Peace Protestors, more screaming fits

[Drizzt]

Just to let you know, yes we did a coutner-protest here today against the anarchists and socialists. We were very peaceful and polite. We did not infringe on their right to say what they felt. We did not disrupt their gathering. We simply wanted to make sure that it was known that theirs was not the only viewpoint held in this city.

Now, were we accorded the same respect? NO! Even though the APD had requested that we stay on one side of the street, while the protest was happening on the other side, the anarchists sent a group over to insult us, steal our signs, and generally try their best to provoke a confrontation. We knew they wanted a confrontation, so that could get on the news and tell everyone how the 'right-wingers' were trying to deny them their rights, so we stayed peaceful. I just find it rather ironic that the 'peace' protesters were so filled with hate. A couple of us came close to losing it when they were making physical threats towards some of the females in the group, but we took the high road.

 

[SIGarmed]

The America haters have a right to do and say whatever they want in this country. They also have a right to feel the wrath of the American citizen. It's a two way street. If they want to play they're going to have to pay.

Drizzt I suggest when you do these things that you designate a couple of people to video tape the proceedings. If the bedwetters do some damage you can present it to the law. That way they can't escape.

 

[coylh]

These anarchists aren't peace protesters--in fact they're quite violent. The same thing happened at the WTO protests in Seattle (1). These guys are parasite protesters who show up to co-opt the media attention. I second the video taping suggest pepper spray when appropriate.


---
1. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/12/02/riots/index.html

 

[Drizzt]

Don't worry. Rule #1 was bring cameras. Lots of cameras. From what I've seen on the news so far tonight, no matter how it got edited, we still looked like the rational ones.

 

[AZLibertarian]

ceetee

...In my opinion, George W. Bush comitted treason of the highest order when he lied to Congress. For what it's worth, Congress never gave him the authority to attack anybody. Congress did give him the authority to ask for a UN resolution....

I was the one who first brought up treason here. I don't apologize for believing that encouraging our military to disobey the lawful orders of their superiors is bordering on treasonous. If you'd followed the link I provided earlier, you would have seen that it is titled: AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.

Inside this link you'll find the following:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

One is entitled to a belief that the War was wrong. However, Congress did authorize every bit of what we're doing. Congress--by voting on this resolution--said that we're done with playing patsy with Saddam through UN sanctions. There is another thread here where the "Bush Lied" theme is being discussed. My view: To accuse someone of lying, you'll have to show that he knew the truth, but actively chose to tell differently. I think the best that has gone on here regarding the Bush view on WMDs is that he (along with much of the world) was incorrect, but he didn't lie.

 

[RoyG]

Thousands protest war

Police reported one arrest. Rann Bar-On, a speaker at the rally and an Israeli activist who runs the International Solidarity Movement in Durham, was charged with resisting a police officer. Police said Bar-On jumped the fence at Rowan Park and was headed toward counterdemonstrators across the street when they stopped him. He was released after he was processed by a magistrate.

 

[RoyG]

Counterdemonstrators send message to troops

Counterdemonstrator Kurt Moore of Stedman waves a U.S. flag in protest of a gathering of anti-war protesters in Rowan Park on Saturday.

 

[RevDisk]

Protesters have a right to say whatever they wish to say. I've seen left and right wing nutballs at rallies. My city has a Klan march every once in a while. Hardly what I would call "left wing antigun loonies", yet I consider them rather evil folks myself. Just my opinion.

Each side has their fair share of loonies. Some want to cause harm.

I saw raw uneditted footage of the FTAA. Some of it made me sick to my stomach. I won't say what my fellow soldiers and I wanted to do to the "police", but it wasn't pretty. Macing a young girl that's already ziptied is not nice. Nor is throwing a CS canister near a girl disabled by a less lethal round. I saw footage of a young protester run up to toss the CS canister away from the girl on the ground, while being shot at with a heavy volume of less lethal munitions, and drag the girl off the street. I doubt I'd have the courage to do so without covering fire from at least a squad of infantry.

Some protesters dislike the entire military. Some protesters support the troops, but not the leadership. Others support the troops and leadership.

