revelation from Seattle
- Thread starter Joe Portale
- Start date
And here I thought we were talking about the rights of the peaceful protesters to assemble on the public areas and make their voices heard, as protected by the first amendment. Somehow, though, we've travelled from the streets and sidewalks of Seattle to nuclear weapons labs and public schools.
The people have a right to peacably assemble and to free speech, that is made explicit in the 1st. On the other hand, I have been inconvenienced and blocked on numerous occassions by the state, for reasons as idiotic as "state holidays" and as frivolous as parades. Daily my right to pursue happiness is routinely infringed by the cretin who homesteads at a stop sign; by the ill-mannered lout who cuts in line at the store; by the half-witted security personel at the airport. Can we arrest these people for "blocking" my way? To say that the protesters don't even have the right to stand on the sidewalk is absurd: will you have the police arrest politicians who campaign there? How about the slob in the santa suit clanging his damn bell for a handout during crowded xmas shopping times? These people block access and disrupt commutes as well. Break out the tear gas.
I think everyone can see the gaping difference between someone peacefully protesting the WTO on a street corner, and someone running down the halls of a public school screaming profanities and terrorizing the students. That is precisely where the personal responsibility component comes into play. BTW, profanity is protected by the 1st when used as political speech, ie, "f#ck the draft!" Therefore, "F#ck the WTO!" is legal, if not exactly urbane.
People were demonstrating for a variety of reasons, many of them stupid. It doesn't matter. Unpopular speech is the speech that most needs protection, not suppression. Further, as others have pointed out, the police and the city went way too far in quelling the protests with even more incroachments into our civil rights, including such oppressive measures as banning gas masks for civilians and gassing innocent bystanders.
Governments are instituted to secure the rights of its citizens, not to suppress them.
rabbit assassin, I agree that protectionist tariffs are wrong-headed and counter-productive. However, I don't know of any american family that regularly (more than twice per year) eats lamb, whether that is due to its high price or simply our tastes I don't know.
------------------
"In many ways we are treated quite like men." Erich Maria Remarque
[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited December 06, 1999).]
The people have a right to peacably assemble and to free speech, that is made explicit in the 1st. On the other hand, I have been inconvenienced and blocked on numerous occassions by the state, for reasons as idiotic as "state holidays" and as frivolous as parades. Daily my right to pursue happiness is routinely infringed by the cretin who homesteads at a stop sign; by the ill-mannered lout who cuts in line at the store; by the half-witted security personel at the airport. Can we arrest these people for "blocking" my way? To say that the protesters don't even have the right to stand on the sidewalk is absurd: will you have the police arrest politicians who campaign there? How about the slob in the santa suit clanging his damn bell for a handout during crowded xmas shopping times? These people block access and disrupt commutes as well. Break out the tear gas.
I think everyone can see the gaping difference between someone peacefully protesting the WTO on a street corner, and someone running down the halls of a public school screaming profanities and terrorizing the students. That is precisely where the personal responsibility component comes into play. BTW, profanity is protected by the 1st when used as political speech, ie, "f#ck the draft!" Therefore, "F#ck the WTO!" is legal, if not exactly urbane.
People were demonstrating for a variety of reasons, many of them stupid. It doesn't matter. Unpopular speech is the speech that most needs protection, not suppression. Further, as others have pointed out, the police and the city went way too far in quelling the protests with even more incroachments into our civil rights, including such oppressive measures as banning gas masks for civilians and gassing innocent bystanders.
Governments are instituted to secure the rights of its citizens, not to suppress them.
rabbit assassin, I agree that protectionist tariffs are wrong-headed and counter-productive. However, I don't know of any american family that regularly (more than twice per year) eats lamb, whether that is due to its high price or simply our tastes I don't know.
------------------
"In many ways we are treated quite like men." Erich Maria Remarque
[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited December 06, 1999).]
No peaceful protestors were denied their right to speak their mind. An example of that is the Union members who were allowed to have their march through the streets during the state of emergency. The State Patrol even blocked off intersections for them to safely make it through their route. The citizens of Seattle were inconvienced for a minimal time and the protestors got their message out. That is LEGITIMATE free speech.
Their is a vast difference between someone cutting in front of you in line or lagging behind at a stop sign and sitting down in an intersection for 4 days bringing the whole city to a stand still. That should be obvious to everyone. What about the rights of the business owners in Seattle who lost an estimated 17 million dollars in business?
