"Free Speech Zones.." - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Jinn · 09-26-2005, 06:56 AM

http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704...echZones.shtml

Quote:

SPEAKING OUT:
Free Speech Zones In the USA?
by Ward Reilly

You could have been a world hero, Mr. Bush, instead of being a world criminal, at least in my eyes. Could have, but never more.

"Free Speech Zones" in the U.S.A.? I thought our entire nation was a "Free Speech Zone." I thought that is what "freedom of speech" meant in our Constitution. That we could say anything we wanted, anywhere on public property where we wanted to say it. What was I thinking? Welcome to "Free Speech, 2004, "Dubya" Bush Style."
On Friday morning, May 21st, 2004, during a visit to my city by President George W. Bush, I learned what it means to live in a country when "free speech" means something entirely different if you don`t happen to agree with what your President, and/or his cabinet, have done in your name.

On this day, all good "pro-Bush" citizens in Baton Rouge, Louisiana got to stand along the curbside of Dalrymple Drive in hopes of catching a glimpse of the most powerful man on Earth, as he rode by them on his way to speak to the graduates at LSU.

"Superman at LSU," you ask? Not exactly, but President Bush was here. Now, having a sitting President visit is normally quite an honor in itself, kind-of, but Bush`s fans on Dalrymple Drive just didn`t have any good luck that day. The President chose a different route leading to the Assembly Center, and so the Bush fans went along their merry way without having caught a glimpse of their leader.

I, on the other hand, an old ex-Infantry veteran from long ago, was forced to stand 100 feet from Dalrymple Drive, in the direct Louisiana summer sun, hidden behind some of the beautiful giant oak trees growing alongside Dalrymple Drive at Highland Road, even though I had planned, with several other groups, to protest along the curbside on Dalrymple Drive.

But because I was not "pro-Bush", and because I carried a sign, I wasn`t allowed to do what I planned. A sign of protest? How devious! How DANGEROUS! It`s enough to suspend the Bill Of Rights, right? WRONG!

I "captured" the "Free Speech Zone," and it now is an "Anti-War Trophy" in my music room, with my military decorations and awards.

At LSU on Friday, May 21st, "Free Speech," as designated by law, was only to be allowed for "anti-war" citizens that were willing to stand in a roped-off 35 foot square, 100 feet from the road. My sign said "Veterans For Peace, No WAR" on one side, and "The DUBYA--M-D's ARE IN THE WHITE HOUSE" on the other. Not exactly controversial. Not exactly threatening. It just said that I`m against this Iraq "war," and I don`t like this President. I have been against this war since way before it even started, and I will be that way until the last U.S. soldier is home from there.

We had a legal permit to demonstrate against this war and President Bush, a permit from the Secret Service, as enforced by the LSU police. When our group of demonstrators arrived on Dalrymple Drive that morning to protest this visit, an LSU policeman told us that we had to stand in a 35-foot fenced-in square, exactly 100` from Dalrymple Drive, for "security" reasons, under the threat of arrest if we didn't. We refused to stand in that thing, but we did not get arrested. (It would have been funny if all the protestors had stood in the little square and said "MOO" over and over, like cattle do.)

Directly across the street from the "free speech zone," about 25 "pro-Bush" citizens stood along the curb and waited for the President. I was selected as spokesman for our group, so I asked the LSU police Sarge, "Why can those people stand along the curb but we can`t?" The Sarge said, and I quote, "Because they are pro-Bush, and they don`t have signs".... damn, it was my sign's fault!

At the end of the demonstration some of us demonstrators entered the little roped-off square, pulled up the stakes holding it in place, and proceeded to walk all around the Parade Grounds of LSU, inside the world's first government-issued "Moving Free Speech Zone." FOX News filmed it, and they even showed us marching around in our captured "free speech zone" on New Orleans TV.

So let me get this straight--and also let me present this to you, and you decide what is wrong with this picture. If you are "pro-Bush," you need no permit to stand along the edge of the road, and no security is necessary if you decide that you want to get as close to the President as you can. The police checked none of them, asked them for no permits, and allowed those people to line the street within only inches of where the President would be riding.

So if I were a terrorist or an assassin trying to "hit" our President, all I would have needed to do in order to get only inches away from him, would have been to say nothing, get no permit, and carry no sign.

I just don`t get it. Do you get it?

Did I mention that a lot of men and women have died in war thinking that their sacrifice would guarantee that something like this would never happen to me or you in the United States of America? Maybe if our "War President" had shown up when it was his turn to fight in a war, this wouldn`t have happened to us when he did show up somewhere, like here in Baton Rouge on May 21, 2004.

Nice of you to show up George. At least it was nice if you were a "pro-Bush-non-sign-carrying-pro-war" type. Please don`t come back here. You could have been a world hero, instead of being a world criminal, at least in my eyes. Could have, but never more.

The Infantry wasn`t too bad for me...I`m here. At least I can still write about "free speech," even if I can`t practice it. Peace George, from Baton Rouge. Stop the war, and bring the troops home now.

P.S.--I "captured" the "Free Speech Zone," and it now is an "Anti-War Trophy" in my music room, with my military decorations and awards. I think it is safe for me to say that it is the only captured and portable "Free Speech Zone" in the world, and I will treasure it for the rest of my life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ward Reilly, of Baton Rouge, La., is a member of Veterans For Peace and Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Does anyone else see the potential for abuse here? I think is incredibly disturbing, but people have argued with me that protestors should be caged off to prevent violence. Should discrimination of this type, based merely on percieved political opinion, be allowed?

tecoyah · 09-26-2005, 07:03 AM

Not in the United States of America......or at least....not in my opinion.

aberkok · 09-26-2005, 08:54 AM

I'm going to chicken out of the bigger issue here (for now) and focus on a small technical detail:

I wonder if those carrying pro-Bush signs would have been cordonned off as well? If we know the answer to that, then we can find out if this was a free speech issue or a security issue.