I won't comment on my opinions regarding the Iraqi War. I will comment that I support anyone's right to protest as long as they remain civil. I've been to one protest rally in my life. A friend asked me to help out because she knew I was a trained medic. It remained rather peaceful. I thought the chants and signs lacked creativity, but to each their own. Mostly I reminded everyone to drink water because it was a hot day. I bandaged up a couple scrapes from everyday accidents, removed a few splinters.

The most trouble I got was from a policeman who informed me that protesters are not supposed to have gas masks on them. (I had one in a bag on my hip.) I showed him my military ID and stared at him until he went away. (I had a red cross on my left shoulder, my military ID on my right.) None of the protesters gave me any grief even though I imagine they knew I was military.


I swore to defend the Constitution and the country, not a political party or any specific political ideology besides the Constitution. As for the comment that people shouldn't protest because it'd show the nation being divided, bull feathers! It shows we're a better country. It shows that we have a Constitution, that our government derives its power from the people. As the military's feelings being hurt by protesters, most soldiers don't care. Most disagree with the protesters on some or all points, but none of us are crying a river over it either.

 

[landon74]

I believe you should go to a protest and support whatever side of the fence that you're on. That being said, I think the vast majority of 'support our troops' folks are busy holding down a 40 hour a week job. Not that it's at all scientific or anything but look for the number of yellow ribbons on vehicles the next time you're driving, around here they're everywhere. I think that the 'silent majority' is behind our armed forces 100%. Just my 2 cents.

 

[RevDisk]

I believe you should go to a protest and support whatever side of the fence that you're on. That being said, I think the vast majority of 'support our troops' folks are busy holding down a 40 hour a week job. Not that it's at all scientific or anything but look for the number of yellow ribbons on vehicles the next time you're driving, around here they're everywhere. I think that the 'silent majority' is behind our armed forces 100%. Just my 2 cents.

I notice a lot of those "Support our troops" stickers. Ironically, most of them that I've seen in stores are made in communist China. I've seen two support stickers for the Iraqi War.

It does make me wonder. Do most of the people support the war and the troops, or just the troops?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Supporting the troops (as in praying they all come home safely and intact, as soon as possible) is not the same as supporting the decision to send them where they are.

Coy is correct -- this country IS divided on the issue, almost right down the middle. Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling him/herself. Trying to counter a legitimate expression of freedom of speech (which is protected by the Constitution) is unseemly, foolish, and seeking to provoke confrontation when what is called for is open dialogue.

By all means, if you wish to stage a counter demonstration on the other side of the city, or the other side of the park ... go ahead. But using air horns to try to disrupt the other side's speakers is nothing short of ignorant. It suggests very strongly that you have nothing meaningful to contribute, but you're for damn sure not about to let anyone else say something you don't want to hear.

Very low road. Kudos to those who countered in a peaceful manner, allowing the idiots among the protesters to show their true colors.

And where's the law saying protesters (on either side) can't carry gas masks?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Don't worry. Rule #1 was bring cameras. Lots of cameras. From what I've seen on the news so far tonight, no matter how it got edited, we still looked like the rational ones.

Well done.

 

[RevDisk]

Coy is correct -- this country IS divided on the issue, almost right down the middle. Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling him/herself. Trying to counter a legitimate expression of freedom of speech (which is protected by the Constitution) is unseemly, foolish, and seeking to provoke confrontation when what is called for is open dialogue.

By all means, if you wish to stage a counter demonstration on the other side of the city, or the other side of the park ... go ahead. But using air horns to try to disrupt the other side's speakers is nothing short of ignorant. It suggests very strongly that you have nothing meaningful to contribute, but you're for damn sure not about to let anyone else say something you don't want to hear.

Very low road. Kudos to those who countered in a peaceful manner, allowing the idiots among the protesters to show their true colors.

Idiots of any ideology show their stripes when they open their mouth. Best to let them show themselves for their true nature. Sinking to their level does no one any good.

I don't understand why people want to actively censor opposition. It usually is counterproductive. It's also contrary to the entire Constitution and democracy thing.

And where's the law saying protesters (on either side) can't carry gas masks?

Not sure if there is a law or not on the subject. I didn't want to argue with the police officer. I simply stared at him because I didn't want to cause trouble. At the same time, I wasn't handing over my gas mask. One, I might have needed it if the tear gas started flying. Two, I bought it with my own cash. I'll be damned if I turn over anything of mine without a receipt and the officer's name/number.

