I don’t know if the ‘protesters’ were near the main gates or not. If they were, then the soldiers on duty would have been ‘compelled’ to listen to the drivel. Not to mention, I am sure that additional security was on duty to deal with the protesters. Fence-jumpers and all that.
As I noted before, the Right has conniption-fits when this is done by college students protesting a speaker they disagree with, but goes into congratulatory wet dream mode when it’s done against the Left.
Pick a position on the issue and stick with it, 'kay? Both sides, please? Is this a proper form of protest, or not? No exceptions, no “it’s a proper form of protest for the little guy standing up to the big bad government” or “It’s a proper form of protest for a military who can’t simply walk away from the nasty-bad leftist protest”. Is the “drown-out” method an acceptable mode of disagreement in a society where free speech is encouraged?
The School of the Americas is still open??? :eek:
It sure is a humorous mode of disagreement when dealing with the drooling Left.
Why yes, Brutus, showing utter contempt is the sure way to win people over to your side of the argument.
These people are passionate about the atrocities that graduates of the SotA have perpetrated, with the tacit approval of the US government. I’m sure that implying that they don’t love their country is going to move them to agree with the other side.
**
“One, two, three, four, we don’t want your rascist war!”
It’s a standard tactic that both sides of the fence use. The above chant was thrown at Madeline Albright when she was attempting to speak at a college when the Clinton administration was having problems with Iraq.
**
You noted it but nobody cared. How many threads do we need someone to pipe in with “the left/right are hypocrites?” Besides using fairly meaningless words like left and right it just doesn’t add anything to the conversation. If we wanted to go in that direction we could just pipe in with “The left uses these tactics quite often with those they disagree with but bitch when it is used against them.” Take the beam out of your own eye first.
Do I like these tactics? No, but I don’t see how anybody’s rights are violated when they’re used. Not even if some base commander decides it’s a good idea.
Marc
Kind of got into this thread late but, as no one has mentioned a point that I think is relevant, I’ll toss it out and see if I’m totally off base here (no pun intended).
From Metacom
For a second, lets go back to basics…lets forget about the content of the messages and such. Metacom, would you like it if I organized a large gathering of people to protest something you really weren’t interested in hearing (say a very loud religious discussion, just for the hell of it) right outside your home? I won’t actually be on your property, mind you, but I’ll be close enough that you can definitely hear the very loud speakers I am installing. It will be a very good message, about love of god and all kinds of BS like that. It would be very loud, with all kinds of banners and signs and such. SOme of the more roudy types might try and sneak into your house, but don’t mind that. How does that sound to you?
At a guess, you wouldn’t like it…and you wouldn’t like your family to be exposed to it either. True? Well…last time I checked, people with THEIR families LIVE on those bases. I know when I was in the military, I did. I knew lots of guys that lived on base with their families. You guys are pretending that the guys in uniform are some kind of machine that you just turn loose when you want to kill someone. They are real people guys, with families and such. Ya…if I was on base, pretty much minding my own business, and some group of yahoos protesting ANYTHING came right outside my base, I’d have done the same thing. Hell, I’d have cranked up the music, brought a barbaque and some beer, gotten some of my buddies together, and had a party of it…and laughed my ass off.
The moral of this story, boys and girls, is that if you want to bitch, take it to fucking washington where it belongs. They LOVE that crap there. Its what we pay them for after all.
This isn’t a rant by me about how noble our soldiers are, etc etc…I’m not waving any flags here…its simply common sense. They are PEOPLE, they have families. Put yourselves in THIER shoes for gods sake. Would YOU like it? What would YOU do in their place?
-XT
I don’t think this is a valid analogy for a couple reasons:
[ul]
[li]A standard residential lot is maybe 1/4 acre. If you set up a protest in front of my house, there’s no way I can avoid you. Fort Benning is a really, really big base. Except for people exiting and entering through the main gate, and the officers manning the main gate (who are likely going to be in some kind of both), the people on the base aren’t going to be affected nearly as much as someone on a residential property.[/li][li]There’s no way you’d be able to get a permit to set up loud speakers and such right outside my place. The protesters in this case were fine, legally.[/li][/ul]
As for the soldiers on the base not liking it, I’m sorry they had to be inconveienced and annoyed by political ideology they find offensive (like human rights activisits), but Istill don’t think that gives them the right to use the tactic they did.