And speaking as a Canadian, I believe freedom of speech should not be suppressed. Of course I can't claim to know what you people want for yourselves.

ObieX · 09-26-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

"The DUBYA--M-D's ARE IN THE WHITE HOUSE"

This gave me a good chuckle

Jinn · 09-26-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Not in the United States of America......or at least....not in my opinion.

It was in Louisiana?

SirLance · 09-26-2005, 09:54 AM

According to the article, they had the appropriate permits and there was no overwhelming public interest in cordoning them off. There was no reason to attempt to cordon these people off.

Blaming Bush for this is non-sensical. It's asinine to think this was because of any decision he made or orders on his part. It looks like the cops doing crowd control overstepped their bounds.

RAGEAngel9 · 09-26-2005, 10:07 AM

I'm at work right now so no time to go get articles, but didn't this happen at several other locations around the country?

ObieX · 09-26-2005, 10:24 AM

Yes, this isn't an isolated case. It happens pretty much anywhere Bush goes, so it isn't a local problem. And wouldn't you think that if the president wasn't responsible for ordering something like this, and heard about it, that he would tell his security to cut it out? I know if i were president and heard about this going on w/o my order (one which i wouldn't give) i would see to it that a few people lost their jobs.

RangerDick · 09-26-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAGEAngel9

I'm at work right now so no time to go get articles, but didn't this happen at several other locations around the country?

Yes, it did....like in Boston for people protesting the Democratic National Convention last year. Dissent was stifled for anyone who didn't march in lockstep with the Brownshirts of the nefarious Kerry campaign!! Censorship Censorship!

SirLance · 09-26-2005, 01:47 PM

If there's a good reason to cordon these folks off, let's hear it.

Now, I do have a certain amount of expertise in sewing destruction, and if I wanted to do it, I might infiltrate the protesters (because that's where trouble is expected) and stage some sort of incident to distract the various law enforcement types hanging about, so that they'd be drawn off, and I could then use that opportunity to go after my real target.

So, from a standpoint of security, keeping these people in one very controlled place does mimimize the effectiveness of that kind of distraction.

However, Ben Franklin once said that those who trade liberty for security deserve neither. I agree with old Ben.

BigBen · 09-26-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirLance

... I agree with ...Ben.

I am sorry.

I had to take this opportunity to misquote Lance to further my political agenda on the TFP.

IF LANCE AGREES WITH ME, YOU SHOULD ALL BOW DOWN TO MY WILL.

What I am trying to say, albeit in a very roundabout way, is to always consider the source and their reason for writing in the first place.

I don't think that Dubya had anything to do with this. I don't think the SS had anything to do with this. It looks to me like some wooden bullets got full of themselves and exercised totalitarianism that day. The writer of the article wants to pin this on Bush, but I am not buying it.

Charlatan · 09-26-2005, 02:39 PM

I wouldn't pin this on Bush but I wouldn't be surprised to find that Rove or some other person in the administration made these arrangements in advance.

Bush and company have been very astute in their PR. I am sure that if this was challenged in the a court of law they would be allowed to protest where they want... of course Bush would be long gone by the time the courts were done with this...

SirLance · 09-26-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen931

IF LANCE AGREES WITH ME, YOU SHOULD ALL BOW DOWN TO MY WILL.
I don't think that Dubya had anything to do with this. I don't think the SS had anything to do with this. It looks to me like some wooden bullets got full of themselves and exercised totalitarianism that day. The writer of the article wants to pin this on Bush, but I am not buying it.

Well, bow on down, folks, 'Cause I think Ben's analysis is "spot on", as some old buddies might have said.

Oh, by the way, I now reserve the right to misquote Ben to further any agenda I see fit...

roachboy · 09-26-2005, 03:22 PM

the bush squad has been fmaous for this kind of handling of cowboy george's appearances pretty much from jump street. it is obviously a scenario according to which the handlers think that the illusion of unanimous support on camera lends some credibility to what is being said there. kind of like riefenstahl's trick in "triumph of the will"..usually the bush squad has some actual defense of these kind of tactics--above you get the bottom-feeding variant ("they" do it too...)
of course this amounts to an abrogation of free speech.
of course the right does not care so long as their boy is doing the abrogating.
so it goes.

ObieX · 09-26-2005, 03:25 PM

This is not hte one and only time it was done. If it was the only time, or was only int hat one place, i would maybe agree that it was the local enforcement going overboard. But that just is not the case. This has happened in may cities, to many MANY people. In NY they would not only shut you off in a "free speech zone" but they would arrest you if you say anything and literally bus you down to an old abandoned (and condemned from operation) building on the docks.

What's the problem, right? You can just take your case to court right? WRONG! They do not arrest you, they just hold you... for days. They don't arrest you because then they would have to try you. They hold you for the maximum time they are allowed to hold you.. then.. they hold you longer.. Multiple law suits were filed, but as far as i know nothnig has been done. Apparently it's ok to lock up people w/o charges or trial now.. I wonder how THAT snuck through....

RangerDick · 09-26-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

In NY they would not only shut you off in a "free speech zone" but they would arrest you if you say anything and literally bus you down to an old abandoned (and condemned from operation) building on the docks.

They would arrest you if you say anything? Really? With all due respect, I am guessing that you were not in Manhattan during the RNC last year. All of friggin Manhattan was a "free speech zone", not that there's anything wrong with that. I witnessed the NYPD exercise extreme restraint and professionalism in the face of very antagonistic behaviour by the protesters. Here are some pics for your enjoyment of said protesters!

No cages!!! Damn evil Republicans!

Bodyhammer86 · 09-26-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the bush squad has been fmaous for this kind of handling of cowboy george's appearances pretty much from jump street.

Everytime you try to make a point you immediately lose credibility when you resort to childish insults like this. Grow up. You hate Bush....we get it.

RangerDick · 09-26-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the bush squad has been fmaous for this kind of handling of cowboy george's appearances pretty much from jump street. it is obviously a scenario according to which the handlers think that the illusion of unanimous support on camera lends some credibility to what is being said there.

