if that direction is taken, much thought into the consequences needs to be taken.
No government is infallible. Not all laws are just. And people do need the opportunity to point out the errors of them. I will also say that the use of force is certainly an option. Though if that direction is taken, much thought into the consequences needs to be taken.
The argument that peace organizations are sponsored by socialist/communist/other anti-American groups needs more support than just saying it is so. I have not seen any evidence to this effect, at least for the organizations I've been watching and writing about. Money comes from donations and events, not some foreign government. Some actually receive government grants because they get involved with community issues.
However, during the 1960s, some anti-Vietnam war groups did receive funds from the USSR. I suspect this situation is getting mixed up with our current situation.
I'm listening to Powell present the case for war to the UN. Think I better turn on the TV for the visuals.
Later!
However, during the 1960s, some anti-Vietnam war groups did receive funds from the USSR. I suspect this situation is getting mixed up with our current situation.
I'm listening to Powell present the case for war to the UN. Think I better turn on the TV for the visuals.
Later!
ColWTH:
Well, now, I'm afraid that it just not true. Socialist and sometimes Communist organizations sometimes endorse and support protests, they don't really "sponsor" them. I have met Americans of all stripes at protests. And most of these groups do NOT hate "everything America stands for."
ColWTH:
There is a registered Communist Party in America. It in no way advocates the violent overthrow of democracy and the US government. Ditto Socialists. Let's hear some proof. You show me a Communist or Socialist group in America which advocates those things. Find it. Show us. Not some group that you SAY is commie. A group that actually IS. There probably people with Communist or Socialist beliefs who do believe in violent revolution. There are also right wing Republicans who believe the same thing. Obviously, that doesn't make the GOP a violent revolutionary group.
I think you are confusing "American" with "ColWTH's Opinions." You have the right to think what you want, you even have the right to think what you want and never seek out truth or evidence to back up your own opinions. Just be ready when people who DO value evidence and logic decide not to jump on your bandwagon.
Peace to you,
Dirk
QUOTE
And when people discover that the groups that are sponsoring these protests are often socialist or communist organizations Americans KNOW that these groups hate everything America stands for INCLUDING the right of peaceful protest (which can be proven by Tienimen Square!).
Well, now, I'm afraid that it just not true. Socialist and sometimes Communist organizations sometimes endorse and support protests, they don't really "sponsor" them. I have met Americans of all stripes at protests. And most of these groups do NOT hate "everything America stands for."
ColWTH:
QUOTE
And when they discover that protesters of this war are aligning with communists it is an easy jump to assume that the war protesters are aligning themselves with those who advocate the violent over throw of democracy and the US government as well as the US way of life.
There is a registered Communist Party in America. It in no way advocates the violent overthrow of democracy and the US government. Ditto Socialists. Let's hear some proof. You show me a Communist or Socialist group in America which advocates those things. Find it. Show us. Not some group that you SAY is commie. A group that actually IS. There probably people with Communist or Socialist beliefs who do believe in violent revolution. There are also right wing Republicans who believe the same thing. Obviously, that doesn't make the GOP a violent revolutionary group.
I think you are confusing "American" with "ColWTH's Opinions." You have the right to think what you want, you even have the right to think what you want and never seek out truth or evidence to back up your own opinions. Just be ready when people who DO value evidence and logic decide not to jump on your bandwagon.
Peace to you,
Dirk
Actually it IS true that communist and socialist organizations have sponsored and funded many of the US anti-war protests. It has been shown in several articles, magazine op eds and on the Bill O'Reilley show.
And I did not SAY that all protesters are socialists and communists. All I am pointing out is that their cause is tainted by being associated with the communists. On average no American trusts a communist.
And for the one that said the other 40% deserves a voice, you misunderstand statistics. When I say 60% agree with the war outright that does NOT leave 40% that feel the opposite! That leaves a portion that could not care less, a portion that is somewhat in agreement and a portion that disagrees totally with the war. So it is far less than 40% of Americans that are against the war. Which puts the number at a whole lot less than you intimated.