Well you may have set up the speakers and tried to employ the same tactic, I’dve hoped that someone superior to you would have told you to stuff it and go to some other part of the base. If you’re a soldier, the point of your life is to protect our republic–and allowing political dissent is a cornerstone of it.
Maybe the root of our disagreement is that I think soldiers, when in uniform, are acting as representatives of the government and should be held to much higher standards then civilians.
Probably true. I don’t think soldiers give up their rights as citizens when they join the military.
Actually, I just think this is outrage on the part of the looney Left at discovering that other people don’t feel the obligation to listen to their maunderings, the unpleasantness of being hoist by their own petard, and frustration at not being able to outshout your opponents.
And the phenomenon I observed in college - the “penis envy” of the stereophile at discovering that other people have bigger tweeters than you do. 
Regards,
Shodan
Obligation schmobligation. They had a permit to assemble. They assembled. The miliary took action that directly opposed the point of assembling. That is mighty suspicious and I’d think your otherwise critical mind might recognize that. It wasn’t like they were just hollering, “Y’all are jerks!” over the fence.
It doesn’t give them the right to play loud music on ‘their’ property?? I fail to see why not. You haven’t made a good case for why these folks are COMPELLED to listen to these protesters in their own homes. You’d have a better case if the base commander had of taken his big speakers to Washington and set them up next to some protesters and THEN disrupted their protest. THEN it would be what you are making it out to be. You haven’t made a good case for why it was wrong for them to play the loud music to drown out what they didn’t want in their own backyards.
As to my analogy, how about this one. Say you live in a subdivision with a bunch of other folks. How about if I organize a large demonstration on the public domain property just outside the gates or entrance of your subdivision? After all, only those people trying to get in or out (to go shopping or go home say) plus those unfortunate folks that live near the entrance will be inconvinenced. Having discovered that some of your neighbors have baby seal skin car seats and accessories, we shall be protesting to save the baby seals…a good cause, no?
No sweat right? Its a good message, and I feel that the folks of your subdivision and their families should be compelled to listen to it…for their own good of course. You don’t want to stifle my right to dissent or free speech, surely. However, say that YOU are one of the folks that lives by the gate. How do you feel about it now?
As for this:
From Metacom
This is just insane. You still aren’t getting the fact that these people aren’t machines there to be used when you want, and discarded when they are not. These people LIVE there. Yes, they are charged with defending and protecting the republic. And if it comes down to it (as its has for about 500 of them this year) they are out there to die for you and me…by someone ELSES orders. So I’d say that they are doing their bit to defend the republic (or at least dieing for it). Just don’t bring your ridiculous protest to THEIR HOUSE!
If you want to excersize your right to dissent and free speech, take it to the capital of your state, or better yet to Washington. THEY are the people that can actually do something after all. Or, if you want to get something actually done, try getting a grass roots movement going to petition to the governer, congressman, senator, or the Prez. Take it to the people that make the decisions.
-XT
Actually, some of them had been jerks by sneaking under the fence and trespassing.
But you are correct, I don’t automatically find it “mighty suspicious” that someone might organize a counter-protest to whatever the Left had decided is morally incorrect.
Look at it from the other side. The protestors had a permit, and had the right to be there. The military had a base, and had the right to be there. The protestors had loudspeakers, and were loudly proclaiming a message. The military had loudspeakers, and were loudly proclaiming a counter-message. The protestors were opposing the military - the military were opposing the protest. Both sides enjoyed their freedoms under the Constitution. It’s a beautiful thing.
Face it - this all smacks of the usual “No fair - he hit me back first” from the disappointed. The lefties, unshakably convinced of the rightness of The Cause, are furious at having their own tactics thrown back into their silly faces.