What people need to realize is that while the majority of protestors were peaceful, there were thousands who were not. The peaceful protestors were allowed to carry out their protests. They still marched, they still chanted and they still had free speech.
It was the thousands who pelted police with rocks and bottles, who assaulted delegates, who smashed vehicles and windows and who were preventing the delegates from excercising THEIR rights that were confronted by the police. What these protestors were doing was not peaceful protest, it was civil insurection. That is NOT protected under the First Amendment.
If these so called "peaceful protestors" had only wanted to stand on the sidewalk while chanting and holding banners, while still allowing people to go about their business, the police would not have raised a hand. That is not what they were doing nor what they wanted to do.
What these radical leftists were doing was no more "peaceful protest" than the KKK's burning a cross on a black persons front yard is. Your rights end when you infringe upon the rights of others!
Their is a vast difference between someone cutting in front of you in line or lagging behind at a stop sign and sitting down in an intersection for 4 days bringing the whole city to a stand still. That should be obvious to everyone. What about the rights of the business owners in Seattle who lost an estimated 17 million dollars in business?
What people need to realize is that while the majority of protestors were peaceful, there were thousands who were not. The peaceful protestors were allowed to carry out their protests. They still marched, they still chanted and they still had free speech.
It was the thousands who pelted police with rocks and bottles, who assaulted delegates, who smashed vehicles and windows and who were preventing the delegates from excercising THEIR rights that were confronted by the police. What these protestors were doing was not peaceful protest, it was civil insurection. That is NOT protected under the First Amendment.
If these so called "peaceful protestors" had only wanted to stand on the sidewalk while chanting and holding banners, while still allowing people to go about their business, the police would not have raised a hand. That is not what they were doing nor what they wanted to do.
What these radical leftists were doing was no more "peaceful protest" than the KKK's burning a cross on a black persons front yard is. Your rights end when you infringe upon the rights of others!
I really don't have much of an idea what the WTO is or would do for our country.
You see, I watch network news.
So, I don't get much usefull information other than what the weather was yesterday and that the anchor likes the weatherman's outfit.
(Actually, I really don't watch the news much anymore, because it's a waste of time.)
So, right now I'd have to say I oppose the US involvement with WTO. I also don't like the UN or NATO. This "one world" and "global economy" stuff reeks of socialism and government control on all parts of life. I just don't like it. I guess I'm kind of an isolationist. Yeah, I am pissed we must rely on another nation for oil. Overall when a big country (US) meddles in the affairs of a smaller/less-developed country (Vietnam, Cuba, Somalia, etc) no matter how good the intentions and effort the small country is almost always hurt by our involvement. So, we are hurting other countries, and we don't really gain much from other countries, so why deal with them? Who cares? If China sucks, then China sucks. It isn't going to ruin my day. (Of course the nukes circulating around the ex-USSR isn't so great, and China w/nukes is sucky too.)
So, that was my first point. Which almost seems to support the Seattle protesters. Not so fast.
How come the protesters were arriving in Toyota's and wearing clothing made oversea's? Seems to be a bit hypocritical don't you think?
Hmmmm, I'm against the WTO and against those that are against the WTO. Well isn't that a pickle.
-Kframe
You see, I watch network news.
So, I don't get much usefull information other than what the weather was yesterday and that the anchor likes the weatherman's outfit.
(Actually, I really don't watch the news much anymore, because it's a waste of time.)
So, right now I'd have to say I oppose the US involvement with WTO. I also don't like the UN or NATO. This "one world" and "global economy" stuff reeks of socialism and government control on all parts of life. I just don't like it. I guess I'm kind of an isolationist. Yeah, I am pissed we must rely on another nation for oil. Overall when a big country (US) meddles in the affairs of a smaller/less-developed country (Vietnam, Cuba, Somalia, etc) no matter how good the intentions and effort the small country is almost always hurt by our involvement. So, we are hurting other countries, and we don't really gain much from other countries, so why deal with them? Who cares? If China sucks, then China sucks. It isn't going to ruin my day. (Of course the nukes circulating around the ex-USSR isn't so great, and China w/nukes is sucky too.)
So, that was my first point. Which almost seems to support the Seattle protesters. Not so fast.