And I did not SAY that all protesters are socialists and communists. All I am pointing out is that their cause is tainted by being associated with the communists. On average no American trusts a communist.
And for the one that said the other 40% deserves a voice, you misunderstand statistics. When I say 60% agree with the war outright that does NOT leave 40% that feel the opposite! That leaves a portion that could not care less, a portion that is somewhat in agreement and a portion that disagrees totally with the war. So it is far less than 40% of Americans that are against the war. Which puts the number at a whole lot less than you intimated.
QUOTE(ColWTH @ Feb 5 2003, 07:18 PM)
Actually it IS true that communist and socialist organizations have sponsored and funded many of the US anti-war protests. It has been shown in several articles, magazine op eds and on the Bill O'Reilley show.
Could you link us to some of those references, please?
ColWTH:
Golly gee Whillikers! Bill O'Reilley! Must be true!
Tainted? No Americans trust Communists? I can only assume that since there are thousands of registered Communist Party members in America, the average is higher than zero. Sister ColWTH, are you stuck in the 50s? McCarthyism was a pretty dreadful thing. You have NO IDEA what a Communist is. You have NO IDEA what Socialism is. I suggest a little study before the vitriol next time, comes off a little more effectively. Just a suggestion.
QUOTE
Actually it IS true that communist and socialist organizations have sponsored and funded many of the US anti-war protests. It has been shown in several articles, magazine op eds and on the Bill O'Reilley show.
Golly gee Whillikers! Bill O'Reilley! Must be true!
QUOTE
And I did not SAY that all protesters are socialists and communists. All I am pointing out is that their cause is tainted by being associated with the communists. On average no American trusts a communist.
Tainted? No Americans trust Communists? I can only assume that since there are thousands of registered Communist Party members in America, the average is higher than zero. Sister ColWTH, are you stuck in the 50s? McCarthyism was a pretty dreadful thing. You have NO IDEA what a Communist is. You have NO IDEA what Socialism is. I suggest a little study before the vitriol next time, comes off a little more effectively. Just a suggestion.
60% percent is a high number. However I know there are a lot of people in that 60% who want war but need more evidence. Only about 49% (according to msnbc) are actually ready to go to war. So techniquely not everyone in the 60% want "war outright."
Approximately 15 years ago, my sister attended an AIDS demonstration in Washington DC. She had been a volunteer for her area AIDS Project and went to the demonstration to accompany a little girl with AIDS and her mother.
The demonstration was very peaceful but the police approached the crowd and said that if they didn't leave, they would be arrested. They told the mother that her daughter would be arrested if she didn't leave. Of course, the mother left with the daughter because she didn't want to expose her to the confusion of being arrested for having AIDS -- because that is how a child would have viewed the arrest.
My sister remained to represent them. She was arrested along with everyone else and was detained for many hours. The demonstration and arrests made national news and her employer say her on the news while he was eating dinner. My sister had taken a personal day to attend the demonstration and he was very displeased with her.
There is a huge risk -- freedom of speech does come with a price. At the time this happened, I admired my sister (still do); however, I felt I wasn't in a position to take such risks myself. Now that I'm self-employed, I would definitely take the risks if I felt strongly about an issue.
The demonstration was very peaceful but the police approached the crowd and said that if they didn't leave, they would be arrested. They told the mother that her daughter would be arrested if she didn't leave. Of course, the mother left with the daughter because she didn't want to expose her to the confusion of being arrested for having AIDS -- because that is how a child would have viewed the arrest.
My sister remained to represent them. She was arrested along with everyone else and was detained for many hours. The demonstration and arrests made national news and her employer say her on the news while he was eating dinner. My sister had taken a personal day to attend the demonstration and he was very displeased with her.
There is a huge risk -- freedom of speech does come with a price. At the time this happened, I admired my sister (still do); however, I felt I wasn't in a position to take such risks myself. Now that I'm self-employed, I would definitely take the risks if I felt strongly about an issue.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Feb 5 2003, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE(ColWTH @ Feb 5 2003, 07:18 PM)
Actually it IS true that communist and socialist organizations have sponsored and funded many of the US anti-war protests. It has been shown in several articles, magazine op eds and on the Bill O'Reilley show.