While Search and Seizure laws may be legal, I view most of them as immoral. If he had pressed the issue, I would have made a stink about it. I'd have it videotaped, and splash it across the news as much as possible. I'd never actively resist a cop, but I have no qualms shaming them into ethical behavor. (Seizing equipment from a medic is unethical and kinda stupid, they're the last kind of people you want to annoy. You might end up needing them.)

I gave sealed bottled water to the cops and warned them about dehydration. My usual gimick to get people to stay hydrated is to show them the IV needle used, and meantion I'm not good with sticking folks. (Not that I'd stick someone without permission, it's just a good psychological reminder.) I have nothing against the cops, I realize they have a job to do.

From what I understand, during the Seattle protests, the police banned anyone from possessing, using, buying, or selling gas masks. Similiar bans have taken place and have been enforced by police at larger protests. As gas masks are protective devices, that's like banning safety glasses or HEPA air filters for buildings. Even if it is legal for the police to do so, which I'm not sure of, I don't think it's a very good idea. I think it'd be legal if martial law was declared.

 

[grampster]

I really liked Revdisk's comments. I was cleaning my Walther P99 while reading these comments. (gun connected)

What I think bothers me the most about folks who are very loudly opinionated (including me, from time to time) is if those opinions are formed without grasping the entire picture. It's pretty hard to find that picture sometime, so that is why one should keep one's trap shut till the research is done.

In my time, up to and including today, I have seen and heard many who have protested the actions taken by our government on our collective behalf for a variety of reasons. I have noticed that not too many of those folks were well acquainted with or interested in the facts.

Having said that, I have also noticed blind fealty to the status quo as well.

So to say that "protesting" is a mark of how our Constitutional Republic is strong is only partly correct. It has been the shedding of blood down through the last couple of centuries that has granted and ratified that freedom to protest and wrap oneself in the Constitutional blanket. To be proud of the fact that one may shoot off one's mouth about a thing using only urban legend, or what "they" say, or what you "think" etc is to disabuse those who have shed that blood to ratify ones right to take an uneducated stand either for or against a thing. Far better for us to use the system that was granted to us by blood and Constitutional ratification than to take to the streets like the rabble in the 3rd world. In my opinion that type of protest does hurt our nation and put our men and women under arms in greater danger.

This idea of marching in the streets; protesting; civil disobedience et all, takes away from the real work of getting patriots to step forward and do the people's work the right way. Perhaps since we in this way seem to glorify anarchy, which came out of the 60's, over following the steps set down by our Founders in blood, and ratified during the Civil War with more blood, is why we have such small men and women holding public office today.

Problem is it will take maybe 25 years to turn this around the right way and we Americans are so used to instant gratification that I fear it may never happen. In some ways I am glad I am in my 60's. In other ways I am sad I am not in my 20's and know what I know now.

grampster

 

[Missourigunner]

Having served in Vietnam during the 60's, I personally have not much use for the so called "Peace Protestors" and their agenda, however, this being America, they have the right under our Constitution to speak out as they desire, As for the War in Iraq, I support our Troops and our Leadership, the only question that I have is How long will we be there? If we must protest the protestors, keep it peaceful. Remember Chicago in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention?

 

[GoRon]

All of this was done by an enemy of Saddam. 9/11 and Iraw aren't related.

Once again the shortsighted isolationist voice cries out. :banghead:

The enemies of the United States are Islamofascists that are in ALL of the middle east countries. Without a change in the region there will be no victory against the Bin Ladens of the world.

I think the anti war in Iraq crowd fall into two camps, the ignorant of world affairs and the willingly ignorant of world affairs.

Let the anti-war crowd demonstrate and speak all they want. The more the country is exposed to their empty rhetoric the better.

It seems our country has a built in group of appeasers who think the tyrants of the world can be persuaded by their utopion ideas of "can't we all just get along"

Trying to compartmentalize Iraq from 9/11 and the geopolitics of the whole region is in my opinion willfull ignorance of the reality of what we are up against.

You are also kidding yourself saying "I support the troops" when you speak despairingly of their mission.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Trying to compartmentalize Iraq from 9/11 and the geopolitics of the whole region is in my opinion willfull ignorance of the reality of what we are up against.

So, it doesn't matter that Iraq had no knowledge of the attack, did nothing to aid the attack, and happened to be run buy the most secular guy in the region who was hated by OBL about as much as we were, right?