How come the protesters were arriving in Toyota's and wearing clothing made oversea's? Seems to be a bit hypocritical don't you think?
Hmmmm, I'm against the WTO and against those that are against the WTO. Well isn't that a pickle.
-Kframe
cdf- I'm not Liddy. I understand he gets paid well to rant. Like you, I don't (get paid for it). Friends give him good reviews. No offense taken. I know what you mean Kframe (I think). I shot my tv a while back. Er.. I mean it is shot. I still read papers and this week in the WSJ Francis Fukuyama pleads with leftists to support the WTO on the grounds that "[t]he WTO is the only organization that stands any chance of evolving into an institution of global governance, setting rules not only for how countries will trade and invest with one another, but also how they will deal with issues like labor standards and the enviornment". Now, I am sure I am officially listed as a rural, paranoic, gun nut by some. Yet "global governance" is the overt goal of at least some WTO proponents(and I think all of their sorry arses, rural paronoic gun nut that I am).
Joe Portale
New member
Hello Again,
I think that the intention of my post was missed. What I was pointing out is that the Sercet Service ORDERED the Seattle PD to push the demonstrators away from the conference. The violence, according to all news sources, ABC, CNN, FOX, CBS, started after the cops become aggressive. What essentially happened is that the lunatic fringe on both sides went crazy. The aggressive actions of the cops is exactly what the anarchists wanted as an excuse to act up. What I don't understand is why the Secret Service got involved in a clearly civil matter and, here's the big one folks, why didn't Klinton simple tell the Secret Service to tone down the orders to clear the streets?
As a student of human behavior, I see the signs from Klinton that tell me he wants to be president for life, AKA Dictator. Will Mr. Bill go away in a few months? I say no. He knows nothing else, he likes the power, he never held a real world job, his marrage is one of convienience for political gain, this guy has all the makings of a meglomaniac. Watch what happens during the term of the next president, no matter who it is. As soon as the next president starts pulling apart something His Billness did, he will be on the TV spouting about how hard he worked on this and how the American people will suffer by the dismantling of his what-ever.
The country is walking a very dangerous path. The present administration shows absolutly no respect for the Constitution and we are no seeing happening in ours streets. The elimination of the power of the people is under attack by those who want the power for themselves. People like the Clintons should be stripped of power, simply because they like it too damn much.
------------------
Joe Portale
Sonoran Sidewinder
Tucson, Arizona territory
I think that the intention of my post was missed. What I was pointing out is that the Sercet Service ORDERED the Seattle PD to push the demonstrators away from the conference. The violence, according to all news sources, ABC, CNN, FOX, CBS, started after the cops become aggressive. What essentially happened is that the lunatic fringe on both sides went crazy. The aggressive actions of the cops is exactly what the anarchists wanted as an excuse to act up. What I don't understand is why the Secret Service got involved in a clearly civil matter and, here's the big one folks, why didn't Klinton simple tell the Secret Service to tone down the orders to clear the streets?
As a student of human behavior, I see the signs from Klinton that tell me he wants to be president for life, AKA Dictator. Will Mr. Bill go away in a few months? I say no. He knows nothing else, he likes the power, he never held a real world job, his marrage is one of convienience for political gain, this guy has all the makings of a meglomaniac. Watch what happens during the term of the next president, no matter who it is. As soon as the next president starts pulling apart something His Billness did, he will be on the TV spouting about how hard he worked on this and how the American people will suffer by the dismantling of his what-ever.
The country is walking a very dangerous path. The present administration shows absolutly no respect for the Constitution and we are no seeing happening in ours streets. The elimination of the power of the people is under attack by those who want the power for themselves. People like the Clintons should be stripped of power, simply because they like it too damn much.
------------------
Joe Portale
Sonoran Sidewinder
Tucson, Arizona territory
Cactus, I think when we use the term, "peaceful protesters" we mean exactly that, not the few wackos who chose to block intersections for days, or to engage in acts of violence or vandalism. The problem is the tactics the police and city chose to dispel the few disorderly rioters impacted everyone.
For example, the curfew was not inflicted merely on the violent offenders, it was on everyone in the area. This is highly unconstitutional, and immoral. The ban on gas masks for civilians is likewise unconstitutional and immoral. The firing of tear gas and pepper spray into crowds is again unconstitutional and immoral, as not everyone in that crowd is breaking the law.