FAMOUS? OBVIOUS? I want some of what you're smokin RB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

kind of like riefenstahl's trick in "triumph of the will"..usually the bush squad has some actual defense of these kind of tactics--above you get the bottom-feeding variant ("they" do it too...)

If by "bottom feeding," you mean, "pointing out holes and hipocrosies in your arguments," then yes, I'm guilty as charged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

of course this amounts to an abrogation of free speech.
of course the right does not care so long as their boy is doing the abrogating.
so it goes.

Was it "our boy?" Or are you assuming? From what I've read, this decision hasn't been placed at the Fed's feet....yet. Are you jumping the gun in your assumptions, or do facts even matter? Or is everything indirectly attributable to Rove?

martinguerre · 09-26-2005, 09:09 PM

rangerdick, nobody loves a spelling whore. Don't be *that* guy.

beyond that, i think it's a major problem that time, place and manner restrictions are getting used to really side-track protest and dissent.

the sad reason i think it gets bipartisan consent is that the left has had some serious problems giving the far left enough reasons to be patient with them.

RangerDick · 09-26-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

rangerdick, nobody loves a spelling whore. Don't be *that* guy.

I don't want to... errrr... I don't need to be loved. You can take that to the bank , I don't much care whether or not you or your ilk have any love for me. But I'll call you out every day for your silly claims... try again.

Ganggreen · 09-26-2005, 09:25 PM

i've said it before and i'll say it again...Bush is the anti-christ.

ObieX · 09-27-2005, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

They would arrest you if you say anything? Really? With all due respect, I am guessing that you were not in Manhattan during the RNC last year. All of friggin Manhattan was a "free speech zone", not that there's anything wrong with that. I witnessed the NYPD exercise extreme restraint and professionalism in the face of very antagonistic behaviour by the protesters. Here are some pics for your enjoyment of said protesters!

No cages!!! Damn evil Republicans!

I assume you were trying to draw out some kind of response by what those signs said, and they don't look like anything all that terrible. It's all protected speech, and the cops shouldn't have any opinion one way or another.

Edit: slight edit, proved point in next post.

ObieX · 09-27-2005, 05:58 AM

Here's your cages:

(this just happens to be the top of the google list. Feel free to search for more.

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_70/pier57pens.html

Quote:

Pier 57 pens are called ‘Guantanamo on Hudson’

By Albert Amateau

A prominent civil liberties lawyer and a Transportation Workers Union raised questions yesterday about asbestos and diesel oil contamination at Pier 57, the former bus depot at 17th St. serving since last week as the N.Y.P.D.’s holding pens for people arrested in Republican National Convention protests.

Norman Siegel, former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, and Ed Watt, financial secretary of T.W.U. Local 100, called on Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to determine whether asbestos and bus fuel oil are a health hazard to R.N.C. detainees.

Siegel also charged that protestors are being held on the pier without access to lawyers, food or medical attention for 18 to 36 hours in a legal process that ordinarily takes six hours or less. The delay in completing desk-appearance tickets for detainees is part of an attempt “to criminalize dissent” and is intended discourage detainees from returning to protest demonstrations, Siegel said.

Siegel and Watt aired their concerns at a Tuesday news conference across the street from Pier 57. Siegel sent a letter dated Mon. Aug. 30 to Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly about the environmental concerns.

However, Paul J. Brown, deputy police commissioner for Public Information said in a statement on Tuesday that tests the Police Department conducted Monday night “found no problem with air quality at the detainee center on Pier 57.”

In a statement about the treatment of detainees, Brown said, “The main factor in the delay in issuing desk-appearance tickets is the refusal of detainees to identify themselves.” He also said that people arrested are given the opportunity to make telephone calls.

Nevertheless, Andrew Lynn, a videographer who works for Manhattan Neighborhood Cable Network and who was one of 250 arrested during a bicycle demonstration Fri. Aug.27, said at the news conference that he was held for 18 hours at Pier 57 in one of the 30-ft.-by-16-ft. pens made of 10-ft.-high wire fencing that run the length of the pier. After detention on the pier he was moved to a precinct lockup and was not issued a desk-appearance ticket for another nine hours.

The packed pens had only two or three benches, so many detainees had to lie on the floor, which was covered with black oil, Lynn said. “People had rashes from the oil and after 15 or 18 hours they gave us antiseptic for the rashes,” he added. Lynn also said he heard a police officer on duty laugh when a detainee asked to make a phone call.

United for Peace and Justice, the group that sponsored the Aug. 29 protest march, described the detention center on Pier 57 as “Guantanamo on the Hudson.” The group intends to demonstrate in front of the pier at 10 a.m. Wed. Sept. 1 to protest the conditions detainees have to bear.

The 300,000-sq.-ft. pier, completed in 1954, last served as a Transit Authority bus depot a year ago and in June came under the control of the Hudson River Park Trust, which is seeking a developer to transform the pier into a commercial and park destination.

Watt and Jay Bermudez, a T.W.U. official who worked at Pier 57 from 1982 until it closed as a bus depot, said they believed asbestos in the building has long been a health hazard.

Bermudez said that a fire at the pier in January 1995 released asbestos dust that covered virtually everything. “It was all over the cars, on our shoes and clothes,” he said. The abatement that followed only included the area destroyed by the fire, Bermudez added. He also said he doubted that Pier 57 has an operable fire-suppressant system

However, Chris Martin, spokesperson for Hudson River Park, in a statement on Tuesday said, “Asbestos is not considered to be a health problem unless there is an exposure pathway to airborne asbestos.

“Prior to the Police Department occupying the pier, the Trust was informed about the type of construction they would be performing there. None of that construction involved the types of invasive work to floors, walls, pipes or ceilings that could create such exposure. The only parts of Pier 57 where the Trust has observed exposed asbestos are not being used by the police to our knowledge,” Martin said.

