US Military Inhibits Legal Protests

[erislover]

My point, again, is simply that this wasn’t the government or the Army that did this…but individuals.

Surely since the government is completely comprised by humans this is always true. I’m not sure what you hope to gain by this line of argumentation, other than a complete deconstruction of the Constitution where any reference to the government is empty and therefore meaningless. “The government” never does things, it is not a conscious agent; nevertheless, I feel it is a common understanding of English-speaking Americans that government agents often act as the government. Our ability to consider that it might be otherwise is, of course, good reason to restrain final judgment on the matter since facts to support any case are lacking.

THATS what they are supposed to do if the feel they have been wronged…thats how the system works.

Really? You sure they’re not supposed to carry around loudspeakers and blast them whenever they encounter an opinion they disagree with?

Um…because they didn’t NEED a permit to play loud music ON THIER OWN BASE.

So you are actually going to suggest that their activities are not in any way able to be considered as a response to the protest, but an unfortunate coincidence? If you respond to nothing else in this post, please respond to that question.

Why? The protest would only work if it was RIGHT THERE?? Anywhere else would be a failure? Why?

If you took a moment to examine the application of your argument, you’d see that the utility of “they didn’t want to hear it, and the protesters can go somewhere else if they don’t want to be disrupted” is applicable at every single location. Induction leads us, then, to the conclusion that you do not support protests anywhere since it is perfectly acceptable to engage in activity that will drive them away; but since this is true everwhere, there is nowhere for protesters to go.

Again, I find this reasoning to completely undermine the point of political activism and feel that if it were interpreted so, legal protesting would vanish and illegal, and possibly violent, protesting would take its place.

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.

200 years ago there wasn’t a formal military as we have it today, and it didn’t have an opinion. Now we might wonder if this has completely changed. Evidence points to it as a possibility, and that possibility (as you might have noticed) is worrisome. Contrast this with the opinion that we are factually living in tyranny and the sky is falling. Which do you feel we’re discussing in this thread?

[Ramanujan]

i think a lot of asinine things were implied by posters in this thread so far (that the content of the protest, for example, was in any way relevant to whether or not their rights were infringed). i don’t think government-wide collaboration for the suppression of these protestors was among those.
from your post to erl:

*Originally posted by xtisme *
Its worked for us pretty well for 200 odd years now.

i don’t know many who would agree with you on this point.

what would be worrisome, were it to play out like this, would be if courts found that the men were acting as agents of the government, were acting with the intent to supress the speech of the protestors, and did effect some suppression of that speech, and after all that, found that the methods used were harmless enough to get them off the hook. a lot of people seem to believe that this is the way it should be, and i’m not one of those people.

My POINT was that the GOVERNMENT and the ARMY weren’t stifling these guys, but that INDIVIDUALS were. See the difference?

just as you, while you’re working, are a representative of the company you work for, and just as roy moore was a representative of the state alabama (i.e. the government) when he was in the courthouse, the individuals in this case are representatives of the army and therefore of the government. or, at the very least, there is no evidence to suggest that they weren’t (they were wearing uniforms, after all).

it’s always individuals who want to step on you rights. does that mean john ashcroft’s actions on the job are not the government’s actions?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by erislover *
200 years ago there wasn’t a formal military as we have it today, and it didn’t have an opinion. Now we might wonder if this has completely changed. Evidence points to it as a possibility, and that possibility (as you might have noticed) is worrisome. Contrast this with the opinion that we are factually living in tyranny and the sky is falling. Which do you feel we’re discussing in this thread?

I would like to withdraw this comment from consideration. Frankly, I do not know what the military was like in 1803, and I do not want to research it to support whatever claims I may have offhandedly and naively made.

[XT]

From Ramanujan

i don’t know many who would agree with you on this point.

I think you are wrong. I think most people WOULD agree that the system has worked PRETTY well for us for the last 200 years, and continues to do so. Thats not to say the system is perfect, or anyone thinks it is. But if the majority DIDN’T think the system worked PRETTY well (i.e. were reasonably happy with it), then we’d either be in the process of junking it completely or doing massive overhauls on it. I’m tempted to ask you for a cite for this, but lets just leave it as a friendly disagreement unless you want to pursue this further.

