(Emphasis add in revulsion)
This sort of thing ought to be beneath you. Apparently, it isn’t. Work on that, won’t you?
You know what, Metacom? You’re absolutely right. If you get a permit to protest I should just bend over, grab my ankles, and listen to your spiel until you go away. After all, if you take the time to shout at me, I should ABSOLUTELY have to listen.
By the way, where do you live? I’ve got a bullhorn with your name all over it, a completely justifiable cause, and a lot of time to waste. I think I’ll start with your house, and everyone else who thinks that the Army was wrong, I’ll be expecting your addresses as well, because, well, if I can get a permit I can shout at you all day long. And by your reasoning, you have to listen.
elucidator, most times I think of you as one of the most thoughful and intersting posters on this board. Even when I disagree with you, I usually am very interested in what you have to say. Other times I find you just out there, man. This is one of those times.
From elucidator
Fine. Translate then. What the hell were you trying to say there, because what I posted is honestly how I read it. Maybe I’m missing something here, or maybe my english isn’t up to snuff or something.
Why are their “private property” rights bilge? They live there, enlisted, officers, even the Base commander (perhaps), and their families. Why is it laughable that that this is ‘grossly eroding the peace and harmony of military dependants’ who LIVE on that base and are a captive audience? Who have to travel through that gate to get to their homes, or to go out shopping. Why is it wrong of them, or even the base commander, to get annoyed and do something that is perfectly within their rights to do…i.e. play loud music and disrupt these people right outside their base? You seem to be saying that they just have to suck it up and put up with it, because they are in the military.
To me, you are saying (in less harsh terms than I used) that these people don’t have the same rights because they are in the military. Is that NOT what you are saying? If not, what the hell ARE you saying?
-XT
I am a retired Army officer, I was assigned to Fort Benning for many, many years. All in all the Army was wrong.
I do not see where it serves the Government’s cause by drawing attention to the protesters. I could further suppose that this counter-protest could have provoked some sort of illegal reaction to the Army’s taunt.
This is the sort of behavior I expect of a lieutenant, not a lieutenant general.
The operation of the School of the Americas is a legitimate object of public concern. Legal protests are a legitimate way to let the government know what we think about policies.
Perhaps it would be better if the government listened rather than tried to provoke and shout out its citizens.
Pretend you think I’m an imbecile who is completely incapable of making any kind of inference. Explain to me exactly why you think setting up a loudspeaker 30 feet from a house on a 1/4 acre lot is remotely equivalent (not that this actually represents my lifestyle) to setting up a loudspeaker outside the gate of a 182,000 acre fort.
By the way, neither the Benning nor the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation mention this. I suppose the realize they screwed up.
I entered a post on the Infantry board forum.
http://www.infantry.army.mil/infforum/default.asp
I note it will “appear on the board once approved by a Moderator.” That is to say it will not appear on the board.
What a bunch of maroons.
My question to YOU, Paul in Saudi, is: Do you think this was ‘official army’ policy, or just the base commander or even further down the chain just venting? If you think it was ‘official policy’ for the Army, do you have anything to back that up? I’ve seen nothing that indicated that this came down from on high…which it would have if it was offical policy.
I fail to see your point if it WASN’T official policy of the Army.
From Paul in Saudi
If it wasn’t offical policy, there WAS no governments cause. It was the individual actions of either one man (the base commander) or a group of men (officers, enlisted, etc) that were simply annoyed and reacted. No?
From Paul in Saudi
Agreed. I obviously wasn’t an officer, so this kind of thing definitely would appeal to me. However, even lieutenant generals (which I doubt the base commander was…could be wrong here of course) get annoyed and do stupid things occationally. No?
From Paul in Saudi
Agreed, it was a legitimate protest. However, perhaps they would have been better served protesting to the government about this? Perhaps this wasn’t the most appropriate place to do this?
From Paul in Saudi
Your assumption seems to be that this was a direct government action, that they are trying to stifle protest on this thing (but curiously not on Iraq, tax cuts, saving baby seals, Bush being an idiot or freeing Tibet, etc etc). If you know something I don’t about this being the government, please share the wealth. Am I missing something that shows this was direct government intervention? If I’m not, then perhaps you should re-think this last statement, hmm?
-XT
Army bases tend to be pretty big. A demonstration outside its perimeter is unlikely to cast a desperate pall of horror and dismay over the entire premises. They weren’t throwing rotten eggs at schoolchildren coming out of the PX. They were excercising thier right to free speech as citizens.
The use of loudspeakers to squelch the expression of that opinion is troubling. It implies that the Army has a political opinion. If you think that’s a great idea, you don’t know any Argentinians.