Martin acknowledged that oil stains are visible in areas of the Pier 57 floor.

“These are typical of the building’s former use as a bus depot,” he said, adding, “The Trust has no involvement at all in the pier’s operation this week. Our focus has been on working with the Police Department to maintain public access to the bikeway and other park areas as usual.”

And here's some contamination info:

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_...scityknew.html

Quote:

Attorney says city knew Pier 57 was contaminated

By Douglas Fricke

Almost 2,000 protestors detained by police for demonstrating during the Republican National Convention in August may have been held in a contaminated facility, an environmental lawyer has charged.

Joel Kupferman, an attorney with the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project, said that “scores and scores” of detainees have complained of skin rashes and respiratory disorders after being held at the former bus depot at Pier 57 in Chelsea. Kupferman blames the maladies on motor oil and transmission fluid that dripped from parked buses over many years, soaking into concrete floors, and possible asbestos contamination as well.

A spokesperson for New York City Transit, which turned the site over to the Hudson River Park Trust last year for redevelopment into a cultural or recreational facility, denied the claims. “We handed that depot over clean,” spokesperson Charles Seaton said. He acknowledged that some chemicals are present at the site, but would not call them contaminants. “It was a bus facility, so there was bound to be oil around,” Seaton said. “Oil and transmission fluid in a bus facility is not contamination.” He said his agency knew nothing of asbestos particles in the air.

The structure, at W. 16th St., was built in the 1950s as a terminal for passenger and cargo ships. It was converted to a bus garage after the shipping company moved out in the 1960s. Last year the buses were shifted to a depot in Harlem, leaving the hulking building empty.

The vacant building found a temporary new life in August, when the New York Police Department turned it into a holding facility for about a week. “We made over 1,800 arrests [during the convention] and everyone we arrested went to Pier 57,” said New York Police Department spokesperson Sgt. Kevin Hayes.

Attorneys at the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project have sent clothing worn by detainees held at the site to a lab for testing.

“We are quite certain what’s going to show up in the clothing due to the prolonged exposure the detainees had while sitting on the contaminant-laden floor,” said Kupferman. He said that he expects the analysis to find traces of diesel fuel and transmission fluid.

Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s deputy commissioner for public information, called Kupferman’s allegations “nonsense.” Browne said that oil contamination is confined to the end of the building closest to the street and detainees were not housed in that section. The contaminated area, he said, was used to park Corrections Department vans used for hauling the detainees from demonstrations and, after several hours, downtown to Central Booking at 100 Centre St., where they were processed, held for an additional length of time and eventually released.

Browne added that the charge of asbestos contamination was a fabrication. “We tested it before and after,” he said.

But Kupferman said that he does not trust the Police Department’s test results. “We question their ability to find asbestos,” said Kupferman, adding that the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project found traces of asbestos from the World Trade Center on supposedly decontaminated fire trucks eight months after Sept. 11.

In written response to a request filed by Kupferman under the New York Freedom of Information Law, or FOIL, the N.Y.P.D. said it could not release data on testing done at the former depot because such records “if disclosed would interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings.” The statement did not specify the nature of the investigations or proceedings.

Kupferman said he filed four other FOIL requests: one each to the city Department of Health, the city Parks Department, the Public Employees Safety Health Bureau of the state Department of Labor and H.R.P.T. He said the Health and Parks departments said they had no records of contamination at the site; the Labor department is still searching its files, while the park’s operating agency, H.R.P.T., has not replied.

Jim Flynn, an amateur photographer, was taking pictures of antiwar demonstrators on Aug. 31 who planned to march from Ground Zero to Madison Sq. Garden. But the marchers, who did not have a permit for the protest, were halted at police barricades near Fulton St. Two hundred twenty-seven of the protestors were arrested and transported to the pier and Flynn was swept up with them.

Flynn said that he did not notice any signs of contamination at the former bus depot. “As far as the chemicals in there, I don’t know,” Flynn said. He added that in his opinion conditions at Pier 57, contaminated or not, were still better than Central Booking. Fortunately for Flynn, his holding pen may have been better than others. Other individuals held at Pier 57 have said their pens did have oily floors and that they did not want to sit or lie down on them because of it.

Kupferman said that at some point police finally provided carpeting to cover the unsanitary floors.

Flynn said he was held at Pier 57 from about 6 p.m. until about 3 a.m. the following morning. There are reports, however, of others being held at the pier significantly longer. The pier’s conditions and the lengthy holding times earned it the moniker “Guantanamo on the Hudson” during the Republican National Convention.

Kupferman has said that government agencies must have known that the building was contaminated by oil and transmission fluid spills.

A March 2001 report submitted to the New York State Department of Transportation by an engineering firm found that plainly visible oil stains were present to such a degree that the oil was seeping through joints in the concrete deck.

And another engineering study of the site, done in April 2004 by a Manhattan firm hired by H.R.P.T., makes reference to a second document, which it describes as “an environmental report” on the facility. Chris Martin, H.R.P.T. vice president for public affairs, would not confirm the existence of the environmental report, referring queries to the Police Department. “We don’t comment on pending litigation,” said Martin.

And yea, that was the 2004 RNC.

ObieX · 09-27-2005, 06:03 AM

Oh, hey. Lookit what i found in the next couple listings.. yea those republicans are saints... really.. you can believe me... why are you looking at me like that..?

http://www.amipatriotic.com/story/2004/9/13/145552/792

Quote:

RNC Leased Pier 57?
Submitted by kyle on September 13, 2004 - 2:55pm.

Update [2004-9-13 23:42:38 by kyle]: READ THIS Erin Starr Letter

This is an unconfirmed report but it does raise an interesting question: Who leased Pier 57? Pier 57 ( aka Gitmo on the Hudson ) was a huge warehouse used to hold thousands of protesters during the Republican National Convention. Many of those arrested were held beyond 24 hours without being charged which didn't sit well with the state supreme court of New York who is now fining the city for every detainee kept past that mark.

