BS: Police state?

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:57 PM

Don, large protests always require permits, mostly to insure public safety by giving the police dept a "heads up" to schedule more people that day. However, there's a big difference between getting a permit because a few thousand people might show up and requiring permits for more than 23 people of related political opinions to peacefully assemble in a public park at the same time when their presence does not require delegations to ensure public safety, nor in any way impedes the ability of the government or public safety officials to perform their duties, nor prevents other citizens from going about their business.

"Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:49 PM

And since when do you need a permit to protest!???

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:27 PM

Thanks, Mars.

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: GUEST,Mars
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:05 PM

Chicago protests

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Frankham
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:07 AM

Doug,   the people in this protest were peaceful. There was no civil disobedience. It was orderly but the police were less so.

This is a disturbing trend in our country today. How can the Adminstration be fighting for democratic ideals in a foreign country and squelch them at home?

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: GUEST,amergin
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:53 AM

doug...i never said i was a pacifist.

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:19 AM

Amergin: "the people need to rise!" Spoken like a real peace loving person.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: NicoleC
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 09:46 PM

From Reuters today:

WASHINGTON - Police arrested two Nobel Peace prize winners along with more than 60 other people protesting on Wednesday near the White House against the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Police handcuffed Mairead Corrigan Maguire, who won the prize in 1976 for peace activism in the Northern Ireland conflict, and Jody Williams, a 1997 winner for her work to ban land mines, after they refused to leave Lafayette Park opposite the home of the U.S. president.

The Nobel laureates were detained along with religious leaders and Vietnam-era protester Daniel Ellsberg as they sat in a circle in the park and chanted...

/snip/

A spokesman for the U.S. Parks Police said nine people had been arrested for crossing a police line opposite the White House and that the rest were held for protesting without a permit.

We don't need to abolish the 1st Admendment, ya'll, the government will just refuse to issue you a permit.

Since a 24-hour anti-nuke vigil has been held there continuously since 1981, plus of course the vigil by the Pink Ladies that's been going on for a few months now, why weren't *those* protestors arrested today? Easy, as long as less than 23 people show up (and I'm not making that figure up, that's the exact requirement), you don't need a permit.

However, according to the Washington Times Dec 9, 2002, the park service is refusing to issue any permits. What might be even scarier, is that the park service is allowing some protestors to break the rules, but not others. If there's only free speech for some (and who decides?), then speech can't possibly be free.

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 08:53 PM

Oh, great. S much for the HTML genius. That was intended to be

Plu ça change....

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 08:49 PM

Well, Kat I remember it pretty well, and so far this is WAY worse than the early days of Viet Nam as far as the outright lying, manipulation of the media (back then the media had some integrity they've since sold) and the sheer disregard of the constitution. The opposition in congress then wasn't as emasculated as it is now, either. And yes, the Dies Committee days are back, it seems- Ashcroft has already begun the new version of the Palmer raids- just now its Muslims, not communists. Plu æa change...

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 08:29 PM

Thanks, Frank, I do understand that and I am glad to know it comes from someone whom you trust and is a journalist.

I agree with you on the embedded thing. Sheesh! What a stupid term and yes, the reporters I've heard sound like lackeys of the PR wags. I do find it interesting to cruise the net and see what other countries are saying about it all.

Is it also starting to seem like Viet Nam to you? I was kind of oyung and not as aware when that all started, so I'd be interested in your take on it and that of others, except that's not what this thread is supposed to be about. Sorry.:-)

Bobert, I hear ya, Bro...you are right.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Frankham
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 08:24 PM

Hi Kat,

Problem is that there is no coverage of this kind of thing on the media. This is one of the great things about the internet. It came from a source who I think is trustworthy, a lady who writes for the papers in Chicago. She's a free-lance journalist.