From Ramanujan

what would be worrisome, were it to play out like this, would be if courts found that the men were acting as agents of the government, were acting with the intent to supress the speech of the protestors, and did effect some suppression of that speech, and after all that, found that the methods used were harmless enough to get them off the hook. a lot of people seem to believe that this is the way it should be, and i’m not one of those people.

Ya, it would be worrisome to me too. However, I’ve seen absolutely nothing that shows this except some dark hints and hand wringing. Logically, it makes zero sense for the government or Army to do such a pointless thing. If they REALLY wanted to disrupt a protest I’m sure they’d pick something a bit more important to do it on.

As to the latter part of your statement…thats what we have courts for. Appearently the protesters are taking it to court, which is their right. If there was a wrong here, it will be found out and appropriate steps taken.

From Ramanujan

just as you, while you’re working, are a representative of the company you work for, and just as roy moore was a representative of the state alabama (i.e. the government) when he was in the courthouse, the individuals in this case are representatives of the army and therefore of the government. or, at the very least, there is no evidence to suggest that they weren’t (they were wearing uniforms, after all).

There are levels and levels to this. If I’m work for a company, then certainly some of my actions also reflect on the company, from a LEGAL perspective. It only goes so far though, and you know it.

Say I work at a company and I decide to bring in a gun and start shooting people. Does that mean the company is ALSO guilty of murder? I think not. Will they still take a hit on it? Most likely. However, you won’t turn around and say that the company I work for encourages murder or is a murderer.

I’ve seen no evidence yet that shows that either the Government or the Army was aware of this, sent down orders from on high to disrupt it, etc. So…it was the actions of individuals. With the government/Army still take a hit on this even though they were (appearently) unaware? You betcha. Just like a company would if one of their employees embezzled money from a client.

There is a huge difference though between some people that were IN the military doing this on their own, and if either the Army or the Government put them up to it…and if you don’t see that, then there really is no further point in debating this. There is no common ground.

From Ramanujan

it’s always individuals who want to step on you rights. does that mean john ashcroft’s actions on the job are not the government’s actions?

Of course not, and again you know it. Ashcrofts actions are at the DIRECTION of the government, so reflect government POLICY. Its a direct correlation, and you know it is. If Ashcroft decided, on his own and without any permission or knowledge of the government, to do something radical and embarrassing, it would be HE that took the fall for it. The government of course still would take a hit, but the majority of the shit would fall on him…and rightfully so. Your analogy is ridiculous.

-XT

[New_Iskander]

*Originally posted by Metacom *
If the government inhibits people from speaking at a peaceful assembly, are there first-ammendment issues?

From CNN: “…patriotic music Army officials had blaring from the main gate… The Army’s loudspeakers, playing “The Army Song” and “God Bless the U.S.A.,” were 50 yards away from where protesters were speaking to the crowd”. Another words, protestors “were 50 yards away from” the main gate. On top of this innocent reversion, you pile “government inhibits people from speaking at a peaceful assembly” without any qualifications. Can you make it even more top-heavy?

*Originally posted by Metacom *
Is suppressing only the non-Religious protest an appropriate message for a secular military to send?

Yes, you can! “Inhibits”=“suppressing”, anyone knows that, except dead Mr. Webster and his cronies, monopolizing dictionary racket. Can you make it even more top-heavy? Yes, you can!

*Originally posted by Metacom *
Even if there aren’t constitutional issues involved, is it wrong for the military to suppress peaceful dissent?

Priceless…

The logical conclusion? USA=GENOCIDE!

[Ramanujan]

xt, you keep saying “the government” or “the army”, as though these were people who made decisions. who exactly is “up on high” to send down an order? you might as well be saying “big business.”

[Oy]

If it was just a bunch of off-duty guys, AND they were normally permitted to use the sound system to play music at a high-volume, then I agree that this was action by individuals, and not actionable (although as their officer, I might have word or two with them on the side as to the advisability of their action).