When I first heard of Pier 57 while I was covering the RNC in New York one of my first thoughts was: The NYPD owns a large empty warehouse on the river? It just seemed incredibly odd that they had an entire pier setup just for this event. If the Republican National Committee did in fact have a hand in leasing the makeshift prison the GOP and NYC should get ready for a waterfall of lawsuits.

The now-famous Pier 57 in New York, used as the jail
facility for holding protestors arrested during the
Republican National Convention, was leased by the
Republican National Committee, according to the
Certificate of Occupancy and the Fire Safety
Inspection Certificate for the pier.

The implications of the Republican National Committee
leasing the pier, and arranging for the NYPD to then
use the pier as a detention facility for people
protesting the RNC, are quite startling. The
ramifications for both the Republican Party and for
the City of New York (for entering into a partnership
with an organization essentially operating a private
jail facility), both legally and politically, could be
serious indeed.

More important, perhaps, are the possible
ramifications for U.S. citizens when the political
party in power is leas ing out property for the state
to use for detaining political rivals. Further, the
fact that the pier had signs posted in plain view
which declared the facility to be hazardous and
warning that protective gear must be used when
entering, could also complicate matters for the
Republicans.

Several questions become obvious. First, did the city
know what the Republican National Committee intended
to do with Pier 57, when the certificates were
initially issued? Second, what legal arrangement was
made between the NYPD and the Republican Party for the
use of the pier? Third, are there any laws governing
additional permits etc that must be obtained for any
organization to legally operate a private jail
facility? Fourth, can such facilities use NYPD
personnel, who are employees of the city? Finally, to
what degree if any did the Republican Party maintain
oversight or control of operations, conditions, etc at
Pier 57?

Drew Poe

Source: NYC Indy Media

Bill O'Rights · 09-27-2005, 06:06 AM

The civility, in this thread, had best improve...immediately. Otherwise, we're done here.

ObieX · 09-27-2005, 06:10 AM

Edit: Hmm.. 4th pic not showing anymore for some reason.. whatever.
Re-Edit: Pic fixed

roachboy · 09-27-2005, 06:22 AM

it is interesting, even here, to note the extent to which those few people who still stand behind george w. bush refuse to address information that they do not like about this administration. this is a good microcosm, one that shows a lingering problem for politics following from the type of committment that right ideology has fostered amongst its flock.

that bush's handlers have set about organizing photo-ops for bush that are about the illusion of unanimity for the camera is and has been obvious.

that the illusion of unanimity is a feature of conservative ideology is and has been obvious as well--consider how limbaugh for example never takes calls from anyone who really disagress with his positions--the loop this works to reinforce is--also--obvious: support in the audience, support at the level of feedback, yes yes "we" speak for all "americans"--this has not changed across the transition from opposition into power.

that this unanimity is fictive, has been fictive, will be fictive--also obvious: it is about giving individual conservatives the illusion that they are many, part of a movement (which of course is hostile to all social movements except itself--another defining feature)--following from this curious mixture (a social movement a defining feature of which is hostility to social movements other than itself--think trade unions), duplicating its logic even, you have the karlrove photo-op, its structure, its exclusions, its rationale.

i see the conservative above incapable of addressing problems that might be raised by the photo-op procedure (which does, like it or not, harken back to "triumph of the will")---the predictable round of subject-switches followed the initial post--well, the democrats did it--well, these protestors should be kept in cages look at their signs--all sorry demonstrations of the proposition that conservatives are not bothered by the supression of political speech so long as that suppression comes from the right--when they are out of power, after the next elections, you will see conservatives turn into primary victims of the suppression of speech--they will whine long and loud about how their bankrupt political propositions are being censored by the evil liberal press (for example)--and this which will be the way that the rank and file will come to process their defeat.
nothing wrong with the ideology--every distortion comes from outside agitators.
if you cage enough of them, nothing bad will ever happen to conservative ideology.

great logic.....glad none of you who posted above from the right have any power.

RangerDick · 09-27-2005, 06:34 AM

Gitmo on the Hudson!?! Are you for real? That's just......well....funny. Civil disobedience sometomes comes with a price. I'll bet they didn't tell you that at your Civil Disobedience-Anarchist Teen Club meetings.

Roachboy... what are you babbling about? All I see is, "Conservative idelogy.......isms.....evil neocons.....democratics good.....[insert big word to make me look smart]....Rovian mind control......, etc etc."
Your posts always make me smile.

ObieX · 09-27-2005, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

Gitmo on the Hudson!?! Are you for real? That's just......well....funny. Civil disobedience sometomes comes with a price. I'll bet they didn't tell you that at your Civil Disobedience-Anarchist Teen Club meetings.

Roachboy... what are you babbling about? All I see is, "Conservative idelogy.......isms.....evil neocons.....democratics good.....[insert big word to make me look smart]....Rovian mind control......, etc etc."
Your posts always make me smile.

I'm just showing you what really happened. If you want to use that as a reason to insult me with absurd assumptions feel free. You can choose not to belive, you have the right to remain ignorant.

roachboy · 09-27-2005, 07:04 AM

ranger:
whether you find what i post and how i write to be engaging or not is really of no consequence to me. as for the ad hominem dimension of your post, i expect nothing different or better from conservatives such as yourself.
perhaps someday you'll surprise and post an actual argument that is not a simple recapitulation of the right line of the moment.
and perhaps, if that day comes, i might find you worth engaging.
but that is not how things stand.

JumpinJesus · 09-27-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

Gitmo on the Hudson!?! Are you for real? That's just......well....funny. Civil disobedience sometomes comes with a price. I'll bet they didn't tell you that at your Civil Disobedience-Anarchist Teen Club meetings.

Roachboy... what are you babbling about? All I see is, "Conservative idelogy.......isms.....evil neocons.....democratics good.....[insert big word to make me look smart]....Rovian mind control......, etc etc."
Your posts always make me smile.

Since this thread will most likely be closed soon due to our inability to refrain from insults, I thought I'd make my voice heard before it does.