The only way you can hear about something like this is if it comes at you through the net or someone you know. There is a virtual blackout on what really happens at these demonstrations and on what' s really going on in Iraq. The journalists are not independent of the Pentagon but are "embedded" with the U.S. military. Many of the journalists have been asked to carry weapons and participate. How can you have objective journalism under these conditions? In Vietnam, journalists were pretty much free to come and go although some were asked to carry weapons to protect themselves.

We haven't seen any pictures of the carnage in this war as of yet.

This era reminds me of the early fifties and McCarthy Committee investigations by the HUAC. What do the French say about the more things change the more they stay the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:57 PM

These folks have lost their senses, kat. The folks we need to overwhelm are the fence sitters and use them to get the *senseless* voted the heck out.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:52 PM

Thank you, Frank, for posting this. Are there any other verifications from other sources? NOT that I don't believe it; I'd just like to read more and also pass it on via email to a few folks.

If we keep up the protests, we will be able to overwhelm them and they will have to come to their senses.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: GUEST,amergin
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:45 PM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:42 PM

You F.L.: Of course you are right. These are different times. But given the governemnt's ability to make one's life purdy danged miserable these days, it does take courage to go out there and possibly risk everything obe has worked a life time to have, including one's freedom.

There has been legislation introduced in Oregon to make it a felony if a demonstrator interfers with commerace, government or tarnsportation. It calls for *Life Inprisonment*! That's right. Life inprisonment. So lets say you're in a prtest and a public bus gets held up? You get life! Go figure? What kind of message does that send and how do one go about measuring the courage it takes in participating in what used to be a right which could now, if this bill goes thru, can get you life!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:41 PM

Amergin-Oh, I don't know, the fact that it pits siblings against each other and lots of people get killed, plus it tends to lead to long-lasting divisions which haunt the nation for decades if not centuries? That might have something to do with it. War is a last resort, not the first option.

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: GUEST,amergin
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:33 PM

and what is wrong with open rebellion? the government is wheedling away our rights...the people NEED to rise.

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:30 PM

Bobert-These protestors are hardly doing what our ancestors did against the British. Good thing, too. Even if vandalism isn't quite terrorism under the Patriot Act, open rebellion certainly is.

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:27 PM

Hey, could have been worse- coulda got the shit beat out of 'em too, like the '68 Democratic Convention. What did they expect from Chicago cops?

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:24 PM

Ahhh, dangled a participle. The Founding Fathers ain't the wimps! But a lot of us know who are...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:22 PM

This is the "Ramsey Plan". Yes, Police Chief Charles Ramsey of the Wsahington, D.C. Police Department ordered the arrest of an eintire group of people who were participating in the IMF demonstartions in October. It made the front page.

Two months later, a judge chastized the arrests since no one had been ordered to move on bu the police. The story made the 4th page of the Metro section.

Most recently, Ramsey has made a statement to the IMF protesters that the next time they come to D.C. he has some new things in store for them.

Bottom line. Pre-emption is is. The supreme Court pre-empted the American democracy. Then Bush said he was gonna just go and whack folks who *might* someday pose a threat to the US. And now when the *true* Patriots take to the streets, much the way our ancestors did against the Brits, the government decides to ahhh, guess?

Yep, pre-empt the rights guarenteed by folks who had a lot more courage than these friggin cowards, the Founding Fathers.

Bush/Ashcroft/Ramsey/Rice/Cheney/Rumsfelf are a bunch of sissies. Yaeh, it's real easy to *act* tough when you got the big stick!

Wimps. All of them!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Police state?
From: InOBU
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:15 PM

wow. Larry

Subject: BS: Police state?
From: Frankham
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:08 PM

From a columnist in Chicago, this in.


A certainly more troubling and perhaps more accurate account of what
happened. Query: whether one agrees with the protesters or not, one has to
ask what happened to our Constitution?



Look at this shocking report re: the demonstration last Thursday evening and compare it to how the news broadcasts and newspapers reported it!