"Hey! You can’t do that! We are the only ones who get to use loudspeakers! We are the only ones who get to make loud speeches! We are the only ones who get to protest here!
It’s NO FAIR!"
To which the reasoned response is, tough nougies. If you want to rant and rave and be wrong at the top of your voice, feel free. If you want to get into the face of your political opponents, and wind up looking stupid because they have better equipment, don’t come whining to me.
All I am gonna do is snicker at you.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, no, I haven’t. In fact, I’ve never tried to make any sort of case like that. I’ve been saying something completely different: They were not protesting in a residential area, therefore there’s no reason to make such a case.
They were protesting by the main gate of a large military base. A city-sized base. I haven’t been able to find anything to support the notion that the main gate is anywhere close to a residential area. Show me a map demonstrating that a residential area was close enough to the main gate to be adversly affected and I shall change my tone.
Don’t you think that if there was a residential area nearby the military would have have employed a tactic less disruptive then being significantly louder then the protesters?
If what I said is insane, then there’s no point trying to reason about it, I guess. :rolleyes:
By this reasoning, the military downright deserves to be smite by the mistakes of some of its members. Persuasive argument, but essentially fruitless. Rotten apples don’t really spoil the whole bunch.
Verily; this is my base reaction, as you might have noticed. I feel rather confident that this is exactly how the soldiers felt, and what motivated their actions. However, the military gets it’s message out eight ways to Sunday. Civil society does not engage in shouting matches, which only escalates to everyone yelling and no one listening.
Now, I think the SOA serves a purpose, even if it is somewhat dubious and has resulted in some nefarious activities. Yet I also feel that those who protest it have a pretty good point. The military wasn’t engaging in a counter-protest, it was engaging in an activity geared towards disrupting an existing protest. Suppose they set up a podium and had a debate with the SOAW. Suppose they silently stood there with signs. Suppose… suppose…
Do you suppose there are reasonable courses of action open to the military that they didn’t take? Drowning out your debating opponent is a pure display of force.
The bottom line is that the SOAW had a permit to organize and voice their message. The military presence there attempted to disrupt that message, and thus undermine their rights and the permit they’d obtained lawfully. While I think it is not really censorship, I think it is pretty low behavior.
You can’t take the moral highground by stooping so low.
What troubles me about this tempest in a tea pot is the political stance evoked by the military in this instance. It makes me uncomfortable, a bit anxious.
Even if I grant the whole “private property” bilge and the laughable idea that somehow the protestors are grossly eroding the peace and harmony of military dependents, I have to ask myself: if this were a “Re-elect Our Troops and Support Our President” rally outside the fences, would it elicit a similar counter-demonstration?
I think not.
Kind of reminds me of a cold-war era joke about a Russian and an American. The Russian challenges the Americans notion of “free speech”. The American says “Well, I can stand up at any time and criticize American foreign policy”. The Russian replies “So can I! I can also stand up and criticize American foreign policy!”
i think anyone babbling about right and left, and the SotA, or any of the content of the protest is missing the point here.
i don’t doubt that the military folks on the other side of the fence didn’t want to hear what was being said, and were utterly annoyed by it. i also don’t doubt that those feelings are what caused them to react the way they did. i think if two civilian groups were near each other and one drowned out the other, no one would cry foul (or perhaps one or both groups would, but no one outside would care).
the fact here, though, is (or seems to be) a government institution acted to quell the rights of free speech and assembly of the group of demonstrators. their goal by playing the loud music was to drown out the protests so that they might not be heard.
i think the critical questions that must be answered in this case are:
- were the men inside the base acting on behalf of the government when they tried to suppress the protest’s speech?
and
- was the speech actually suppressed outside the base?
if people inside the base couldn’t hear it, tough. the rights of the protestors don’t extend to that side of the fence. as to question one, it is possible that since men and their families live on the base, a court could decide that they were acting as representatives of themselves and their families rather than the government. it could also be shown that since they were using government resources, they were acting on behalf of the government.
as erl said, the behavior is mighty suspicious. i’m not sure i’m convinced either way yet, though.
