For god’s sake, are you really going to quibble over the difference between “gas chamber” and death chamber?" I was going from memory, and it’s distinction without a difference as far as I’m concerned.
Oh, and here is a cite with a quote from the Pentagon.
Give up the innocence abused routine, Dio.
Just admit that you’ve enhanced certain posts you’ve made.
Kudos to bricker for playing the factually inacurate I’m-the-only-one-on-this-board-who card without sounding like a complete whiner.
Here-- this is a little better:
I was concerned about the credibility of that cite site–prisonplanet?–so I dogpiled a bit. Here’s the same story from USA Today.
Note that the date of the story is June 2003. It was apparently discussed in passing in this thread and a couple others but didn’t get a thread of its own.
In light of other issues over the last year, I find this more and more ominous…and truly disgusting.
Well, ok then. No hard feelings.
SimonX, what exactly did I “enhance?” I’ve backed up my post with two cites now. The pentagon definitely was discussing plans for executions at Gitmo. Executions without public trials. maybe you object to my use of the term “assembly line executions,” but I think it’s a justifiable fear if this plan comes to fruition.
First, a direct link to the Guardian story. I confess I was a little suspicious when I saw the url of “prisonplanet” showing a web page that looked exactly like something from The Guardian, but this is apparently a legit Guardian story.
Secondly, if the cite’s not strong enough, it’s simple to Google “Guantanamo Executions” and come to this USA Today story:
Seems like a pretty strong cite, although not for the idea of “assembly-line executions.” This is fucked up, but comparisons to the Holocaust are premature.
Daniel
Well POWs can be tried under the same judicial system as members of the detaining military. Since the US military code has 15 crimes punishable by death I wouldn’t be surprised that a series of military trials might require a means of actually carrying out the executions.
However, sine the US hasn’t declared these guys POWs I don’t know how they can be tried under the military code.
:smack: As I said, it was a simple Google–so simple that I was the third person to post it.
Daniel
Here’s the ACLU’s take on “free speech zones” and other right to protest issues.
Frankly, I think the OP’s title is a touch inflammatory, if the police are to be believed. Placing someone in restraints is necessary when you, well, restrain them. Arresting someone, OTOH, requires them to be removed to the custody of the police for booking, and mirandized. These folks were ticketed and released in the field, NOT arrested in the traditional sense of the word.
If that death chamber thing is legit, as it seems to be, that’s just fucked, and another reason in the long line of them to vote against W.
I doubt that anyone here has done the presidental protection thing. I have. Under Clinton, I served as physical security during his visits as a DoD police officer. Here’s the skinny. You do as you’re told, and if you’re told to round up protestors, and put em on a roof top, you do it. The safety of the President is paramount to one guy’s right to wear a t-shirt. No dramatics, no martyrdom, simple see-spot-run logistics.
People hate Bush, I think he gets it, he doesn’t need a putz in a t-shirt to say so.
The media forces this kind of thing. That’s why you see printed screens behind speakers saying whatever they’re hawking, the consumer sheep that swallow this tripe need to be reminded what bill of goods they’re being sold this week.
Free speech is a crock of shit. It’s a utopian dream, not reality. There are all kinds of restrictions on so-called free speech, so don’t get yourself in a knot about one asshole in an anti-bush t-shirt. Cops told him where to go, he defied them, they gave him a ticket, plain and simple. What’s more, I don’t think anyone is stopping anyone else from actually SAYING anything, they’re just saying WHERE they can say it, sorry if it’s not near the ‘intended audience’ if the Media thinks it’s worth covering, I suppose they will.
If anyone really knew how NOT free we are, they’d shit. There are so many little laws and rules and regs that the LE community et. al. doesn’t have time to enforce, that if they some day did, it would bring about the next American Revolution.
Oh and Inigo, the effigies and pitchforks and torches are a great visual, but a bad idea IRL. Trust me.
You obviously missed the point. No one is blaming the police.
Nobody is arguing against the security. It’s not what the police and SS (…heh…) are doing, it’s the fact that they’re being told to do it.
I disagree. The President is supposed to work for the people and the constitution. The people and the constitution are not supposed to be his inferior bitches.
Do you really think he gets it? Do you have any evidence, even anecdotal, to back this up?
huh? 
Oh, well in the case, sorry we ever said anything. Mods, you can close this thread now, buttonjocker308 says the first amendment is safe.
:rolleyes:
I didn’t miss the point, I said they were detained for disobeying police, not, in fact arrested, as the OP states. Expounding on that, it’s NOT in fact, illegal to wear an anti-Bush T shirt, but it IS illegal to ignore the demands of the police.
Well, I’m with you there, but if you’re saying Bush is the only monkey on that pile, you’d be wrong. It’s status quo, no matter the party affiliation.
Ha ha, ha ha, you’re funny. Yeah, if it were a perfect world, people would be able to wear anti-bush t-shirts to a presidential visit without being ticketed, too, but alas…
Yes, I think he does. Every president knows people are gonna hate him, hell, even Abe Lincoln knew it, and if he’d had better security…
Ok, maybe I was a little vague. The fact that there is now instant, worldwide media coverage for every little event, means that the spin docs have to keep their spin favorable, and that means keeping the protestors out of the spotlight.