RangerDick,

You make claims that you doubt anything like cages or arrests were made, then when shown the evidence, you resort to insulting the people providing the evidence. If this is what you consider constructive contributions to the politics forum, I'd highly suggest you review a few threads.

Might I direct you to this one here, though I'd recommend ignoring the first paragraph, seeing as it is a bit out of date, while the second paragraph is quite relevant at the moment.

And here.

Frankly, we grow a bit weary of internet bravado and the usual "I-Don't-Need-Your-Love" attitude whenever someone offers a bit of advice. However, "I Don't Need Your Love" was a fairly popular song in the 80s, if I recall, but let's try to leave it there, in the dusty record bins of antiquity and not here in the politics forum.

Now, to address the thread in question.

It is a sign of very weak character to wish to silence any dissent. Those in possession of strong character openly welcome dissent in order to strengthen their leadership and to ensure that all voices are heard. I am quite wary of any leader with such power who does not like hearing voices of dissent. To suggest that the president is likely unaware of such Free Speech Zones is naive at best.

Marvelous Marv · 09-29-2005, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

Yes, this isn't an isolated case. It happens pretty much anywhere Bush goes, so it isn't a local problem. And wouldn't you think that if the president wasn't responsible for ordering something like this, and heard about it, that he would tell his security to cut it out? I know if i were president and heard about this going on w/o my order (one which i wouldn't give) i would see to it that a few people lost their jobs.

You're absolutely right. Here's photographic evidence of Cindy Sheehan being censored/tortured in Crawford, Texas.

Seaver · 09-29-2005, 07:04 AM

I dont think that free speech zones are a good idea, they are unconstiutional IMO.

HOWEVER, these have ALL been on the local level. I think yall are sorely mistaken when you think the President gets on the phone and says, "heh, why dont you round up those hippies so I can look good hehe". It is the LOCAL police who want to avoid riots.

Remember Seattle? Their free speech was in no way shape or form restricted... yet there was riots and millions of dollars in damages. THAT is what the LOCAL cops are trying to avoid. You can stop with all the BUSH=HITLEROMFG crap already. If he was Hitler these people would have simply been shot.

Jinn · 09-29-2005, 07:35 AM

Since most of this thread turned into "It happened here" or "The GOP/Democrats did it here.." I'd like to take a chance to clarify my thread question:

Quote:

Should discrimination of this type, based merely on percieved political opinion, be allowed?

Is there a time where preventing "protestors" from being allowed into the same area as other citizens would be justified? If so, where, when and why? This will likely resound along your beliefs on giving up freedoms for safety, so I'm curious to see your response to THIS question.

EDIT- My opinion: No. In cases where thousands of protestors could block trafic or otherwise impede a conclusion to the events, I think that ALL the people should be moved away so that the cars can go through, etc. Moving protestors alone sends a message that their political dissonance is the reason for being seperated, not a smooth operation of the event.

roachboy · 09-29-2005, 08:52 AM

perhaps a bit off topic, but the following shows that the question of censorship is something that this administration raises across the board, and not only with reference to bush photo-ops:

Quote:

Reuters says U.S. troops obstruct reporting of Iraq
28 Sep 2005 11:11:24 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Barry Moody

LONDON, Sept 28 (Reuters) - The conduct of U.S. troops in Iraq, including increasing detention and accidental shootings of journalists, is preventing full coverage of the war reaching the American public, Reuters said on Wednesday.

In a letter to Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Reuters said U.S. forces were limiting the ability of independent journalists to operate. The letter from Reuters Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger called on Warner to raise widespread media concerns about the conduct of U.S. troops with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is due to testify to the committee on Thursday.

Schlesinger referred to "a long parade of disturbing incidents whereby professional journalists have been killed, wrongfully detained, and/or illegally abused by U.S. forces in Iraq."

He urged Warner to demand that Rumsfeld resolve these issues "in a way that best balances the legitimate security interests of the U.S. forces in Iraq and the equally legitimate rights of journalists in conflict zones under international law".

At least 66 journalists and media workers, most of them Iraqis, have been killed in the Iraq conflict since March 2003.

U.S. forces acknowledge killing three Reuters journalists, most recently soundman Waleed Khaled who was shot by American soldiers on Aug. 28 while on assignment in Baghdad. But the military say the soldiers were justified in opening fire.

Reuters believes a fourth journalist working for the agency, who died in Ramadi last year, was killed by a U.S. sniper. "The worsening situation for professional journalists in Iraq directly limits journalists' abilities to do their jobs and, more importantly, creates a serious chilling effect on the media overall," Schlesinger wrote.

"By limiting the ability of the media to fully and independently cover the events in Iraq, the U.S. forces are unduly preventing U.S. citizens from receiving information...and undermining the very freedoms the U.S. says it is seeking to foster every day that it commits U.S. lives and U.S. dollars," the letter said.

"SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL"

Schlesinger said the U.S. military had refused to conduct independent and transparent investigations into the deaths of the Reuters journalists, relying instead on inquiries by officers from the units responsible, who had exonerated their soldiers.

The U.S. military had failed even to implement recommendations by its own inquiry into one of the deaths, that of award-winning Palestinian cameraman Mazen Dana who was shot dead while filming outside Abu Ghraib prison in August 2003. Schlesinger said Reuters and other reputable international news organisations were concerned by the "sizeable and rapidly increasing number of journalists detained by U.S. forces".

He said most of these detentions had been prompted by legitimate journalistic activity such as possessing photographs and video of insurgents, whichU.S. soldiers assumed showed sympathy with the insurgency.

In most cases the journalists were held for long periods at Abu Ghraib or Camp Bucca prisons before being released without charge.

At least four journalists working for international media are currently being held without charge or legal representation in Iraq. They include two cameramen working for Reuters and a freelance reporter who sometimes works for the agency.