Yes, although they changed the name-I can never remember it…hang on…
Ah, here we go: Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
I figure they got tired of everyone calling it The School of the Assassins.
Did you see the second photograph in the article the OP linked to? The people operating the loudspeaker are all in uniform. As far as I’m concerned, that makes them agents of the government.
As for the second question, I think “suppress” would need to be better defined (e.g., is making it harder for them to hear suppression? Is simply reducing the number of people who can hear suppression? Or is only the complete elimination of their ability to speak suppression?) for it to be meaningfully debated…
I don’t think ‘suppression’ is inherently ambiguous. The action undertaken sought to be louder than the message of the protesters. Given the capability of the human ear, this would be suppression easily enough, even by rather loose definitions. We could loosen it, of course, without being absurd, simply by saying, the actions of playing the music clearly had the effect of drowning out the protest, at least to some extent. And then we can go to court and play the intention game, and play the game of whether they were acting as individuals or under orders, and whether they were using govn’t property (as ramanujan mentions), and otherwise drag up the issues necessary to present the violation of the bill of rights by the government, or just a bunch of guys doing something stupid.
I think it’s an interesting event, and I’ll be trying to follow it and see where it goes, but I don’t think there’s a prima facie case for government censorship.
That’s a pretty good case for why someone would perceive them as agents of the government, but maybe they were off duty and hadn’t changed yet? I mean, we could nitpick this for some time.
Essentially this case seems to have received more press due to this. If the opponents of the SOAW thought they were shutting them up, they pretty much just created a larger audience. Whoops!
From erislover
…unless of couse its kind of what I was getting at. A case of “not in my back yard” syndrome. Again, I think it would be a better case if the military had left the base and disrupted a protest somewhere else. The fact that they were playing loud music ON the base is kind of a key point I’d say.
If the protesters ranting couldn’t be heard where they were, they were perfectly free to A) Move back another 100 or so yards or B) Take their protest somewhere more appropriate and condusive to their protest. There was absolutely NOTHING preventing them from doing so, except stuborness and the desire to be martyers to the cause. Pity me brothers and sisters, the evil government and its thug like henchmen have outsmarted me and stifled my freedom of speech.
I think this entire arguement is laughable, and I’m frankly stunned at some of the folks weighin in on this this thing.
From elucidator
Why is the peace and harmony of these people and their families so laughable to you 'luci? Just because they are in uniform and so are lesser life forms than you? Again, how would YOU react?
Your last statement is irrelevant and you know it. The protest was something that these folks obviously DID object too, and the protesters stubornly and stupidly did things in such a way that the folks on the base could do something about it. Tough titty. Moral of the story…next time plan your whinning session in a better location where such things can’t happen.
I’m fairly certain that if there was a “Bush is Stupid” rally in front of your house you wouldn’t object either, however if there was a “Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread, lets make him king!” rally you’d rightfully be foaming at the mouth. How is this different? Unless…
I’m hearing a bunch of you wave your hands about and claim some kind of conspiricy here. I suppose the government put them up to it, right? Fine. You got some evidence? Prove it then. Prove that the most reasonable explaination, i.e. that it was simply the Base Commander/XO or other base Officers or maybe even just a bunch of off duty (or even on duty) guys annoyed by the protest and wanting to fuck with them, and that instead it was some kind of convoluted master plan by the government/military (i.e. from on high, high level Pentagon involvement, JCoS, Defense Secretary or underlings, etc) to stop free speech and stifle protest.
Hell, on second thought, don’t prove it…just give me a reasonable scenerio where such a thing would do any good at all. I can’t think of a single sane one to be honest. Again, seems to me a flawed plan by the evil government, when the protestors could simply move and continue ranting to their widdle hearts desire.
If this was ‘official’ policy, then the protesters must have been in on it, as they could have simply moved back a bit to the point where how ever loud these guys were playing, it would have been incidental.
-XT