What I was objecting to, perhapse overstrenuously, although you seem to have taken the same tone in this thread, is anti-war protestors who are so convinced of the moral right of their position that they think they “have the right” to ignore laws, use violence and inconvienence anyone they want, just because they’re “right”. They’re like people who believe in Chick tracts, they think that if they shout their opinions loudly and rudely at you, you will have no choice but to fall to your knees, weeping that you ever held a contrary opinion. Well, I hold a contrary opinion, one based on consideration of facts, and I am able to defend my position with rational debate. Screaming “No war for oil” while beating on the hood of my car isn’t going to convince me that you’re anything but an asshole. Couple that with the fact that the majority of the in-your-face protestors seem to be ignorant kids latching onto the cause de jour without a clue about the issues involved, extreme left wing nutjobs for whom it’s all about domestic power politics like rjung, and outright lunatics like the professor at Columbia who called for the death of American servicemen, and I have little or no sympathy when people try to claim they are exercizing some sacred political right to protest when in fact they couldn’t be bothered to obtain the proper permits and are simply throwing a temper tantrem for attention when the laws are enforced. I am sure that there were lots of peaceful, innocent citizens were caught up with the bad apples, but I also put it to you, sir, that the people to blame for this are NOT the police and civil authoroties but rather the disgruntled 25% who think “anti-war protest” is a synonym for “excuse to riot”. Permits were not denied across the board, the leaders of the protest were simply told “no, you can’t do that here at this time”. They should have worked with the NYC government to find out what time and place would be acceptable, then they could have shouted their fool heads off to their heart’s content. Instead they decided that the burning rightiousness of their cause was worth breaking the law. Crying foul if you get hassled by police when you are engaged in lawbreaking cuts no ice with me.
Aw, come on, man. Not all cops are hippie-thumping thugs. The vast majority are folks just like you and me: people just trying to do their jobs. Hell, if they weren’t on duty, I but a few of them would * be * at the rallies.
Yeah, there are some “bad apples,” but the majority of cops are good and decent people. Don’t let a few incidents with assholes color your perception of all police officers.
You gutless fuck, go ‘protest’ to them, then. Don’t involve others who are just trying to go about their buisness.
The police are dealing far too lightly with protesters, who are growing bolder with each protest. The first one that blocked traffic should have been thoroughly smacked. If these morons need to lose some teeth, so be it.
Hey there Ace… I thought this was particularly funny.
Got anymore self-congratulatory bullshit to add to that? When you don’t have a permit, and you’re obstucting traffic, and in general being a pain in the ass to anyone within 50 feet of you, guess what? I’m gonna take you downtown, and I hope you have half a grand for your bail.
As a professional in this area, I can tell you that your right to peacable assembly does not supercede my, or any other officers responsibility (don’t know if you are familiar with that concept --they come with “rights” nowadays, you know), to do our job. That is, above all to maintain the saftey of the general public. Interfere with that, and don’t try to tell the judge you can’t do the time.
On one more real-world note… If you must make a law-breaking ass of yourself by illegally rioting over something, at least be right about it. No sense backing the Loser.
Some of you people have no idea what you’re talking about. I have been to numerous demonstrations in Brisbane and Sydney, Australian. In opposition not just to the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, but in opposition to the racist mandatory detention of asylum seekers, attacks by government on workers right to organise collectively, the rationalisation of Australian Higher Education and the disgusting and anti-democratic World Trade Organisation. At every demonstration I have attended I have witnessed, with my own eyes, unprovoked attacks on, and abuse of demonstrators by police. In our capitalist police-state society the police have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, demonstrators understand this better then most of you (apparently). I understand that violent demonstrations would not only be ineffective but also counter productive. The state and its agents know this also, and as a result we see, often for days before a demonstration, the corporate mass media filling people’s heads with violent and racist stereotypes and trumped up concerns of property damage. When the demonstration takes place the media buzz around like flies, waiting for the inevitable (for it is the police’s roll to aid in the discrediting of democratic movements) challenge between police and demonstrators. When this occurs the cameras rush in at a speed you would not believe to capture the few minutes of violence in an otherwise peaceful and constructive action. That night the Television stations will describe the demonstration with words such as ‘violent’, ‘riot’, ‘mob’, ‘rampage’, ‘anti-American’, and many others. The reason for this is to deter concerned people from taking action and changeling injustice in society, it serves to reinforce the existing misconceptions rife in the apparently apathetic and complacent ‘mainstream’, you know ‘Middle America/Australia’, the ‘silent majority’ that supports everything nasty thing some rightwing parasite wants to get away with simply by remaining invisible and silent.