Important information about the Chicago Anti- War
Protests and Arrests



Subject: Fwd: forwarded message from Chicago

Everyone should read and know about this.
RS

This happened to one of the participants.
>
>Dear all,
>
>I want to warn you all about what happened to hundreds of peaceful
>protesters, myself included, at the rally and march on Thursday
night
>in downtown Chicago. Both the rally and march were entirely
>peaceful. I saw not one instance of civil disobedience or
aggro
>behavior. Police escorted us on the March and onto Lake Shore
Drive.
>We were never asked to disperse or threatened with arrest.
When
>police prevented us from marching on Michigan Ave marchers moved
on.
>We were, however, surrounded by hundreds of police a few block
later
>and prevented from leaving. No one around me intended to or
wanted
>to be arrested. Everyone asked to be allowed to leave and
disperse.
>I have since heard this was not how the media reported it but more
>than once the crowd chanted "let us go" and "we will
disperse." The
>police told individuals who asked that they could leave from some
>other side of the crowd but in EVERY instance I witnessed this was
>not the case and no one was allowed to leave, including a 17 year
old
>boy and his 14 year old sister. At first police rushed the
crowd and
>pulled out 10 people at a time. I and everyone around me was
>arrested despite the fact that we were standing on the sidewalk
(not
>in the street) and that we asked again and again to be allowed to
>leave since we had done nothing illegal. A cop grabbed me,
put
me in
>cuffs, and told me I was being charged with mob action and that I
>should be glad I was not in Iraq. I have since heard that
people
>were allowed to leave much later but we were told that everyone
would
>be arrested sooner or later.
>
>Close to 300 (at least) women were held in custody for hours.
I
was
>in custody for over 20 hours. Despite the fact that we were
told
>that we be released as soon as we were processed, I was held in a
>jail cell from midnight until 4:00 pm the next day. During
this
time
>I was not allowed a phone call, not read my rights, and my charge
was
>not explained to me. We were all told numerous times that we would
be
>released on I-Bonds, meaning once we were processed (mug shots
taken
>and finger prints sent to the federal registry) we could sign
>ourselves out. A friend of mine came to get me at 8:00 am and
was
>told I would be released by noon. By 2:00 she was told I had
been
>"lost" and might not be "found" or released
until
Monday. When she
>offered $100 cash at 4:00 (despite the fact that we had been told
>explicitly numerous times that we did not require bail money) I was
>"found" and released. Only because a cell phone had
been smuggled
>into my cell block was I able to contact this friend or to hear the
>news that they were suddenly and inexplicably requiring $100 bail
to
>release us. The police allowed no one to call friends and
family to
>arrange this payment. We were all told that if we got
arrested
again
>within 24 hours of signing our bond we would be charged with a
>FELONY. Waiting parents and friends were told that if we SO
MUCH AS
>SHOWED UP AGAIN AT ANOTHER RALLY we would be charged with a felony.
>This, of course, cannot be right. But this is the mood of
Ashcroft's
>America.
>
>The average age of the arrestees as far as I could tell was between
>17-25. No one I met had ever been arrested before or had had any
>intention of being arrested for civil disobedience Thursday night.
>At least 3 women that I met were tourists that had gotten trapped
in
>the crowd. This fact was explained both by the women
themselves
and
>many of the protesters but they were treated no differently and as
>far as I know held for the same amount of time as the rest of us.
>While some the cops were fine, a number threatened us and many
>ridiculed us. They treated us with disdain and disgust and
booked us
>as though we were terrorists under the new Patriot Act and not
>peaceful protesters. It was a miserable and shocking
experience.
>This may have been the most egregious response and it may be that
no
>other peaceful protesters will be trapped and arrested as we were.
>But I recommend if you intend to go to any future protests that you
>make sure you have a number of a lawyer or the ACLU memorized.
I
>would also suggest that you let someone know you are going and that
>if you do not call them upon your return that they should check to
>see if you have been arrested. Those of us that had it worst and
were
>held the longest did not have anyone waiting for us and demanding
our
>release.
>
>All the best,
>Amy Partridge PhD Candidate Performance Studies Northwestern
University
>==================================================================