BUT if playing of the loud music was either ordered, or allowed to off-duty guys when normally it wouldn’t be, this was action on the part of the U.S. Army. It may not have reflected over-all Army or governmental policy - the base commander or whatever officer/non-com ordered or authorized it may have been a total whack-job for all we know - but it was official Army action, and thus an act of the government. If this is true (that is, that the music was either ordered or authorized by a military authority at some level), and the Army and/or government in turn does not publically reprimand this action, then the Army and government are endorsing it - either because they agree with it or because they find the whole mess embarrassing.

I’m sorry, guys, but it doesn’t have to go up to the Washington level to be an official government action from where I sit. It just has to have been ordered (and therefore part of the soldiers’ jobs) or authorized (and therefore endorsed) by commanding authority. Right or wrong, it is then Army/government policy unless specifically and publically disowned.

While I don’t know the facts, it seems to me highly unlikely that off-duty guys are normally permitted to use the base sound system to blast music (of any kind) loud enough to drown out a demonstration under normal circumstances. Thus it seems likely that their actions were, at the very least, condoned by commanding authority.

Sorry, again, but while I am very pro-military in general (not necessarily military action, but the military themselves), I do NOT find the idea that they would officially and intentionally drown out a legally licensced demonstration all that delightful. As has been stated before, the Army per se is not supposed to have any political opinions, and they’re sure as hell not supposed to interfere (and no disingenuous arguments about drowning out vs. suppression, please) with free speech!

[erislover]

One would also wonder, “Whose base is it again?” The answer is apparently “the individuals’.” I wonder…

[New_Iskander]

*Originally posted by Metacom *
**Trying to drown the protest in blaring music doesn’t strike me as a counter-protest, it strikes me as censorship: there’s a big difference between articulating a message of your own that is contrary to another group, and preventing that other group from gettings its message out. **

It’s very simple, protestors have the right to protest outside the base, and Army people have the right to play music on base grounds. There is also two simple solutions: protestors move 100 yards away or the base moves 100 yards away. Yes, we can get along! But wait, what if the base moves and protestors would follow?..

[erislover]

It’s very simple, protestors have the right to protest outside the base, and Army people have the right to play music on base grounds.

Actually, as you might have noticed, that is the very reason it is not simple. Finite resources inevitably cause dilemmas. Welcome to the Real World, Neo.

[XT]

From erislover

Surely since the government is completely comprised by humans this is always true. I’m not sure what you hope to gain by this line of argumentation, other than a complete deconstruction of the Constitution where any reference to the government is empty and therefore meaningless. “The government” never does things, it is not a conscious agent; nevertheless, I feel it is a common understanding of English-speaking Americans that government agents often act as the government. Our ability to consider that it might be otherwise is, of course, good reason to restrain final judgment on the matter since facts to support any case are lacking.

Not sure what you hope to gain through this ‘chicken little’ type argument, except to say the sky is falling. Deconstruction of the constitution?? wtf? Where did THAT come from?

At any rate, I’ve given my thoughts on individual verse corporate (or governmental) responsibilities to Ramanujan with his Ashcroft analogy. I will say that your assertion that ‘the government never does things’ it completely rediculous. You are twisting and turning on this like a cyclone…but then, you know that, don’t you?

From erislover

Really? You sure they’re not supposed to carry around loudspeakers and blast them whenever they encounter an opinion they disagree with?

Well, when I see this as a government POLICY, I suppose I’ll worry about it then. If I even see EVIDENCE that it MIGHT be a new government policy, I’ll sit up and take notice.

From erislover

So you are actually going to suggest that their activities are not in any way able to be considered as a response to the protest, but an unfortunate coincidence? If you respond to nothing else in this post, please respond to that question.

Where did I say that? Of COURSE it was in response to the protest. Fairly obvious, that. Now, what they may SAY, if it comes to a defense, thats another matter.