If you image the bulk of demonstrators are as ill spoken, or as lacking in political argument, as those few the undemocratic corporate media choose to display in their TV news and such, you are mistaken or misled. I know many activists, and the bulk of them are more politically ‘on the ball’ then any rightwing shock-jock or bribed pseudo-investigative reporter in the minority owned corporate media.
Halo13 states “Jonpluc doesnt know shit from clay”
shit: 1.Excrement;feces 2.slang.(used to express disgust,<:like at your attitude:>,dissapointment,<:at the continued arrogance of these protesters:>,contempt,frustration, or the like.
clay:a naturally earthy element that is plastic when wet,consisting of hydrated silicates of aluminum. Ahh and there is a second definition that seems to fit your personality perfectly halo13:a lusterless serge having a rough texture.
Now with that out of the way," In our capitalist police-state society the police have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence" My responce to your statement is thank GOD the police have a monopoly on the use of force<other than self defence>I MUCH prefer thier judgement when to use force than say YOUR judgement on when it should be used.
Halo13states: “In opposition not just to the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq,” Cite please? I can give you several UN resolutions that makes it arguably “legal” Its certianly been made legal in the USA itself via Congressional vote and all the proper paperwork. Apparently the “coalition” countries numbering now 42 or something feels its legal.Morality on the other hand, is an issue between you and your church and whatever rules you feel you need to follow to sleep at night.Everyone has a different subjective morality and to debate it is pointless.
halo13 states"At every demonstration I have attended I have witnessed, with my own eyes, unprovoked attacks on, and abuse of demonstrators by police." This seemingly innocent statement screams that you only go to protests that have a violent civil agenda. I live in a very politically active town. People protest about everything all the time. All in all things go peacefully and there are very few arrests if any. Nine times out of ten protests go off perfectly without a hitch. Why is it your only going to events that have violence? I suggest its not the police that are following you across the country beating up every innocent protester they can find.
Halo13 also states"When the demonstration takes place the media buzz around like flies," Umm maybe i dont get this whole protest thing but ISNT THAT THE POINT OF A MASS PROTEST TO GET THE MEDIA THERE WITH CAMERAS TO GIVE YOU EXPOSURE???And your UPSET about this???
Halo13 states" the corporate mass media filling people’s heads with violent and racist stereotypes and trumped up concerns of property damage. " Ever notice how “property dammage concerns” are always trumped up unless its YOUR property being destroyed??!!
I wouldn’t agree. I addressed everyone who responded in the same or better tone; my OP was not half as contentious as the OP’s. I hope we can still disagree with each other sensibly even in times of stress and war.
You’re entitled; but of course, based on the rest of your post and general attitude of late, I’m dead sure you considered them assholes well ahead of the protest.
Who exactly, decides what is a proper permit?
The government.
Whose policies are we protesting?
Also the government.
The minute that the government decides to game the system by denying even one permit on specious, political grounds, the whole system of permit-granting is made a specious, political sham.
And we’ll have no truck with it.
Are you aware that the Bush administration took time from their round-the-clock war preparation plans to submit an Amicus Curiae brief to the judge considering the Feb. 15th March permit? This judge was considering the City of New York’s denying the march on “heightened security concerns,” without any backing logic; though other marches in NY have been allowed; and protest marches outside of NY have been peaceful.
Any expression of rights can be denied under this rubric, the gaming of the permit system to become another tool for silencing and minimizing the impact of the anti-war protestors.