If someone is peacefully protesting without unduly interrupting anyone else, leave them alone. If someone is engaged in violence, or vandalism or looting, by all means lock them up, but leave the rest of the folks on the street alone.
Punishing everyone for the acts of a few is best left to drill sargeants, gun controllers and first grade teachers.
------------------
"In many ways we are treated quite like men." Erich Maria Remarque
For example, the curfew was not inflicted merely on the violent offenders, it was on everyone in the area. This is highly unconstitutional, and immoral. The ban on gas masks for civilians is likewise unconstitutional and immoral. The firing of tear gas and pepper spray into crowds is again unconstitutional and immoral, as not everyone in that crowd is breaking the law.
If someone is peacefully protesting without unduly interrupting anyone else, leave them alone. If someone is engaged in violence, or vandalism or looting, by all means lock them up, but leave the rest of the folks on the street alone.
Punishing everyone for the acts of a few is best left to drill sargeants, gun controllers and first grade teachers.
------------------
"In many ways we are treated quite like men." Erich Maria Remarque
Y'know, Joe P. brings up an interesting thought.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...I see the signs from Klinton that tell me he wants to be president for life, AKA Dictator. Will Mr. Bill go away in a few months? I say no. [/quote]
What if Y2K is a big deal? I'm sure that there is probably some provision for the Prez to stay in power, cancel the election, etc in a state of national emergency. Or, even if that is not explicity written, I wouldn't be surprised if somehow Klinton managed to set that up.
Will this happen, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.
Can this happen? Sure. Anything is possible when those in power no longer respect the limitations of power.
But, I sure as hell hope it doesn't happen.
Time will tell, -Kframe
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...I see the signs from Klinton that tell me he wants to be president for life, AKA Dictator. Will Mr. Bill go away in a few months? I say no. [/quote]
What if Y2K is a big deal? I'm sure that there is probably some provision for the Prez to stay in power, cancel the election, etc in a state of national emergency. Or, even if that is not explicity written, I wouldn't be surprised if somehow Klinton managed to set that up.
Will this happen, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.
Can this happen? Sure. Anything is possible when those in power no longer respect the limitations of power.
But, I sure as hell hope it doesn't happen.
Time will tell, -Kframe
oberkommando
New member
It can be seen from our history that the Government hates protestors and whether some or all got out of control the jackboots kick everyone.
Remember those dang pesky veterans protesting for their payments for their service in WW1. Far as I know the Bonus Army was peacfull and did not block anyone's way and look what happend to them.
Remember those dang pesky veterans protesting for their payments for their service in WW1. Far as I know the Bonus Army was peacfull and did not block anyone's way and look what happend to them.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
G-Freeman - Actually, cdf DOES get paid once in awhile to rant and rave...
------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
Hey - have you seen the new Ultimate Super Tactical Match Gun?
------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
Hey - have you seen the new Ultimate Super Tactical Match Gun?
Ipecac,
When 10 police officers are facing a crowd of 1000 protestors and 200 of those protestors are throwing rocks and bottles, how do the police stop those 200 without dispersing the whole crowd? The fact is that the violent protestors intentially mingled amoungst the others to make it more difficult for the police to do their work. At times like this, the only option available is for the police to order the whole crowd to disperse. They can't exactly say "peaceful" protestors stay where you are, violent ones, go get in the paddy wagon"!
When the "peaceful" protestors refused to disperse, they then became part of the problem. It's the same thing as if I got in the face of a cop while he was arresting someone and I refused to get back when he ordered. Chances are, I would end up with a face full of OC, and deservedly so!
Joe,
I want to assure you that the police did NOT start the violence by becoming aggressive. They were required, under orders, to stand by while watching delegates being assaulted while pleading for help. As a resident of the Seattle area, I watched and listened to probably 8 hours of news coverage on both local radio and TV on Tuesday. The national media gave a VERY biased view of the riot (surprise, surprise). The police were only allowed to use aggresive tactics after the vandalism started.
On the radio today, a leader of the Direct Action Network complained that they couldn't get arrested early Tuesday. He said that they were blocking the delegates with the intention of being arrested, knowing what they were doing was illegal. May if the police chief and mayor had been more pro-active, there would have been no violence.
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited December 07, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited December 08, 1999).]