Could you link us to some of those references, please?
I would have thought most on here would at least have known this to be true..but alas.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2001/12/112382.php
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...16/190437.shtml
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...cle.asp?ID=2498
and the hits just keep on coming.
Darcaine
QUOTE
QUOTE
Actually it IS true that communist and socialist organizations have sponsored and funded many of the US anti-war protests. It has been shown in several articles, magazine op eds and on the Bill O'Reilley show.
Golly gee Whillikers! Bill O'Reilley! Must be true!
Actually it IS true that communist and socialist organizations have sponsored and funded many of the US anti-war protests. It has been shown in several articles, magazine op eds and on the Bill O'Reilley show.
Golly gee Whillikers! Bill O'Reilley! Must be true!
Apparantly Bill and the rest of the US know more than you do. Scary.
Darcaine
Darcaine, a well formed debate does not involve assumption. I don't believe anyone unless I am provided proof.
I would think a person would want to use proof to back up anything he or she says. Perhaps some don't mind how credible they appear and prefer the sound (or sight) of their own voice
I would think a person would want to use proof to back up anything he or she says. Perhaps some don't mind how credible they appear and prefer the sound (or sight) of their own voice
QUOTE(Jaime @ Feb 8 2003, 03:47 PM)
Darcaine, a well formed debate does not involve assumption. I don't believe anyone unless I am provided proof.
I would think a person would want to use proof to back up anything he or she says. Perhaps some don't mind how credible they appear and prefer the sound (or sight) of their own voice
I would think a person would want to use proof to back up anything he or she says. Perhaps some don't mind how credible they appear and prefer the sound (or sight) of their own voice
It's not just that. We SHOULD have post to www.dictionary.com. We also should all know of what the meaning of is "is" as well. I have seen some on here constantly say things without ANY proof what so ever. To use the internet as a guide for proof when any boob can make a web page is ludicrous. And to take this to it logical conclusion..and some have actually gone this far...gime proof that the proof is real proof...and then proof that the proof is real. Please.... I could park an Iraqi decontamination truck next to Wertz's house and because I drove it there he would make the case it wasn't real. I loathe to use internet sources..and only use them because people want to see something.
Darcaine
Honestly, socialist involvement in anti-war protests is common knowledge. Do a search under "green party anti-war protests". You will find plenty of information. Socialists have been heavily involved in anti-war activities since the beginning of the Cold War. To be anti-war is not always a bad thing.
QUOTE(Darcaine @ Feb 8 2003, 12:42 PM)
QUOTE(Jaime @ Feb 5 2003, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE(ColWTH @ Feb 5 2003, 07:18 PM)
Actually it IS true that communist and socialist organizations have sponsored and funded many of the US anti-war protests. It has been shown in several articles, magazine op eds and on the Bill O'Reilley show.
Could you link us to some of those references, please?
I would have thought most on here would at least have known this to be true..but alas.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2001/12/112382.php
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...16/190437.shtml
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...cle.asp?ID=2498
and the hits just keep on coming.
Darcaine
These are your supporting documents? Explains a lot. Your token "lefty" site was a page from a discussion forum. I saw a lot of rambling about anarchism. Didn't see: anything relevant.
Newsmax? Is this a treasure trove of factual reporting? There are commuinist, socialist, anarchist, religious, and all sorts of organizations supporting and endorsing anti-war marches. So what? That has nothing to do with controlling the agenda, or that because of this, the anti-war movement is somehow a bunch of commies. Newsmax reports on the Patriot Rally too. If the Christian Coalition endorses that rally, does that make everyone who supports the war either a card carrying CC member, or a witless dupe of the CC? I wouldn't leap to that conclusion, but then I don't use every post to insult the intelligence of conservatives, who like liberals, come in all stripes - from smart to dumb, from rich to poor, from nice to mean.