It is this that has pushed the protestors towards the “illegal” (which are not “riot”) protests, and now you want to give the thumbs up towards actual illegal police behavior in the name of supressing further such protests?
Absurd. And then you have the temerity to blame these protestors for being beat in the head?
If you allow the government to define what is a “legal” expression of one’s rights, and then allow the government to beat on the “illegal” expressors, I would suggest the broken teeth come to rest on no pillow but your own.
I’ve got to break out of lurker mode for this one…
For all you who are against the peace protesters, I’ve got a question: What do you think is implied by our government’s initial hope that Iraqi soldiers and civilians would, upon seeing U.S. forces, turn tail and revolt against Saddam? Seems to me we were expecting them to break the laws of their own country and rise up against their own government. So who among you are worried that this will stop any Iraqis from getting to work?
I don’t think it’s that presumptuous of me to assume that if the streets of Baghdad had filled with anti-Saddam Iraqi protesters, our media would have trumpeted the event as “the birth-pangs of democracy” and nobody would have given much thought to whether the protesters were disrupting Baghdad’s economy and transportation. In all earnestness, what makes one act of revolt acceptable and the other not?
I’m with you there but what Ms. Blevins said made it sound like our media is controlled by the government, like how the media is in Iraq.
Can we all agree that AoS is to protests as december is to Rebublicans and move on? Please?
You really do live in la-la land, don’t you.
The purpose for getting a permit from the city/county/wherever to demonstrate is that a demonstration is particularly taxing. Extra police need to be called, emergency services need to be made available to the demonstrators, traffic needs to be re-routed including emergency vehicles, extra sanitation crews need to be called out to clean up after you, and so forth.
If you think the government gives an infintesimal shit about what you want to demonstrate, think again. They do, however, care about their city and the care thereof.
Finally, think about it this way. While it’s nice that sitting in traffic while traffic is snarled by this circle-jerk affords an extra opportunity to meditate on the evils of war, I would tend to think that it’s cold comfort to the poor bastard across town who needs an ambulance/fire truck/cop car. The Constitution don’t mean shit when you’re losing everything you own.
Robin
they would have shortly been ex-protesters.
Perhaps, MLS, but that was part of the war plan.
And I liked this from MsRobyn:
Given that Bush has already said, "Size of protest, it’s like deciding, ‘Well, I’m going to decide policy based upon a focus group,’” I’d say your statement is unfortunately all too accurate. And given that, does it really matter whether we protest by writing to our congressmen, standing outside city hall, blocking major traffic arteries, or even attacking cops? Nobody’s listening anyway…
Oh, and I missed this bon mot from gobear the first time through… first we get:
Then, after a critique from Myrr21,
Ah, so the protesters appear to be, among other things, “‘AmeriKKKa is EEE-vul’ far-left activists who are praying for 9/11 to happen again so they can gloat.”
But you’re not judging anyone based on how they look. Just pointing out that they look that way.
This being the Pit, and I having refrained from the typical Pit vocabulary so far, I’d like to take this time to say: BULLSHIT. Even if you could convince me that all your flaming rhetoric about hippies, teenagers, and far-leftists was just a hypothetical abstract and not directed against anybody you actually saw on CNN, you’d still have to explain why your original post implies that you do not respect those you did see on CNN (“I respect many of the anti-war folks here, but…”).
And as for whether you do “respect many of the anti-war folks here,” I have to wonder if that’s just because you can’t see what we look like.
I should have been clearer. I meant they would be ex-protesters, as in “This is an ex-parrot!” To be really explicit, in case you are not familiar with Monty Python, they would be dead, deceased, shuffling off the mortal coil, pushing up daisies, gone to meet their maker… To be even more specific, if anyone in the streets of Baghdad starts protesting against Saddam Hussein right now, the best thing to happen to that person would be a quick and instantaneous execution. IMHO. Unfortunately.
I know what you meant, MLS. But perhaps you should have let Rumsfeld and Bush know about this little snag, as they were quite seriously expecting the U.S. to be welcomed as a liberator. What else could that mean except revolt against Saddam?