From From erislover

If you took a moment to examine the application of your argument, you’d see that the utility of “they didn’t want to hear it, and the protesters can go somewhere else if they don’t want to be disrupted” is applicable at every single location. Induction leads us, then, to the conclusion that you do not support protests anywhere since it is perfectly acceptable to engage in activity that will drive them away; but since this is true everwhere, there is nowhere for protesters to go.

Horseshit. You are putting words in my mouth and trying to twist arguements I’ve never made to fit a tortured path YOU are making.

I’m all for the protest right of our citizens. Hell, I’ve been in a number of protest marches myself. However, I took it where it was appropriate…i.e. I went to Washington to protest. This was a special circumstance, as it was quasi-legal for those folks to do what they did…it WAS their base, and they COULD play loud music because the protest was in ear shot of the gate. Bummer that. However to make the assertion that because of this ALL protests could be similarly disrupted (tell you what…next time there is a KKK rally in the District, YOU try and go disrupt it and see what happens…call me to bail you out of jail, m’kay?)…and THEN to make the ridiculous assertion that because I’ve tried to argue a rational line that I am against protests completely is pure and utter bullshit.

From erislover

Again, I find this reasoning to completely undermine the point of political activism and feel that if it were interpreted so, legal protesting would vanish and illegal, and possibly violent, protesting would take its place.

It must be frightening to you to think the sky is constantly falling. Especially when it never seems to actually fall. That you can get this worked up over this thing is, IMO, just amazing.

-XT

[New_Iskander]

*Originally posted by Metacom *
…would you be OK with the government broadcasting recordings of “White Rabbit” on the same frequency and during the same time as Rush Limbaugh’s broadcasts?

Yes, it would be OK, but only on those airwaves that are located within federal properties, and not outside. I’m not a broadcast engineer or anything, but I think that’s about right…

[erislover]

However, I took it where it was appropriate…i.e. I went to Washington to protest.

And why is that any more appropriate? Why couldn’t people play music on THEIR grounds to avoid listening there?

It must be frightening to you to think the sky is constantly falling.

I wouldn’t know.

I will say that your assertion that ‘the government never does things’ it completely rediculous. You are twisting and turning on this like a cyclone…but then, you know that, don’t you?

1. Government is made of people
2. people working for the government can act as agents of the government
3. people working for the government can act only as representatives of themselves

therefore

4. we should take care to find out which this is.

Contrast this to your assertion that I:

can get this worked up over this thing is, IMO, just amazing.

When you’re ready to come back to Earth and discuss what implications this activity could have, and why it merits debate, please inform me; I’ll be waiting.

Well, when I see this as a government POLICY, I suppose I’ll worry about it then.

Oh, so the Constitution can only be violated by policy? And how do we determine policy? And when do we know when to investigate policy if we don’t question the suspicious activities of government employees?

If only you would question those with power over your rights a fraction of the level that you are questioning me, I have a rather strong sense we’d be on the same side. As it stands, my point is so broad and basic (this is suspicious and warrants a closer look by legal forces) that I cannot begin to imagine how you feel that I feel the sky is falling.

THEN to make the ridiculous assertion that because I’ve tried to argue a rational line that I am against protests completely is pure and utter bullshit.

If you don’t wish your arguments to lead to their natural conclusions, choose better arguments.

1. Someone is everywhere
2. Protests have to happen somewhere
3. xt’s reasoning says anyone can drive away protesters
4. therefore, protesters cannot go anywhere to avoid being shouted down, broken up, or dismissed

Perhaps you find it outlandish that people protesting the existence of the SOA would bother to protest near the SOA. I will even entertain that you are welcome to that opinion. I feel, however, that those who granted the permit in the first place were not in accordance with that notion. In general, I am inclined to agree with those that enable peaceful protest, and disagree with those that undermine peaceful protest. This is my opinion, and I am welcome to it. However, I feel that I have the spirit and letter of the law on my side, while you have a “Whoops! Did I do that?” faux-innocence on your side.