Bottom line is, I don’t think that one boob in a t-shirt rings a death knell for the 1st amendment. There’s little call for ham-fisted drama, these folks did what the police told them not to, they were punished for it, it’s hardly an indictment of Bush’s stand on the first amendment. Now, the fact that Bush employs John Ashcroft as the thought police, is an indictment of that stand, but that’s another rant altogether.
Anybody notice that not only were the two t-shirt wearers arrested, but the one who had a federal-government job was fired?
No, they’re not stupid enough to fire her. They just suddenly, unexpectedly, and without notice “didn’t need her anymore.” Fucking gutless pussy fascist-kowtowing scumbags.
Once the police laid hands on them, were they free to leave the scene? If not, then they were in the custody of the police. Getting hung up on the word “arrest” and whatever definition that term of art may have is missing the point. The point is that two people wearing anti-Bush shirts were ordered to leave the premises and, when they refused, were forcibly removed and charged with a crime (trespassing). If having police lay hands on you and forcibly remove you and not allow you to leave before issuing a citation sn’t an arrest, it’s the next best thing and the point is that this is still America and such police conduct is disgusting and unconsionable.
This and similar actions designed to completely shield the Bush team from any hint of public disapproval (and, apparently, to influence news coverage) need to be the subject of a major court challenge - which it seems they are and/or will be.
Go for it, A.C.L.U.
For everyone in this thread who sank into hyperbolic Godwinisms - once again, with these bullshit comparisons you demean the significance of the Holocaust, insult its victims and make yourselves look like rabid loons.
What if something on the level of the Holocaust does happen? I am NOT saying that I think something like that is going to happen, but if it were to happen, this is how it starts.
Would you say the same thing to a German Jew in 1935 if he said that the current state of things was starting to remind him of how the inquisition got started? If yes, how would you feel 10 years later? Would you still look back and say his fears were unfounded and he looked like a rabid loon?
People are scared of this man Jackmannii. Read very carefully: Americans. are terrified. of their President.
This is not a good thing and shouldn’t be taken lightly in any way.
I’m just wondering–the rest of this magnificent opus of cynicism aside–whether anyone else read “LE” in the above post as short for “Lawful Evil,” and had to think hard to figure out what else it might mean.
Daniel
Really? So if the police told you to jump up on a table and dance like a chicken, you’d have to comply? If they told you to give them all the money in your wallet, you’d have to do that, too? If they told you to leave some place because they didn’t like your T-shirt, you’d have to… Oh, wait, that’s just what happened, isn’t it?
While this may not be a perfect world, it’s hardly so imperfect that we can’t let people wear T-shirts expressing their political views at a political/presidential event.
No, but letting stuff like this slide by without comment, protest or litigation will eventually do it.
Nah, it started a long time ago, but you missed it.
Remember when Martha Burke and her Augusta National protest were big news? That bit about the golf club not admitting women as members? She wanted to stage her demonstration right at the gates of the club, to wave signs and shout at golfers and attendees as they entered the grounds.
She and her fellow demonstrators were shunted off to a field far away from the Masters tournament. Do you know what that meant? Why, it was nothing less than
Nazi Germany!
And it happens all over this formerly great land of ours - fetters on the right of free speech and assembly. You have to pick times and places for protest marches and get permits. Otherwise, you could be arrested or fined. Just like
Nazi Germany!
I myself have seen the dreadful limitations on how ordinary citizens may speak up in public. Even at lowly city council and school board meetings, you can’t just get up and start waving protest banners in the audience (I’d be willing to bet this goes for the U.S. Senate gallery as well). You can’t speak out of turn. You’re limited to scant minutes at the end of meetings. You can’t interrupt foolish or lying public officials, or they’ll haul you away. It’s no different than
Nazi Germany!!
In Britain, there are severe limitations on reportage of criminal matters coming to trial (they say it’s to protect the rights of the accused, but we know better). The government investigates and intimidates the BBC, the major source of news. Right out of the playbook of
Josef Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler!
All over the world, and particularly in parts of Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East, liberties are routinely infringed. Reporters are harassed, jailed or even murdered (take Russia for instance). The smallest infractions in a democracy are no different from the most repressive actions taken by the worst dictatorships. It’s all the same, all equivalent to
SS troops goose-stepping in the town square!
People held without due process? Extension of government wiretapping privileges? Why, it’s
Death camps! Gas chambers! Bad marching songs!!!
In the face of all this, we must raise our voices, though the Gestapo! is at our very doors. It is not enough merely to talk about wrongful or unconscionable infringements on civil liberties. We must invoke
Nazi Germany!
This getting tiresome yet? It should be.
Every time you start chanting about Nazis, you desensitize your target audience a little further. And they start to think “Well, these bozos cry wolf so much, why should I believe any more of their dire warnings?”
You’re wasting your trump card.
Maybe this will sink in a bit, since the other arguments (about demeaning the Nazis’ true victims and debasing history) have so little impact.