Note carefully: I don’t, by any stretch of the imagination, imply that individual soldiers and airmen have no political rights of expression. I rather suspect they are encouraged to be circumspect if those opinions are at variance with the recieved wisdom of the C in Chief. To say the least.
When I bring up the possibility of a “Re-Elect Our Troops and Support Our President” rally receiving more benign accomodation, I no more than state the thunderingly obvious. There is no chance, none whatsoever, that the base commander would have moved to squelch such an agreeable and patriotic demonstration. It is only the scoundrels and “traitors” who are subject to such.
AD, you and your crusading bullhorn are entirely welcome, with this proviso: you stand as far from my front porch as the perimeter fence on the post in question is from the dependents quarters. Call me on a land line and I’ll bring you a beer and a sandwhich.
elucidator…fair enough. I misunderstood your point. The way I read it…well, never mind.
From elucidator
I’ve never been to Benning, so I don’t know how true or untrue this is. The base I worked at for years (Andrews AFB) had no close housing near the main gate (though some of the barracks and housing would be in ear shot, if they were loud enough), and several alternative access gates for personnel. That said, it would still be a pain in the ass for may of the people who lived on the base, but yes…it wouldn’t cast any palls of horror. 
From elucidator
Again, this is only true if it was official Army policy. If it was the actions of individuals and was done withouth authorization or knowledge of the Army command, then I’m failing to see this point.
Maybe I’m missing part of the story here. WAS it official policy? Were these folks under orders to disrupt this demonstration from higher authority?? If so, could someone please point out the relevant part that I’m missing demonstrating this??
From elucidator
And I was simply pointing out the thunderingly obvious (to me) the converse. Again, IF this was individual actions, and not part of some official Army/Govenment action, it makes perfect sense to me…it was simply a knee jerk reaction to being annoyed…along with the short sighted glee of being able to fuck with these guys. At a guess, if it WASN’T official action, someone (rightfully) got their butt chewed for causing a stink.
-XT
About as key as, well, something non-key-like. Protests have to happen somewhere, I trust that point is obvious enough to not require explanation. And the protest didn’t happen on the base. So, if your point is key, then that one is even key-er. Nyah! 
They sought, and received, a permit. Thus, where they chose to protest was, by any arguable means, appropriate.
Martyrs? Huh? Did they get arrested for not moving their protest? Did they suffer physical or emotional pain? No. They organized a protest in a manner conducive to public law, and had, apparently, a public organization proceed to step on their right to assemble.
Sing it to someone who has admitted to calling it censorship. I’m sure they’ll care; I don’t.
What the hell are you on about? It isn’t like these people are protesting outside every single day pumping propoganda into the base. They organize a yearly protest lawfully. How difficult is it to understand peaceful assembly?
Really, you’d think they were throwing molotov cocktails at SOA children or something.
As a military man, are you there to protect rights or ambiguously trample them? Suppose democratic senators started playing “War, What Is It Good for?” at 70dB any time a republican congressman stood to propose a bill. After all, he doesn’t have to listen… :rolleyes:
Seriously, man. Do you really think political activism is such a shitty thing to do that this doesn’t bother you in the least? I hope you’re always on the winning team, I really do.
You really think so? You really think somebody got thier butt chewed?
“Now, see here, Col. Schiesskopf! The right of the people to assemble, redress of grievances, all that sort of thing…thats precisely what we are sworn to protect. We had rather assumed that basic training would make you somewhat more immune to unpleasant verbiage, but you seem to be more delicate in your sensibilities than we had thought.”
I suppose its possible. It would be pretty to think so. I very much doubt it.
From elucidator
Depends on how embarrassing this all really was, and how much of a real stink it created. To be perfectly honest about it, I hadn’t even heard of this until this thread, and I’m really just argueing because I love to argue.
I think that if it was embarrassing enough, reguardless what those higher up might or might not think, that there would certainly be an ass chewing for it, if this guy/these guys acted independantly and embarrassed either the Army or the Administration. Ya…I think that the people in power have a vested interest in keeping their own skins, and that they would cheerfully sell some colonel up the river if it would help keep the ones making a stink at bay. Again, depends really on how much of a stink this really is generating.
From erislover
Well, I’m obviously failing to see your point. The protesters were outside, and had a right to be there because of the permit. The others were inside, and had a right to be THERE. They were both making noise, and within their rights to do so. I guess this is one of those obvious things that are obvious to each of us, but incomprehensable to the other.
As to your other point: “protests have to happen somewhere”…well duh. However, maybe they should have happened somewhere else…somewhere where the Army would have had zero chance to disrupt them. Like, say, on the Mall in DC or in front of the Whitehouse…or anywhere NOT within loud music of the base that was public property and they could legally protest at? I don’t know…seems logical to me. Again, I’m not seeing the point…both sides were within their rights.