When 10 police officers are facing a crowd of 1000 protestors and 200 of those protestors are throwing rocks and bottles, how do the police stop those 200 without dispersing the whole crowd? The fact is that the violent protestors intentially mingled amoungst the others to make it more difficult for the police to do their work. At times like this, the only option available is for the police to order the whole crowd to disperse. They can't exactly say "peaceful" protestors stay where you are, violent ones, go get in the paddy wagon"!
When the "peaceful" protestors refused to disperse, they then became part of the problem. It's the same thing as if I got in the face of a cop while he was arresting someone and I refused to get back when he ordered. Chances are, I would end up with a face full of OC, and deservedly so!
Joe,
I want to assure you that the police did NOT start the violence by becoming aggressive. They were required, under orders, to stand by while watching delegates being assaulted while pleading for help. As a resident of the Seattle area, I watched and listened to probably 8 hours of news coverage on both local radio and TV on Tuesday. The national media gave a VERY biased view of the riot (surprise, surprise). The police were only allowed to use aggresive tactics after the vandalism started.
On the radio today, a leader of the Direct Action Network complained that they couldn't get arrested early Tuesday. He said that they were blocking the delegates with the intention of being arrested, knowing what they were doing was illegal. May if the police chief and mayor had been more pro-active, there would have been no violence.
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited December 07, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited December 08, 1999).]
Yes, The Bonus Army. A good example of outrageous official behaviour. This was one of the earliest signs of our political rot, an indicator of our transition from Republic to ologarchy. Anyone who would open up on our veterans like that needs to be...grilled.
The event still sickens me when I see it in grainy black and white footage.
But those longhairs in Seattle sure as hell weren't the Bonus Army, and they sure as hell weren't peacfull. If a crowd is peacefull it isn't a Police issue. When it becomes disruptive and violent, it is no longer a crowd, but a mob. It then needs to be dispersed.The police attempted to peacefully disperse the mob, it resisted, they responded with CS, paintballs, etc. Yeah, and? I've seen much grumbling(not here on TFL) over the police wearing scary, mean body armor. That armor is non ballistic plastic, much like football pads.
These protesters are from the LEFT. These events were planned and orchastrated. Most of us have seen the picture of the longhair being carried off by two of said mean black-clad police men. What a scary picture...Anyone notice the filter mask around the hero's neck? Why would a saintly peacfull protester bring a filter mask to a saintly, peacfull protest? Because they never intended to be peacfull. The police did what they had to. Bravo Seattle PD, bravo attached ARNG units.
The event still sickens me when I see it in grainy black and white footage.
But those longhairs in Seattle sure as hell weren't the Bonus Army, and they sure as hell weren't peacfull. If a crowd is peacefull it isn't a Police issue. When it becomes disruptive and violent, it is no longer a crowd, but a mob. It then needs to be dispersed.The police attempted to peacefully disperse the mob, it resisted, they responded with CS, paintballs, etc. Yeah, and? I've seen much grumbling(not here on TFL) over the police wearing scary, mean body armor. That armor is non ballistic plastic, much like football pads.
These protesters are from the LEFT. These events were planned and orchastrated. Most of us have seen the picture of the longhair being carried off by two of said mean black-clad police men. What a scary picture...Anyone notice the filter mask around the hero's neck? Why would a saintly peacfull protester bring a filter mask to a saintly, peacfull protest? Because they never intended to be peacfull. The police did what they had to. Bravo Seattle PD, bravo attached ARNG units.
Joe Portale
New member
After reading all the posts and noticing that there was a marked change in the attitude of the press, I have to sit back and wonder. I wonder what actually happened in Seattle, why were the protesters the "victims" until Klinton showed up? I wonder why it was so important to clear the streets of the people for the convienience of the WTO ministers? I wonder why the Sercret Service got involved in a civil matter, when the lefties should have been throwing themselves at His Billness's feet?
I will backaway from my original comments that the violence was started by the PD. I will not back away from the report that the Secret Service order the streets swept of protestors. I believe that the Klinton gang made the matter worse. I also will contend that a good dose of civil disobedience was a good thing for those WTO delegates to see. Maybe they learned that Americans will not roll over like the subjects of their countries. That part of being American is telling the government to go to hell. When Admiral Yamamoto called America "a sleeping giant that is terrible indeed when angered", he was talking about the people, not the administration. Most of the WTO countries are totalitarian states. They have miserable records of human rights and they always come here with their hands out. If the protests left a bad taste in their mouths, I say good.