[XT]

From Ramanujan

xt, you keep saying “the government” or “the army”, as though these were people who made decisions. who exactly is “up on high” to send down an order? you might as well be saying “big business.”

For it to be ‘official Army policy’ it would have to come down from either the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, one of their underlings, or maybe from one of the JCoS or THEIR direct underlings. I suppose the guy that is in charge of the Army fro CONUS could also be considered a source for official policy…loosely. Was it any of those folks? I’ve seen nothing whatsoever that indicates it was.

If it was from someone else in the chain of command, say the base commander, then it was HIS action, not the Army’s. Is the Army still responsible? Sure they are, and if this thing blows up they will take some heat on it too. How about the government? Same and same. But no matter how you twist and turn here, if it wasn’t government or Army POLICY, then it wasn’t official…there for it WAS the actions of an individual in the end.

BTW, wtf does ‘big business’ have to do with ANYTHING in this? That is totally out of left field. Want to explain what the hell you are talking about there?

-XT

[XT]

From erislover

And why is that any more appropriate? Why couldn’t people play music on THEIR grounds to avoid listening there?

Because those are PUBLIC GROUNDS fool. In front of the Whitehouse, Capital, on the Mall, etc. The base is NOT public grounds, in case it slipped your notice. Its complete apples and oranges.

From erislover

1. Government is made of people
2. people working for the government can act as agents of the government
3. people working for the government can act only as representatives of themselves

therefore

4. we should take care to find out which this is.

1. Duh. Really?

You forgot:

2.5) People working for the government can ALSO act independantly and get spanked for it if they fuck up.

3. No idea what the hell you are saying here.

As for your number 4…

Fine…as far as I can tell, thats EXACTLY whats happening. Since no one has ponied up a cite to say one way or the other exactly who IS responsible, I suppose well wait and see.

From erislover

When you’re ready to come back to Earth and discuss what implications this activity could have, and why it merits debate, please inform me; I’ll be waiting.

One of us is definitely riled up about this, but I dinna think its me. Tell you what though…if it happens again, THEN I’ll be prepared to take this thing seriously.

From erislover

Oh, so the Constitution can only be violated by policy? And how do we determine policy? And when do we know when to investigate policy if we don’t question the suspicious activities of government employees?

You are definitely getting tiresome here. First off, where did I say that the Constitution could only be violated by policy? Secondly, you determine if its policy by actually looking into it. Did the government or the Army command give orders to disrupt this protest? If so, it was government/Army policy. Q.E.D. If not…then not. There is appearently an investigation underway, and a law suit being pressed. If this thing goes higher than an individual, then there will be ramifications to the government and/or the Army. An individual can ALSO violate your Constitutional rights however. If THATS the case, then those responsible will be brought to trial and punished. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend? I seriously don’t get it.

From erislover

If only you would question those with power over your rights a fraction of the level that you are questioning me, I have a rather strong sense we’d be on the same side. As it stands, my point is so broad and basic (this is suspicious and warrants a closer look by legal forces) that I cannot begin to imagine how you feel that I feel the sky is falling.

Fine…prove to me then that it was those in power that did this and not an individual and I’ll be all over them. It WOULD piss me off it that was the case…but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it is. Give me even a reasonable scenerio of why those in power WOULD do such a thing and I’ll think about this harder. Show me that it wasn’t one individual or a group of individuals that were simply annoyed by the protesters at their gates and reacted and I’ll change my stance.

From erislover

However, I feel that I have the spirit and letter of the law on my side, while you have a “Whoops! Did I do that?” faux-innocence on your side.

Asside from your assertion that its MY faux position (I was stating what the defense would most likely be of the folks on the base), I suppose we’ll find out how the law DOES look at it. At a guess, and going on what little I know, I’d say that the protesters don’t have a chance in hell of winning…and probably know it. However, as I said, if their REAL goal is to cause a stink and get exposure of their position, then they have already won.