BickBryo: IMHO I think (and I am privy to no special information) they expected more celebration as they moved into the various towns and villages on their way to Baghdad, similar to what they saw in Afghanistan. It’s been pointed out in other threads that this may be due to (a) our previous poor record in supporting an uprising against SH, or (b) fear of dire consequences until SH and Co. are definitely out of power. I have no idea as to the facts of the matter within Iraq, obviously.
I do find it disheartening that free people elsewhere do not demonstrate against the atrocities if SH’s regime. Can you imagine the protesters if it were proven that coalition troops executed POWs at close range and/or paraded them on t.v. as Iraq did? Or if we were taking women & children out of their homes to walk in front of us as shields? I realize we can’t possibly get all the information, but it is interesting that the Red Cross is visiting Iraqi POWs taken by coalition armies but not vice versa. Where is the world-wide outcry?
Um…Ace? the government DOES get to decide what is and isn’t legal, that’s why we elect them, remember? That same government, filtered through the Supreme Court, appointed by the same people we elect, determines exactly what is and isn’t Constitutional. It’s not Unconstitional to set guidelines for when and where it is acceptable to protest. Sorry, but anarchy isn’t a Constitional right.
And also why we have the Constitution and the venerated checks and balances. Seen any checks and balances, lately?
We elect them to represent us – not to post hoc define legality until our constitutional rights are available to us on alternate Tuesdays in July.
We have branches of government to prevent a singular branch from refusing to represent us, lying to us in about the need for war, and enmeshing us unilaterally in a cauldron of Arabic hate.
Doesn’t that bother you a little? That our representatives have stopped representing us?
And in that context, with these out-of-control motherfuckers in charge, doesn’t it bother you in the least that our constitutional rights are now withdrawable by these guys for no discernable reason? They’re fucking CONSTITUTIONAL rights! That’s what we’re fighting for in Iraq, and we can’t find a way to uphold them at home?
Ms. Robyn: Huh? The governments been doing everything legally possible and many things not to supress and minimize the demonstrators. If you think that they would exercise gentlemanly restraint from disgusting abuses of power in order to further their ideological beliefs, it is you who live in a fantasy world. They, the Bush administration even wrote a Friend of the Court brief to convince the judge that this “Focus Group” represented a security thread to the U.N., as if they weren’t all for blowing it up in any event.
The administration has a track record of lies, deceit, and abuse of power. To these forgers and confidence men you would the fuse box to our constitutional rights and whistle in the dark?
No. It’s clear they aren’t making March decisions based on any of the rationale that your provide, but merely political supression’s new catchphrase: “heightened safety concerns.”
Hmmm. Do you mean the violence I watched on TV this morning, here in Australia, of the student demonstration last week in Sydney was exaggerated??
Are you sure? I mean I did wonder how come there were at least six identical long haired young men who spat at the camera in an identical manner being led off by the very similar looking police and a further 3 or 4 dreadlocked boys (again I thought perhaps triplets ot quadruplets) As well as half a dozen or so very similar girls nursing the same hurt arm and another worried girl with a friend who also had a number of doubles, according to the video of the violence I saw.
Are you suggeting these were NOT clones, or identical multiple siblings? Are you saying that the media is playing the same footage over and over and over again, not only on subsequent news stories but in the same story?
Gee who would ever have believed it!!
The segment I watched this morning was the most biased and pathetic piece of tabloid journalism I have seen in a long time. The same four or so very brief incidents were played over and over and over, while the hysterical female interviewer spoke over the top of and harangued the person from the march organisers who had obviously been invited onto the show
Interesting you should post this tonight Halo13, when it has been buggng me all day
First of all, I’d like a cite for the Bush administration’s amicus brief. It would be especially welcome if you linked to a copy of the brief.
Second, what about the precepts of life, liberty, and property? A bunch of “demonstrators” in the streets tends to deprive citizens of these.
Frankly, all I’ve seen you do is wrap yourself in the Constitution while you rationalize and justify a group of mobsters intent on disrupting a busy city. I am not impressed.
Robin