I am sorry that it got out of hand and so many people suffred on both sides, but being able to protest is a Consitutional Right. And even if one peaceful protestor was assualted by a over-zealous cop, it was an attack on the Consitution. We all should feel sympathy for the Seatle PD in this. It was pretty clear that they were caught in the middle.
All in all, I blame the current administration for what happened in Seattle. They had plenty of warning that the protests were going to happen. They simply tossed the ball at Seattle and told them to deal with it. Then when things were not going the way that Klinton's people like, the Secret Service forced the Seattle PD to step up the pressure. Of course, this is all from my perspective.
I will backaway from my original comments that the violence was started by the PD. I will not back away from the report that the Secret Service order the streets swept of protestors. I believe that the Klinton gang made the matter worse. I also will contend that a good dose of civil disobedience was a good thing for those WTO delegates to see. Maybe they learned that Americans will not roll over like the subjects of their countries. That part of being American is telling the government to go to hell. When Admiral Yamamoto called America "a sleeping giant that is terrible indeed when angered", he was talking about the people, not the administration. Most of the WTO countries are totalitarian states. They have miserable records of human rights and they always come here with their hands out. If the protests left a bad taste in their mouths, I say good.
I am sorry that it got out of hand and so many people suffred on both sides, but being able to protest is a Consitutional Right. And even if one peaceful protestor was assualted by a over-zealous cop, it was an attack on the Consitution. We all should feel sympathy for the Seatle PD in this. It was pretty clear that they were caught in the middle.
All in all, I blame the current administration for what happened in Seattle. They had plenty of warning that the protests were going to happen. They simply tossed the ball at Seattle and told them to deal with it. Then when things were not going the way that Klinton's people like, the Secret Service forced the Seattle PD to step up the pressure. Of course, this is all from my perspective.
cdf,
Reading your post, I get the feeling you believe nobody has the right to
protest unless they agree with you, espouse your values, and ensure they are not
infiltrated with the violence prone.
Sorry, cdf. I can't agree with you. There are people on the "LEFT" who
believe in RKBA - and some of them have beards, tattoos, and even
(horrors!) body piercing!
Whether or not I agree with their views, I support their right to demonstrate.
They do not lose that right because of a few who become violent.
Stop and think. What if we TFLers demonstrated in the state capitals (as
was attempted a couple months ago) and an HCI member walked into our
group and threw a rock at a cop? Should we all be gassed, beaten,
and arrested?
Sorry. That dog won’t hunt.
Or maybe you think the ladies of TFL should join the Million Mom March and
cause violent problems?
Reading your post, I get the feeling you believe nobody has the right to
protest unless they agree with you, espouse your values, and ensure they are not
infiltrated with the violence prone.
Sorry, cdf. I can't agree with you. There are people on the "LEFT" who
believe in RKBA - and some of them have beards, tattoos, and even
(horrors!) body piercing!
Whether or not I agree with their views, I support their right to demonstrate.
They do not lose that right because of a few who become violent.
Stop and think. What if we TFLers demonstrated in the state capitals (as
was attempted a couple months ago) and an HCI member walked into our
group and threw a rock at a cop? Should we all be gassed, beaten,
and arrested?
Sorry. That dog won’t hunt.
Or maybe you think the ladies of TFL should join the Million Mom March and
cause violent problems?
Please see this and consider in your opinion
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=24492
The UN wants WTO
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=24492
The UN wants WTO
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
DC,
You are the one who taught me not to "parse". Either we, as Americans, have the right to demonstrate or we don't.
Though I support their right to demonstrate, I may disagree (even violently disagree) with their views. But I have no choice but to support the same rights for them, however distasteful their goals, that I wish to have for you and me.
I will fight for people to own or NOT to own a firearm.
I will fight for the right of HCI to demonstrate.
Just as I will fight for our Constitution - which (obviously) includes our RKBA.
If I am wrong in supporting this right, show me where. You've corrected me before and I have tried to learn fairness and logic from your position.
You are the one who taught me not to "parse". Either we, as Americans, have the right to demonstrate or we don't.
