|
Grex > Agora47 > #24: President Bush suppresses peaceful dissent. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
rcurl
|
|
President Bush suppresses peaceful dissent.
| 
Sep 25 06:25 UTC 2003 |
Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush Protesters at
Rallies, ACLU Charges in Unprecedented Nationwide Lawsuit
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13699&c=86
|
| 33 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 1 of 33:
|
Sep 25 12:21 UTC 2003 |
This is a surprise? C'mon,*someboydy* must be able to find a way to impeach
that dratted turd.
|
sj2
|
|
response 2 of 33:
|
Sep 25 12:26 UTC 2003 |
Enjoy while it lasts!!
|
fitz
|
|
response 3 of 33:
|
Sep 25 13:39 UTC 2003 |
I read the complaint against the philadelphia police and the secret service:
Learn something everyday. The Secret Service is apparently not part of the
Department of Treasury any longer, but a function of Homeland Security.
One part of the ACLU blurb differs from the complaint in a minor way: The
ACLU release stated that protestors were moved behind police vans at one
protest. The complaint alleges that the protestors were herded to a remote
corner and just before the Presidential motorcade passed near, the police vans
were moved in front of the protesters.
In one way, the Secret Service does not discriminate. The complaint also
notes that pro-Bush demonstrators have been relocated as well as the anti-Bush
demonstrators. The goal seems to be to have a neutral, submissive audience.
I think that the complaint's weakness will be the obvious concerted effort
of the demonstrators to compete for space. The demands to excercise the right
to free speech at a certain time and play and by an organized group is
functionally equivalent to the demand to assemble. Certainly, this is a right
of the people too, but it is not unconditional. Municipalities, for example,
issue parade permits. Had the the complaint been made by many individuals,
with no affiliations and with no distinction (apart from the political) from
others, the suit would have been stronger.
If I were in ACORN or NOW, I would suggest lining the route without flags,
buttons or signs and giving Bush the bird. I guess that it terribly
inarticulate and vague thereby, but it is protest. Hooray! How long before
we go back to the police riots?
|
jp2
|
|
response 4 of 33:
|
Sep 25 13:50 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 5 of 33:
|
Sep 25 14:18 UTC 2003 |
When it comes to Presidental events, Free Speech is up against the
need for very tight security. I'm a huge Free Speech advocate but
I see how the President is at great risk at the moment, much of
which is his fault, but that doesn't matter.
Mostly I want to see Bush be able to finish his term as Cheney
would be even scarier. Sounds impossible, but true.
|
jep
|
|
response 6 of 33:
|
Sep 25 15:17 UTC 2003 |
Was it President McKinley who commented that he would never agree to be
president if he couldn't walk down the street unescorted and shake the
hands of people? Whoever it was, he lived in a different time than we
do now. Or thought he did... McKinley was assassinated by someone in a
crowd in which he was meeting people.
|
twenex
|
|
response 7 of 33:
|
Sep 25 15:24 UTC 2003 |
What Mary said.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 33:
|
Sep 25 18:08 UTC 2003 |
Re #5: the need for security is not at issue here. The point is that the
Secret Service has allowed people with pro-Bush signs, or no signs at all,
to be seen, while shunting those with anti-Bush signs off to hidden
"protest areas". Terrorists would, of course, carry a pro-Bush sign over
their esplosives belt (or whatever).
A judge in Philadelphia has issued a restraining order requiring the
Secret Service to allow government critics to demonstrate peacefully as
close as supporters. That is all that is being asked. Now we have to
see if Bush will dare to exclude the public entirely.
|
tod
|
|
response 9 of 33:
|
Sep 26 20:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
i
|
|
response 10 of 33:
|
Sep 27 17:12 UTC 2003 |
Sounds like what the protesters want is media attention, and they're busy
chasing Bush trying to distract the reporters who are busy chasing Bush,
hoping to pick up some scraps of on-air seconds & column-inches for them-
selves.
However well or poorly handled, the Secret Service wants to keep crowds
of folks who don't like Bush (where a disturbed & violent fringie or two
might feel at home) away. Crowds of supporters are less dangerous, and
it takes (a) more determined & able violent fringie(s) to successfully
operate from within them.
Given what they're really after, why don't the protesters just go to the
source? It's easy - forget the logistics of Bush-chasing, there are
fixed & unprotected TV stations, newspaper offices, etc. in every city.
The Secret Service won't lift a finger if someone drapes a big banner
saying "U.S. Dept. of Lies" over the nice "WTV - Channel 2" sign out in
front. Picketing the grocery store putting the biggest full-color flyer
($$advertising revenue$$) in that newspaper you consider biased is (quite
literally) child's play.
|
dah
|
|
response 11 of 33:
|
Sep 27 19:11 UTC 2003 |
We don't need millitants.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 33:
|
Sep 28 05:55 UTC 2003 |
You mean, like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelt, Rice, Wolfowitz, et al?
|
dah
|
|
response 13 of 33:
|
Oct 9 02:04 UTC 2003 |
They're fighting for peace, rcurl. While that seems paradoxic, it's not; but
liberals don't seem to be able to comprehend dual-layered logics.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 33:
|
Oct 9 06:14 UTC 2003 |
They were fighting for peace with war...a nice bit of 'dual-layered logics'.
Are they something like "double dealings"?
|
dah
|
|
response 15 of 33:
|
Oct 9 12:49 UTC 2003 |
No, it's something like this: Our country needs to stop Iraq from killing
our people and aiding terror, and the only way to do that is to invade it.
Same with Afghanistan. We don't start wars; we stop countries from killing
our people.
|
gull
|
|
response 16 of 33:
|
Oct 9 13:47 UTC 2003 |
I'd follow that logic if there were any evidence Iraq had been killing
our people and aiding terror. I'm with you when it comes to
Afghanistan, but by your logic our next target should have been Saudi
Arabia, not Iraq.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 17 of 33:
|
Oct 9 16:49 UTC 2003 |
or phillip morris.
|
dah
|
|
response 18 of 33:
|
Oct 9 18:31 UTC 2003 |
Saudi Arabia is our pal, gull. We stick by our pals.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 33:
|
Oct 10 00:17 UTC 2003 |
They better be our pal - we pay them enough. They should stay bought.
|
gull
|
|
response 20 of 33:
|
Oct 10 13:17 UTC 2003 |
Yeah. Changing your mind after you've been bought is bad Texas ethics.
|
murph
|
|
response 21 of 33:
|
Oct 11 13:51 UTC 2003 |
At the very least, we ought to be de-palling Saudi Arabia. Seems like we've
got plenty of reason *not* to be their pals by this point.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 22 of 33:
|
Oct 11 14:15 UTC 2003 |
(When I think of Saudi Arabia, I'm reminded of that old saw, "Keep your
friends close, and your enemies closer.")
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 33:
|
Oct 11 19:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 24 of 33:
|
Oct 12 00:09 UTC 2003 |
doesn't he manage the mister donut in dearborn?
|