A cameraman working for the U.S. network CBS has been detained since April despite an Iraqi court saying his case does not justify prosecution. Iraq's justice minister has criticised the system of military detentions without charge.

Schlesinger's letter said: "It appears as though the U.S. forces in Iraq either completely misunderstand the role of professional journalists or do not know how to deal with journalists in a conflict zone, or both."

Reuters and other media organisations in Iraq had repeatedly tried to hold a dialogue with the Pentagon to establish appropriate guidelines on how to safeguard journalists. These efforts had failed "and the situation is now spiraling out of control", Schlesinger said.

He asked Warner to question Rumsfeld specifically about the rules of engagement towards professional journalists, the failure to hold independent investigations into shooting incidents and to ask what was the guidance to U.S. forces on how to distinguish legitimate journalists from insurgents.

source: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28327739.htm

bushworld really is a seperate place from what others of us know about.
this seperateness is preditcated on control of the presentation and content of information.
the impulse toward such information control points to the genuinely totalitarian underbelly of the actions of this administration.

of course, i fully expect the bushfaithful to rationalize this away, like they do everything else that might cast their boy in a bad light.

sooner or later, however, one would expect this seemingly bottomless desire to apologize for george w bush to begin to give way.

Seaver · 09-29-2005, 09:05 AM

When have you seen me apologize for Bush?

I critisize him as much if not more than I praise him. However I dont see him as the boogey man, pulling the chains and being behind every bad thing that happens. Personally I think that if the President went and told the local cops to effectively jail every protestor, in a liberal city/state such as New York he'd be told to F-off and it'd be all over the papers.

And yes, imo that article is way off topic.

ObieX · 09-29-2005, 09:49 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9493139/

Quote:

Iraq war protester Sheehan arrested
Protest near White House aimed at refocusing attention on conflict

WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son’s death in Iraq to spur the antiwar movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.

Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.

Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She stood up and was handcuffed, then led to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, “The whole world is watching.”

Just because people arent being gassed doesn't mean what is being done is correct. It's like saying, sure they're getting their fingers cut off, but atleast they dont get their whole hand removed like in xXXx country. "Sure, they're getting thrown in jail for days w/o charges and/or trial, but atleast they're not shot on the spot" doesn't sit right with me. So to answer Jinn NO i don't think any of this is right and it has to stop immediately.

Marvelous Marv · 09-29-2005, 06:17 PM

Uhh, don't look now, but

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obiex's post

Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.

This isn't a case of a "free speech zone." She and her ilk were impeding access to public buildings.

Unless it's your position that anyone is entitled to demonstrate anywhere they like, any time they like, your reference is inappropriate.

ObieX · 09-29-2005, 06:25 PM

I'm sure they were looking for whatever excuse they could get. I'm well aware of what the article says.

I'm for what's right. I don't have any hidden agenda.

Elphaba · 09-29-2005, 06:31 PM

MM, you do realize that they intended to get arrested for civil disobedience? There is a long tradition of CD to garner media coverage for any protest movement. Rosa Parks was the first in my memory, but CD goes back to the Boston Tea Party in this relatively young republic.

09-26-2005, 07:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Not in the United States of America......or at least....not in my opinion. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-26-2005, 08:54 AM	#3 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	I'm going to chicken out of the bigger issue here (for now) and focus on a small technical detail: I wonder if those carrying pro-Bush signs would have been cordonned off as well? If we know the answer to that, then we can find out if this was a free speech issue or a security issue. And speaking as a Canadian, I believe freedom of speech should not be suppressed. Of course I can't claim to know what you people want for yourselves. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

09-26-2005, 09:54 AM	#6 (permalink)
SirLance Junkie Location: In the middle of the desert.	According to the article, they had the appropriate permits and there was no overwhelming public interest in cordoning them off. There was no reason to attempt to cordon these people off. Blaming Bush for this is non-sensical. It's asinine to think this was because of any decision he made or orders on his part. It looks like the cops doing crowd control overstepped their bounds. __________________ DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

09-26-2005, 10:24 AM	#8 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Yes, this isn't an isolated case. It happens pretty much anywhere Bush goes, so it isn't a local problem. And wouldn't you think that if the president wasn't responsible for ordering something like this, and heard about it, that he would tell his security to cut it out? I know if i were president and heard about this going on w/o my order (one which i wouldn't give) i would see to it that a few people lost their jobs. __________________ We Must Dissent.

09-26-2005, 01:47 PM	#10 (permalink)
SirLance Junkie Location: In the middle of the desert.	If there's a good reason to cordon these folks off, let's hear it. Now, I do have a certain amount of expertise in sewing destruction, and if I wanted to do it, I might infiltrate the protesters (because that's where trouble is expected) and stage some sort of incident to distract the various law enforcement types hanging about, so that they'd be drawn off, and I could then use that opportunity to go after my real target. So, from a standpoint of security, keeping these people in one very controlled place does mimimize the effectiveness of that kind of distraction. However, Ben Franklin once said that those who trade liberty for security deserve neither. I agree with old Ben. __________________ DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

09-26-2005, 10:07 AM	#7 (permalink)
RAGEAngel9 Insane Location: Vermont	I'm at work right now so no time to go get articles, but didn't this happen at several other locations around the country?