From elucidator
Good point. The other side is, the folks on the base were within THEIR rights to play loud music…and they decided where the loud music was ‘appropriate’ within those rights. By coincidence, it just happened to be within earshot of the protesters. Fancy that…
From elucidator
Why should they have been arrested…they were perfectly within their rights (though if they tried to get on base, thats another kettle of fish). However, they ARE screaming about the government stifling them (which seems to be bullshit…least I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case), so in essence they are (well, in their minds) martyrs so to speak. They weren’t prevented from assembly…in fact they DID assemble from what I read. We can continue to split this hair finer and finer, but the bottom line is, neither side was in violation of the law. I suppose if this thing is big enough and agregious enough, and enough people are pissed off enough about this, there will be a future change to the law…thats how the system works.
At any rate, I haven’t seen anything indicating that this was anything more than some individuals who may have been annoyed out to fuck with some protesters because the situation allowed them too do so legally. I’m simply not seeing what the big deal is…
-XT
Sorry, attributed the last quotes to elucidator…they were erislover’s quotes. My appologies.
Reguards,
XT
Cliche, but true: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
The legality or morality of something depends on the context. If we both go to the woods, you have a right to shoot a gun, and I have a right to stand wherever I want, but you don’t have a right to shoot your gun where I’m standing. We’re both allowed to drive on the freeway, but you’re not allowed to try and run me off the road.
I think intent is what is key here: the Army played the music to drown out the protesters. Plain and simple. Even if you think they had a “right” to do that, don’t you at least think it was a crummy thing to do (given the previous context of the thread, e.g., the protesters had a permit and couldn’t have been inconveniencing off-duty personel on the base that much)?
From Metacom
Very true…and I suppose it works both ways depending on how you look at it.
From Metacom
Woof…want to put me on the spot, huh? I’d have to come out with a big “it depends” unfortunately. Its hard to get all the information to make a determination from just the article I read on this. There could be a hell of a lot more going on than has been shown so far, and there are certain things that if they happened, could radically change my perception and convictions on who is in the right and who is in the wrong.
If I were to make a snap call right now, based on what I know of the situation (which isn’t much) I’d most likely say that the folks that disrupted the protest were probably in the wrong to an extent (I’m pretty big on freedom of speech, and also that these folks in our military are the tip of the spear in defending even these guys rights to it, reguardless of how they felt about the issue)…but I can definitely understand where they were coming from and even sympathize with this. In addition, this seems more on the order of a frat prank than anything serious to me…nothing that is earth shaking to the republic. If it IS more serious, and there are facts I’m missing, then my call would change obviously.
To continue, the folks protesting were in the right (i.e. they had permission and permits for their protest) but that perhaps they didn’t pick the best spot to have it, and did so in a way as to antagonize the Army directly…then had some sour grapes when the Army antagonized them back (which I see as very human, if not the smartest thing those in the army that participated in the disruptions could have done). I’m a bit vague on what the Army could have done about the situation that was being protested anyway, and it seems to me they would have been better served taking their protest to the folks that COULD do something about this situation (i.e. the civilian government).
In the end, if the protesters had of chuckled at what the Army did and put it down to lessons learned (“we won’t do THAT again…we’ll get em next time”), worked around it and made the best of the situation they could have, or simply moved (if they could have), I would respect them a hell of a lot more…and we wouldn’t have had this thread.
-XT
xt, i don’t believe i read anywhere in this thread anyone claiming that any sort of conspiracy was involved here. i claimed, rather, that in order for the protestors to win their day in court, it would be on them to show that the men in the army were acting as agents of the government. that doesn’t imply that the orders to suppress the protest had to come from the pentagon. roy moore, for example, was acting as a government agent when he brought his behemoth-block into his alabama courthouse, and he was acting on his own. no need for a conspiracy theory to prove that the militarymen were acting as government agents.
so it was the army’s right to play loud music to suppress the protestors, because if they wanted to be heard, they could just go somewhere else? if the army fired tear gas upwind of the crowd, but still on the base, would that be ok, since they could just go somewhere else when the tear gas drifted over to them? they had every right to be there. it seems with all the attention they’ve garnered, they chose just the right spot to protest.
i do believe that the men in the military should be held to different standards than civilians. as members of the military, they are members of the government, and if they are acting as such (on duty, acting under the direction of an officer, for example), they do not have the right to suppress free speech, even if it is interfering with the nonmilitary aspects of their lives.
incidently, i would bet that those involved with setting up the speakers got at least a bit of a talking-to. it was foolish to draw so much attention and give the protestors something tangible to complain about.
