Free speech kept off U.S. streets

hahahah blocking SANDBAGS being SENT to IRAQ~~~~!!!! probably already filled too.

last i checked it was the military itself blocking bullet proof vests and body armor from soldiers. so much so, that many are buying those things themselves instead of waiting around for uncle sam. also the 'imminent danger' and 'family leave' pay cuts.

Yeah mindmeld, the military is just holding out right? They want soldiers to die so some General can have a wharehouse full of body armor. Um, nope not the case. Miltary cuts have been to blame for the lack of body armor. The new interceptor system runs $1500 plus per soldier, there just aren't enough in the system to go around. It also has to do with the way newly procured items are rotated into the system, those with the most need get them first, that is why so many reserveists and the like are going without. There wasn't an anticipated need for those units to have those items now, when the procurement rotation was figured out, am I happy about this? Not at all, one less super hi tech jet fighter would go a long way to putting those in the hands of those who need them.

And the sandbag issue. If you were trying to stop a military convoy in a time of war what exactly do you think would happen to you? Do you really believe that they would just say "oh well, the roads blocked by protesters, lets just go get a beer", no you would expect them to get through, I think you would even EXPECT force to be used. I would much rather a protester catch a rubber bullet in the face than a soldier catch a full metal jacketed bullet in the face.

[Edited on Nov 03, 2003 by levezletoi]

I would expect peoples' rights to be respected. Wishful thinking, I know, but I can dream, can't I?

Was that San Francisco? I'm guessing that's San Francisco. The problem with San Francisco is, when it comes to protesting - especially protesting a conservative president - they are motherfucking insane. I mean that literally - not just adorably committed, but psychotic. There are people who seriously think there's nothing even a little distasteful about putting a Hitler moustache on GW, or with outright making the comparison.

But while I don't have all the facts, it would be perfectly logical that the Bush administration is using a practice of the Secret Service to try to stymie protest on purpose. This is a serious issue, and it pisses me off that they keep bouncing the press back to the Secret Service; and I hope the press puts enough pressure on the President to address the issue directly. Nice to see they're doing their job for once; oh, sorry, that's the Canadian press.

[Edited on Nov 05, 2003 by Jeff_Fries]

Big fucking deal another trust fund hippie gets whacked because she didn't have the good sense to get the fuck out of the way when she was warned a bunch of times...sorta like antagonizing a rabid pit bull with a stick and then being surprised if you get bitten.duh.

You're joking, right?
no?
You mean you don't realize that this was being done before Bush was in office?
Hell, in 99 I tried to protest a visit that Clinton was making to Tucson. Was I allowed to protest? Sure, myself and the few hundred likeminded people who had also come to protest were all herded outside of the area that he was speaking in, and into a little corner completely blocked off from the public and nowhere near any entrances or exits. Put simply, where nobody would hear or see us, nobody would hear or see us when they were coming in or out, and far enough away that we couldn't even hear his amplified speech.
Gee, why didn't you make one of those stickers for Clinton? I guess free speech is only important when supporting it follows your party lines?

Her right to protest was respected, however when she chose to cross the line into civil disobedience by not yielding to a military convoy, she, by default ,accepts at least part of the responsibilty for her injuries by putting herself in the position to have vilolence used against her by law......cry me a river............

This doesn't make sense.. if all she did was refuse to move, she should've been arrested, not attacked.





[Edited on Nov 05, 2003 by robinbanks]

"Necessary Force." Ever heard of it? It means that the "authorities" are entitled to use force, but only within reason; a neccesary amount of force. In other words, being carted away and arrested? Sure. Getting shot in the head with a bean bag, rubber bullet, tear gas cannister, pepper sprayed? No, that's excessive force. Standing in front a military convoy does not warrant that amount of force.

... in a whole lot of countries.... that bullet wouldn't have been rubber.........

Your point being?
That isn't another "it's better than what they do in Iraq/Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia" is it?

Of course I have heard of necessary force, but then again , do you honestly think those protesters were just going to peacefully resist arrest and then get arrested?..More likely it wwould be more of the let's make a daisy chain of Kryptonites round outr necks, flail and go limp...etc.... understandable.. but it's also understandable to me that military convoys like to adhere to a schedule...the fastest and most expedient way of getting those unfortunates to disperse is, and was ,pepper gas, mace, rubber bullets etc.... excessive?...yes, abit., ..efficient? you betcha.
just seems to me that if i were ther and the guys with shotguns and rubber canister thump guns and dogs and mace were telling me to get the fuck outta the way.my narrow ass would move right quick..

For the most part, yes. I used to be involved with organizing demonstrations all the time.. in each case, we made it very clear that civil disobedience is synonymous with peaceful resistance. I would say this is the norm. But, then again, this may be a reflection of the groups I worked with..

However, protesters do get violent. Nonetheless, I don't think that's an accurate reflection of most people who choose to express themselves through civil disobedience.

robinbanks, I understand your points, I really do. I have no problem with protesting. However when it comes to actively impeading military traffic, well one just would have to have a little common sense. Anyone remember the stink made when a man layed across train tracks to stop a train carrying nuclear warheads? Thought it would stop, but didn't and slowly ran right over his legs and kept going. Anyone remember the warnings that airbase very publiclly gave warning that tresspasers and vandals would be shot?

Well, yeah, locking yourself to things or going limp when being arrested is peaceful protest; that is, they're not trying to hurt anyone or even break anything.

So, using excessive force is justified if it's being used against people who are compromising the military's schedule? Ironic, the military trampling the very rights they're supposed to be fighting for.

Love em ot hate em, you gotta admit, those types of protesters have the courage of their convictions.

did i say jackshit about those countries?
nope...
don't think so

Point is... Any time you interfere in the business of people that are carrying guns and are alive the next day..you're lucky.

Uh, you did say this: " ... in a whole lot of countries.... " Am I to think you were talking about Norway?

Actually, you're other post didn't imply this at all.

If the US is the bastion of freedom it believes itself to be, people shouldn't have to consider themselves lucky if they survive a protest.