Though I support their right to demonstrate, I may disagree (even violently disagree) with their views. But I have no choice but to support the same rights for them, however distasteful their goals, that I wish to have for you and me.
I will fight for people to own or NOT to own a firearm.
I will fight for the right of HCI to demonstrate.
Just as I will fight for our Constitution - which (obviously) includes our RKBA.
If I am wrong in supporting this right, show me where. You've corrected me before and I have tried to learn fairness and logic from your position.
Dennis...
I wasn't disputing your position. My last post was to all; in my typically bullheaded way, I shoved more data into the stew, that the UN wants the WTO
My personal thoughts are that the cops over-reacted and punished all for the actions of the few. Can they always determine the guilty at the scene? Nope, but they and their superiors damn well better be ready to answer for their actions and take the consequences, the same consequences that I would face if I just randomaly beat you on the street. Can't always control your actions under the heat of action? Fine, but, the consequences will be waiting.
The fact is that once "official" every level of gov't hides behind some self-defined veil of duty, and they are not punished when they screw up....not like we would be punished. If society wants and feels we need jack booted ninjas in black, then society best prepare for backlash. I'm part of society and if I or mine were unjustly treated there is no where on earth the guilty could hide, and in my family time does not heal all wounds.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
I wasn't disputing your position. My last post was to all; in my typically bullheaded way, I shoved more data into the stew, that the UN wants the WTO
My personal thoughts are that the cops over-reacted and punished all for the actions of the few. Can they always determine the guilty at the scene? Nope, but they and their superiors damn well better be ready to answer for their actions and take the consequences, the same consequences that I would face if I just randomaly beat you on the street. Can't always control your actions under the heat of action? Fine, but, the consequences will be waiting.
The fact is that once "official" every level of gov't hides behind some self-defined veil of duty, and they are not punished when they screw up....not like we would be punished. If society wants and feels we need jack booted ninjas in black, then society best prepare for backlash. I'm part of society and if I or mine were unjustly treated there is no where on earth the guilty could hide, and in my family time does not heal all wounds.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
Joe,
I concur, I also heard that the Secret Service ordered that the streets be secured or Clinton would not attend. It would not have broken my heart one bit if he had stayed away. However, it is my understanding that this order came after the riot had started, it was not the cause of it. I also agree that statements made by Clinton enboldened the protestors.
Before the trouble started on Tuesday, the Direct Action Network (DAN) was preventing delegates and others from entering the Paramount Theater. They were using threats and intimidation to accomplish this. This was in violation of the civil rights of the delegates.
The trouble started with the Anarachists vandalizing business' downtown. At this time it became apparent that the police had lost control. In order to regain control, they had to resort to more force than would have been necessary if they had been allowed reacted properly in the first place.
I feel no sympathy for the DAN protestors blocking access to the Paramount. They had stated months in advance that they would attempt to prevent the meetings from taking place, that is why many brought gas masks to a "peaceful" protest. They planned on being arrested. They had been training for this event for the past 6 months. It is a tactic that they have used in other events in the past.
As much as I would like to blame the Clinton administration for this fiasco, I can't. They did not foist this conference on Seattle. Seattle bid on it along with many other cities. The mayor and police chief were responsible for all of the security arrangements during the conference. They were warned by the Clinton admin. and many other sources of the type of people that would be trying to disrupt the conference. Even their own line officers told them that the preparations were inadequate, yet they chose to ignore everyone.
I do feel for the truely innocent people that may have been gassed while the riot was going on. However, it is foolish for someone to think that they will remain unscathed when stepping into the middle of a battle.
It concerns me greatly that many people seem to regard these radical leftists, communists and anarachists as the equivalent of Martin Luther King fighting for the rights of black Americans, while equating the police with the enemy. This leftist, utopian rable in Seattle has no more concern for yours or my rights than they did for the rights of the shop owners and citizens of Seattle whose business' and lives they disrupted.
Dennis, if we were demonstrating in the State capital and an HCI member threw a rock at the police I would like to think that we would hand that HCI member over to the police much worse for wear. In Seattle, the rock throwers were the members of the group blocking the delegates access. The group was sheltering the rock throwers, that makes a big difference.
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited December 08, 1999).]
I concur, I also heard that the Secret Service ordered that the streets be secured or Clinton would not attend. It would not have broken my heart one bit if he had stayed away. However, it is my understanding that this order came after the riot had started, it was not the cause of it. I also agree that statements made by Clinton enboldened the protestors.