And finally, frontpagemag. Ditto the newsmax there.
QUOTE
Apparantly Bill and the rest of the US know more than you do. Scary.
Darcaine, as usual you're too kind. Maybe you can find some "evidence" from www.liberalsareidiots.com, to back this one up.
The attempt to dismiss anti-war protestors as commie idiots is quite childish, and begs any link to the real world. Some people are so puppeteered by their ideology that anyone voicing dissent is obviously (by virtue of the dissent itself) retarded, a commie, or a satanist, or a right-wing nazi, or a feminazi, whatever. I would like to be able to have a debate in which 1) you can stick to opinions and evidence, and 2) you can avoid blanket intelligence insults. Not everyone who disagrees with you is dumber than you.
I agree quarkhead. But, as alot of people are saying "follow the money". I hate internet sources because as I said in a previous post, "any boob can make a web page". Is it so hard to understand who is funding these activities? Does it leave a bad taste?
Darcaine
Darcaine
Since I posted this thread awhile back I've been reading the news stories about protests a little more carefully.
What strikes me about this story is that the protest in Colorado was small compared to the ones in London and Italy. This one only had about 3000 people compared to half a million in London and a million estimated in Italy. The protests there were peaceful while some of the ones here in the land of free speech required police force. I also thought the story was a little suspicious as it had no interviews with any of the participants...only conflicting stories from authorities.
Lately it appears Britain has surpassed our freedom of speech and our freedom of press. This bothers me. Again, this is all speculation on my part and maybe our protesters are just much more violent than the rest of the world.
Rocky Mountain News
What strikes me about this story is that the protest in Colorado was small compared to the ones in London and Italy. This one only had about 3000 people compared to half a million in London and a million estimated in Italy. The protests there were peaceful while some of the ones here in the land of free speech required police force. I also thought the story was a little suspicious as it had no interviews with any of the participants...only conflicting stories from authorities.
Lately it appears Britain has surpassed our freedom of speech and our freedom of press. This bothers me. Again, this is all speculation on my part and maybe our protesters are just much more violent than the rest of the world.
Rocky Mountain News
QUOTE(Danya @ Feb 15 2003, 11:11 PM)
Again, this is all speculation on my part and maybe our protesters are just much more violent than the rest of the world.
Our pacifists tend to get violent.
A.N.S.W.E.R. does organize SOME anti war protests (A.N.S.W.E.R. is supposedly a front group for the revolutionary communist party, or RCP) they don't necessarily fund them though. I watched the huge DC protest about a month ago on CSPAN, and they passed buckets around for funding (not sure if A.N.S.W.E.R. Organized that one though) I know that here in Colorado the protests are organized by a group called the Colorado campaign for middle eastern peace (CCMEP- http://www.ccmep.org )
If you are at a protest and some people try getting a bunch of people to do violent acts, remember one word: COINTELPRO. this was a common tactic of theirs in the 60's to make the protesters look like people that support violent overthrow of the government, and they never REALLY went away.
also, these thing do attract us anarchists, we do not support any governmental system and DO support violent overthrow of the government, along with every other government (yes, we aim VERY high)
anarchists use a technique known as "black bloc" which aims to create as much of a disturbance as possible, any way possible. the bloc tends to break away prior to this happening though.
also, according to the patriot act of 2001, all protesters can be considered "domestic terrorists now. ------
according to USA PATRIOT act of 2001, section 802, subsection (a)(5)-the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that-- (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, (-B-) appear to be intended-- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
if they so chose, they could say we are endangering human life and in violation of laws, and our actions appeared to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, and were committed in the jurisdiction of the US (don't believe me, read it yourself, http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html about 3/4 of the way to the bottom)
I'm not saying they WOULD do this (yet) but this act is now law, and they could if they wanted to. this may happen in the near future(say after bush is caught rigging the election or after he suspends them altogether(just an example of what could cause it, not saying these will happen) if we don't do something NOW!
so, yes, I will protest, I am willing to risk being locked up for good(habeas corpus(which guarantees you will see a judge) is usually suspended in terrorism cases)for my beliefs.