09-26-2005, 02:39 PM	#12 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I wouldn't pin this on Bush but I wouldn't be surprised to find that Rove or some other person in the administration made these arrangements in advance. Bush and company have been very astute in their PR. I am sure that if this was challenged in the a court of law they would be allowed to protest where they want... of course Bush would be long gone by the time the courts were done with this... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-26-2005, 03:22 PM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the bush squad has been fmaous for this kind of handling of cowboy george's appearances pretty much from jump street. it is obviously a scenario according to which the handlers think that the illusion of unanimous support on camera lends some credibility to what is being said there. kind of like riefenstahl's trick in "triumph of the will"..usually the bush squad has some actual defense of these kind of tactics--above you get the bottom-feeding variant ("they" do it too...) of course this amounts to an abrogation of free speech. of course the right does not care so long as their boy is doing the abrogating. so it goes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-26-2005, 03:25 PM	#15 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	This is not hte one and only time it was done. If it was the only time, or was only int hat one place, i would maybe agree that it was the local enforcement going overboard. But that just is not the case. This has happened in may cities, to many MANY people. In NY they would not only shut you off in a "free speech zone" but they would arrest you if you say anything and literally bus you down to an old abandoned (and condemned from operation) building on the docks. What's the problem, right? You can just take your case to court right? WRONG! They do not arrest you, they just hold you... for days. They don't arrest you because then they would have to try you. They hold you for the maximum time they are allowed to hold you.. then.. they hold you longer.. Multiple law suits were filed, but as far as i know nothnig has been done. Apparently it's ok to lock up people w/o charges or trial now.. I wonder how THAT snuck through.... __________________ We Must Dissent.

09-26-2005, 09:09 PM	#19 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	rangerdick, nobody loves a spelling whore. Don't be that guy. beyond that, i think it's a major problem that time, place and manner restrictions are getting used to really side-track protest and dissent. the sad reason i think it gets bipartisan consent is that the left has had some serious problems giving the far left enough reasons to be patient with them. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

09-26-2005, 09:25 PM	#21 (permalink)
Ganggreen Tilted	i've said it before and i'll say it again...Bush is the anti-christ.

09-27-2005, 06:06 AM	#25 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	The civility, in this thread, had best improve...immediately. Otherwise, we're done here. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

09-27-2005, 06:10 AM	#26 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Edit: Hmm.. 4th pic not showing anymore for some reason.. whatever. Re-Edit: Pic fixed __________________ We Must Dissent. Last edited by ObieX; 09-27-2005 at 06:31 AM..

09-27-2005, 06:22 AM	#27 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is interesting, even here, to note the extent to which those few people who still stand behind george w. bush refuse to address information that they do not like about this administration. this is a good microcosm, one that shows a lingering problem for politics following from the type of committment that right ideology has fostered amongst its flock. that bush's handlers have set about organizing photo-ops for bush that are about the illusion of unanimity for the camera is and has been obvious. that the illusion of unanimity is a feature of conservative ideology is and has been obvious as well--consider how limbaugh for example never takes calls from anyone who really disagress with his positions--the loop this works to reinforce is--also--obvious: support in the audience, support at the level of feedback, yes yes "we" speak for all "americans"--this has not changed across the transition from opposition into power. that this unanimity is fictive, has been fictive, will be fictive--also obvious: it is about giving individual conservatives the illusion that they are many, part of a movement (which of course is hostile to all social movements except itself--another defining feature)--following from this curious mixture (a social movement a defining feature of which is hostility to social movements other than itself--think trade unions), duplicating its logic even, you have the karlrove photo-op, its structure, its exclusions, its rationale. i see the conservative above incapable of addressing problems that might be raised by the photo-op procedure (which does, like it or not, harken back to "triumph of the will")---the predictable round of subject-switches followed the initial post--well, the democrats did it--well, these protestors should be kept in cages look at their signs--all sorry demonstrations of the proposition that conservatives are not bothered by the supression of political speech so long as that suppression comes from the right--when they are out of power, after the next elections, you will see conservatives turn into primary victims of the suppression of speech--they will whine long and loud about how their bankrupt political propositions are being censored by the evil liberal press (for example)--and this which will be the way that the rank and file will come to process their defeat. nothing wrong with the ideology--every distortion comes from outside agitators. if you cage enough of them, nothing bad will ever happen to conservative ideology. great logic.....glad none of you who posted above from the right have any power. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-27-2005 at 06:26 AM..

09-27-2005, 06:34 AM	#28 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	Gitmo on the Hudson!?! Are you for real? That's just......well....funny. Civil disobedience sometomes comes with a price. I'll bet they didn't tell you that at your Civil Disobedience-Anarchist Teen Club meetings. Roachboy... what are you babbling about? All I see is, "Conservative idelogy.......isms.....evil neocons.....democratics good.....[insert big word to make me look smart]....Rovian mind control......, etc etc." Your posts always make me smile.

09-27-2005, 07:04 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ranger: whether you find what i post and how i write to be engaging or not is really of no consequence to me. as for the ad hominem dimension of your post, i expect nothing different or better from conservatives such as yourself. perhaps someday you'll surprise and post an actual argument that is not a simple recapitulation of the right line of the moment. and perhaps, if that day comes, i might find you worth engaging. but that is not how things stand. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-29-2005, 07:04 AM	#33 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I dont think that free speech zones are a good idea, they are unconstiutional IMO. HOWEVER, these have ALL been on the local level. I think yall are sorely mistaken when you think the President gets on the phone and says, "heh, why dont you round up those hippies so I can look good hehe". It is the LOCAL police who want to avoid riots. Remember Seattle? Their free speech was in no way shape or form restricted... yet there was riots and millions of dollars in damages. THAT is what the LOCAL cops are trying to avoid. You can stop with all the BUSH=HITLEROMFG crap already. If he was Hitler these people would have simply been shot.

09-29-2005, 09:05 AM	#36 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	When have you seen me apologize for Bush? I critisize him as much if not more than I praise him. However I dont see him as the boogey man, pulling the chains and being behind every bad thing that happens. Personally I think that if the President went and told the local cops to effectively jail every protestor, in a liberal city/state such as New York he'd be told to F-off and it'd be all over the papers. And yes, imo that article is way off topic.

09-29-2005, 06:25 PM	#39 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I'm sure they were looking for whatever excuse they could get. I'm well aware of what the article says. I'm for what's right. I don't have any hidden agenda. __________________ We Must Dissent.

09-29-2005, 06:31 PM	#40 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	MM, you do realize that they intended to get arrested for civil disobedience? There is a long tradition of CD to garner media coverage for any protest movement. Rosa Parks was the first in my memory, but CD goes back to the Boston Tea Party in this relatively young republic.