Before the trouble started on Tuesday, the Direct Action Network (DAN) was preventing delegates and others from entering the Paramount Theater. They were using threats and intimidation to accomplish this. This was in violation of the civil rights of the delegates.
The trouble started with the Anarachists vandalizing business' downtown. At this time it became apparent that the police had lost control. In order to regain control, they had to resort to more force than would have been necessary if they had been allowed reacted properly in the first place.
I feel no sympathy for the DAN protestors blocking access to the Paramount. They had stated months in advance that they would attempt to prevent the meetings from taking place, that is why many brought gas masks to a "peaceful" protest. They planned on being arrested. They had been training for this event for the past 6 months. It is a tactic that they have used in other events in the past.
As much as I would like to blame the Clinton administration for this fiasco, I can't. They did not foist this conference on Seattle. Seattle bid on it along with many other cities. The mayor and police chief were responsible for all of the security arrangements during the conference. They were warned by the Clinton admin. and many other sources of the type of people that would be trying to disrupt the conference. Even their own line officers told them that the preparations were inadequate, yet they chose to ignore everyone.
I do feel for the truely innocent people that may have been gassed while the riot was going on. However, it is foolish for someone to think that they will remain unscathed when stepping into the middle of a battle.
It concerns me greatly that many people seem to regard these radical leftists, communists and anarachists as the equivalent of Martin Luther King fighting for the rights of black Americans, while equating the police with the enemy. This leftist, utopian rable in Seattle has no more concern for yours or my rights than they did for the rights of the shop owners and citizens of Seattle whose business' and lives they disrupted.
Dennis, if we were demonstrating in the State capital and an HCI member threw a rock at the police I would like to think that we would hand that HCI member over to the police much worse for wear. In Seattle, the rock throwers were the members of the group blocking the delegates access. The group was sheltering the rock throwers, that makes a big difference.
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited December 08, 1999).]
Aha! Thanks, DC. Sorry for misunderstanding. (I sure was confused there for a bit!!!)
-----
Cactus,
You and I are getting different info, therefore we have different understanding of what happened. It could well be you have more (or better) info than I have.
I noted that some of the "peaceful" demonstrators actually defended businesses from the "ruffians". I also read that a government official (?a councilwoman?) was gassed while she was trying to get to the WTO assembly.
Please don't misunderstand, I'm all for punishing those who became violent.
As for TFLer demonstrators handing over a violent offender in our midst, I agree emotionally with you; however, I'm not sure we would be given that opportunity. Here's hoping we need never confirm that one way or the other.
-----
Cactus,
You and I are getting different info, therefore we have different understanding of what happened. It could well be you have more (or better) info than I have.
I noted that some of the "peaceful" demonstrators actually defended businesses from the "ruffians". I also read that a government official (?a councilwoman?) was gassed while she was trying to get to the WTO assembly.
Please don't misunderstand, I'm all for punishing those who became violent.
As for TFLer demonstrators handing over a violent offender in our midst, I agree emotionally with you; however, I'm not sure we would be given that opportunity. Here's hoping we need never confirm that one way or the other.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Dennis - I think cdf's position wasnt about not allowing protesting.
But not allowing protesters to become a Mob.
I agree with him there - You and your group can protest when ever and what ever you like.
But the moment your peaceful protest becomes disruptive - well, then your excercise of your 1st amendment rights are now infringing on my rights. This is where the line is drawn. The protest has just become disorderly. And a swift dispersal is in order.
I am of the belief that anyone can do whatever they want - as long as 1. The are prepaired to pay for the consequences and 2. It doesnt infringe on others.
------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
Hey - have you seen the new Ultimate Super Tactical Match Gun?
But not allowing protesters to become a Mob.
I agree with him there - You and your group can protest when ever and what ever you like.
But the moment your peaceful protest becomes disruptive - well, then your excercise of your 1st amendment rights are now infringing on my rights. This is where the line is drawn. The protest has just become disorderly. And a swift dispersal is in order.
I am of the belief that anyone can do whatever they want - as long as 1. The are prepaired to pay for the consequences and 2. It doesnt infringe on others.
------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
Hey - have you seen the new Ultimate Super Tactical Match Gun?