-XT

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by xtisme *
BTW, wtf does ‘big business’ have to do with ANYTHING in this? That is totally out of left field. Want to explain what the hell you are talking about there?

sorry, i forget sometimes that not everyone thinks like i do. “big business” is, to me, a cliched phrase that is to blame for all the world’s troubles. it’s a nebulous entity that refers to no one in particular, but (a few years back) was referred to by everyone who wanted someone to blame for their troubles. i just meant it as a subject that had an empty extension, but could be attributed things like blame or decision-making powers.

anyway, why does something have to be official policy before it can be determined to violate constitutional rights? isn’t the determination (by whomever might make it) that it doesn’t violate those rights the endorsement you’re looking for that would make it policy? why do orders have to come from “up on high” in order for this to be a case of first amendment rights’ violations?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by xtisme *
Because those are PUBLIC GROUNDS fool.

And? The protesters were on public grounds, Mr. T.

In front of the Whitehouse, Capital, on the Mall, etc.

They are not private grounds, in case that slipped your notice. They are the government’s grounds, and public land is always surrounded, somwhere, by government land and private land, from sea to shining sea.

Its complete apples and oranges.

Oh? You mean those people who you assume were acting as individuals are the ones that own the base? Or do you suppose, maybe, the base is part of government property?

You forgot:

2.5) People working for the government can ALSO act independantly and get spanked for it if they fuck up.

3. No idea what the hell you are saying here.

Try thinking about what possibilites exist that I have never denied. Maybe if I start answering questions and making my points obscurely you’ll see what I’m saying.

Fine…as far as I can tell, thats EXACTLY whats happening.

Everywhere but in your mind, of course. Since I am not a protester, lawyer, judge, or part of the SOA, and since I find myself in GD with you, I think we are the relevant parties here.

Secondly, you determine if its policy by actually looking into it. Did the government or the Army command give orders to disrupt this protest?

And when would we ever have cause to look into policy? Answer I’m looking for: when there is potentially illegal behavior.

If so, it was government/Army policy. Q.E.D. If not…then not.

Well, yes, it is easy to remain right when we enumerate all the possible cases and their truth values. My only concern is that there are a particular set of cases that seem to escape your attention; to wit, the cases where the military/government censored the speech, or took action that could be considered censorship. I am glad you are willing to entertain the thought now. Perhaps our opinions are not so far away after all.

There is appearently an investigation underway, and a law suit being pressed.

Would this have happened if people didn’t question suspicious behavior? Yes/No. Do you see the purpose of questioning suspicious government behavior? Yes/No. What would these individuals had to have done to cause you, xtisme, to consider the behavior suspicious enough to investigate the matter further and see if there was some policy, order, or command in place rather than individual action? Fill in the blank.

An individual can ALSO violate your Constitutional rights however.

Which ones? Under what circumstances?

Fine…prove to me then that it was those in power that did this and not an individual and I’ll be all over them.

I cannot prove it without investigation. You do not wish to consider the investigation worthy until it is proven. When you leave your circle, I’ll be standing by patiently.

It WOULD piss me off it that was the case…but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it is. Give me even a reasonable scenerio of why those in power WOULD do such a thing and I’ll think about this harder. Show me that it wasn’t one individual or a group of individuals that were simply annoyed by the protesters at their gates and reacted and I’ll change my stance.

Are you dizzy yet from following your argument in a circle?

[Shodan]

I think intent is what is key here: the Army played the music to drown out the protesters. Plain and simple.

And it would seem to me that the protestors used their loudspeakers, and their proximity to the base, to try to force the military to listen to their protest. If not, why did they protest just outside the base, and why did they need loudspeakers?

Regards,
Shodan

[New_Iskander]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Actually, as you might have noticed, that is the very reason it is not simple. Finite resources inevitably cause dilemmas. Welcome to the Real World, Neo. **

So, that’s what “Real World” is? But you’re right, I was hasty, it’s not simple; tell me, what if protestors move 100 yards and the base would follow?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by New Iskander *
**So, that’s what “Real World” is? But you’re right, I was hasty, it’s not simple; tell me, what if protestors move 100 yards and the base would follow? **

This is a matter of those who issued the permit, not the base, and not the protesters.