If you are at a protest and some people try getting a bunch of people to do violent acts, remember one word: COINTELPRO. this was a common tactic of theirs in the 60's to make the protesters look like people that support violent overthrow of the government, and they never REALLY went away.
also, these thing do attract us anarchists, we do not support any governmental system and DO support violent overthrow of the government, along with every other government (yes, we aim VERY high)
anarchists use a technique known as "black bloc" which aims to create as much of a disturbance as possible, any way possible. the bloc tends to break away prior to this happening though.
also, according to the patriot act of 2001, all protesters can be considered "domestic terrorists now. ------
according to USA PATRIOT act of 2001, section 802, subsection (a)(5)-the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that-- (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, (-B-) appear to be intended-- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
if they so chose, they could say we are endangering human life and in violation of laws, and our actions appeared to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, and were committed in the jurisdiction of the US (don't believe me, read it yourself, http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html about 3/4 of the way to the bottom)
I'm not saying they WOULD do this (yet) but this act is now law, and they could if they wanted to. this may happen in the near future(say after bush is caught rigging the election or after he suspends them altogether(just an example of what could cause it, not saying these will happen) if we don't do something NOW!
so, yes, I will protest, I am willing to risk being locked up for good(habeas corpus(which guarantees you will see a judge) is usually suspended in terrorism cases)for my beliefs.
also, according to the patriot act of 2001, all protesters can be considered "domestic terrorists now. ------
Which means that if you're arrested for protesting (excersising your freedom of speech) you can be held under the same unjust rules as the real terrorists. No charges, no lawyers, everything shrouded in secrecy, and a closed trial.
All unconstitutional and brought to you by Bush and company.
Which means that if you're arrested for protesting (excersising your freedom of speech) you can be held under the same unjust rules as the real terrorists. No charges, no lawyers, everything shrouded in secrecy, and a closed trial.
All unconstitutional and brought to you by Bush and company.
Danya, I was at the Colorado Springs peace rally. My estimate is about 6-8,000 at its peak, which was when the speakers were talking. People came and went. It was a cold day.
The rally (or anti-war demonstration if some prefer that take) did NOT turn violent. Police tried to disperse the crowd at what they determined was the end of the rally. Some people in a parking lot said "screw you copper" (words to that effect) and were arrested. Others just stood their, saying nothing. The police tear-gassed a parking lot.
Academy Boulevard (a four-lane road) was lined for two miles on both sides by protesters about 2-3 deep. Here's the math: ((5,280 ft/mile * 2 = 10560 ft) / 5 ft/protester) = 2112 * 2.5 protesters deep = 5280.
Police stopped traffic from going down the boulevard twice, probably because this is a very dangerous place at any time. Then they closed it down to disperse the crowd. Failure to disperse by 35 of the protesters resulted in arrests.
I repeat. There was absolutely no violence. There was civil disobedience of authority.
People were arrested near Peterson AF Base. They refused to follow orders as well.
The rally (or anti-war demonstration if some prefer that take) did NOT turn violent. Police tried to disperse the crowd at what they determined was the end of the rally. Some people in a parking lot said "screw you copper" (words to that effect) and were arrested. Others just stood their, saying nothing. The police tear-gassed a parking lot.
Academy Boulevard (a four-lane road) was lined for two miles on both sides by protesters about 2-3 deep. Here's the math: ((5,280 ft/mile * 2 = 10560 ft) / 5 ft/protester) = 2112 * 2.5 protesters deep = 5280.
Police stopped traffic from going down the boulevard twice, probably because this is a very dangerous place at any time. Then they closed it down to disperse the crowd. Failure to disperse by 35 of the protesters resulted in arrests.
I repeat. There was absolutely no violence. There was civil disobedience of authority.
People were arrested near Peterson AF Base. They refused to follow orders as well.
Thank you for clearing up the story for me UM. 
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.