There’s nothing incomprehensible about the situation other than your perspective that this was acceptable behavior from people in the military. If they wanted to counter-protest, why didn’t they get a permit?
I’m sure if we considered this point, we’d find that the utility of a permit becomes minimal, and then protesting fails to be a peaceful process. Not the best solution I’ve heard.
Perhaps they were. Right now I think it is up to a court to decide. The precident this sets for protests is a little worrisome to me. I don’t see political activism as an inconvenience. YMMV.
I’m sure this is how they will try and defend the action. I’m certain this has nothing to do with my appraisal of their action as suspicious.
It is perfectly acceptable for you to look at my car (perhaps you want to buy one). Nevertheless, someone I don’t know scrutinizing my car is suspicious.
That’s how I use the words suspicious: I do not immediately trust the motives of those who acted in such a way. Government employees drowning out a lawful protest is suspicious. Surely this is not a huge leap of logic.
Ever have anyone interrupt you before you get to the end of a sentence you’re trying to say? Ever have them do it repeatedly? Have you ever felt that, through this action, what you had to say was stifled?
Being a martyr involves sacrificing something to prove a point. Please point out to me what they sacrificed to prove their point.
The protesters intend to take this issue to court. Perhaps they feel it wasn’t legal already. Perhaps it wasn’t. They feel they have a case, at least at this point.
Again, I am not asking you to become some political activist yourself, or praise these fine men and women for what they did. I am asking you to consider that the intentional drowning out of political opinion by a faction of the government is suspicious behavior. Surely you have at least once read the Constitution and can consider the possibility that this is might indicate a problem without having to commit yourself to the position that there was a problem. Yes?
From Ramanujan
It was implied in the phrasing and statements from some of the posters. After all, if it was just the independant actions of some guys, then why get all bent out of shape at the government. Punish the individuals who did it, just like you would anyone else that steps out of line. Read back through the thread…there were several posters that WERE implying that this was the government or the Army that knowingly and willfull did this. To me, thats just crazy…what would the government or the Army gain by doing something like that to provoke the protesters??
From Ramanujan
No, I think that would be a different case. With the music, there was no real harm done. Tear gas though…no, I think someone would definitely burn for that, and rightfully so.
From Ramanujan
Totally agree. I’m guessing it was the quiet kind of backroom ass chewing, but I’m guessing that whoever was responsible got one, big time. And rightfully so too. Myself, I could see myself doing something like that (especially when I was younger)…and facing the Cpts Mast afterward too.
-XT
erislover, you are kind of missing my main point…that being that it wasn’t the GOVERNMENT, or the ARMY that did this thing…it was the actions of INDIVIDUALS. If laws were broken, by all means take them to court. If the activists DO have a good case, by all means, punish those at fault. Not a problem. THATS how the system works. At a guess, based on what little I know, I seriously doubt that they DO have a case, or that they will win…but maybe they don’t want to win. Maybe they just want to draw attention to the thing. If so, then they have won already, no?
From erislover
Um…because they didn’t NEED a permit to play loud music ON THIER OWN BASE. Also, I doubt they really thought this through…at a guess, they were simply annoyed and reacted.
From erislover
Why? The protest would only work if it was RIGHT THERE?? Anywhere else would be a failure? Why?
From erislover
Agreed about the courts. Why is it worrisome though? Its our system in action. If there IS a wrong here, it will be redressed in the courts where it should be. Maybe, like me, YOU don’t have all the facts either? Maybe we should leave it up to the courts to decide if there was a wrong here, and if so what should be done to prevent it happening in the future? I have no idea why you and the others are worried by this thing. If there was a wrong, why not trust the system to correct it?? Its worked for us pretty well for 200 odd years now.
From erislover
My POINT was that the GOVERNMENT and the ARMY weren’t stifling these guys, but that INDIVIDUALS were. See the difference? I, as an individual, my very well interrupt you when you are trying to speak. However, if the GOVERNMENT or the ARMY does such a think, its a whole other kettle of fish. THEN I’d be seriously worried. I’ve seen zero evidence that this was either the government or the Army doing this though, so I can rest a bit easier.
From erislover
Good for them. If they are in the right, then they will win their case. I wish them luck. THATS what they are supposed to do if the feel they have been wronged…thats how the system works.
From erislover
I’m not asking you to agree with me. I’m merely asking you to read what I wrote. My point, again, is simply that this wasn’t the government or the Army that did this…but individuals. If they were in the wrong, by all means punish them. I think that if they were in the right or in the wrong will come out in the court case…no?
-XT