One muslim arab attacked us, so our outlook and reaction needs to be on all arab and muslim nations, or at least those in the middle east?

Just trying to make sure I understand you.

You are also kidding yourself saying "I support the troops" when you speak despairingly of their mission.

I don't think you've ever heard me say I "support the troops." If I did, I might make the counter-argument that the best thing we can do for them is make them a smaller target -- the fewer US deaths in support of this mission, the better.

If we leave, and the country goes to hell in a civil war that ends up with anti-US types in control, then every US life lost in this "mission" was wasted.

The thing that gets me is we went to war with the promise that our leaders had secret evidence that they couldn't share that showed that Saddam had NBC weapons and intended to use them against us -- we were told to trust our leaders, and that the evidence would be forthcoming.

Now, it's an "oops -- I guess we were wrong" message, with some diversionary statements about bringing freedom to Iraq, and getting rid of an evil dictator, and some other feel good crap. I didn't like the whole "we can invade the sovereignty of another nation using secret evidence" precident, and I still feel this will come back to haunt us with China/Taiwan. I don't think the administration should be let off the hook on this one. They were wrong, thousands have died because of it (though we don't worry about most of them as they weren't born American), and a huge amount of international goodwill from a sympathetic response to 9/11 is gone. I'm not the protesting type, but I think people have a right to protest.

 

[GoRon]

One muslim arab attacked us, so our outlook and reaction needs to be on all arab and muslim nations, or at least those in the middle east?

Just the oposite Derek, the vast majority of the arab/muslim people are living under totalitarian regimes that let the terrorists operate without impunity. They allow and participate in propaganda against the US and the west in general.

Allowing freedom and some form of representitive government to take root will allow the muslim/arab people to have their say as to whether they want to align themselves with our enemies. I am betting they are NO different than us and will vote for moderate governments that will foster working relationships with the free world. Having a say in their destiny and opening up to the benifits of the modern world will make them less likely to want to kill us.

As long as we look the other way while the muslim/arab street is opressed we will be villified as part of the problem. We (the west) have propped up and legitimized their oppressors.

Just trying to make sure I understand you

Look up my posts on this subject and you will see that I have expressed faith in the people of that region that if given the opportunity to be free, they would exercise it (freedom) responsibly.

That doesn't mean they will always do things the way we would want. They may vote for people we don't like. They may not even particularly like us. But a free people will have a CHOICE as to whether they want to be our enemy. Then they will be responsible for those choices they make.

I think people have a right to protest.

You and they can protest all you want. So can the people of Iraq and Afghanistan now thanks to the work of our troops.

Now the often feared "arab street" in Lebanon is emboldened and that is an outworking of the wiff of freedom in the air provided by the United States and its allies.

 

[Rico567]

I agree with all the people on this thread that have said, in effect, that no matter what you think of the protests, or the protesters, the right to do this in a peaceful manner goes to the heart of our system. First, we are in a definite minority of countries that have this wonderful institution. Second, this right is firmly fixed in the First Amendment. Some of you may remember that one, it comes right before the Second Amendment. And, ultimately, ALL of the amendments protect us a whole lot less from treason than from a tyrannical government. Fine. Let the protesters protest. If you want to go out and do a counter-protest, go for it. But quit talking about treason. Treason has a specific definition in the Constitution, and there's a reason for that. Treason used to be a label that was hung on anyone the privileged and the powerful wanted to swing at the end of a rope, and that is why treason is defined as giving aid or comfort to enemies of the United States, AND there must be two witnesses to an overt act of treason. What some on this thread have been calling near-treason is not a definable or enforceable offense. What some would call an overt act of treason will just be called the exercise of freedom of speech in court. And since no one can demonstrate otherwise, to continue to point fingers and assert that someone is a (near) traitor is a waste of time.

{Note: I support our troops and their mission in Iraq, and the right to protest that. If that results in someone's inability to understand how such a contradiction could occur, I'm hardly responsible for that.....and it's not treason. Or near-treason, whatever that is.)

 

[ceetee]

For AZLibertarian:

You skipped over this part:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(emphasis mine)

And you also forgot this part:

2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

As I said, Congress gave Bush a strictly limited task to carry out, and nowhere in that document does it give him the right to invade a sovereign nation with the intention of toppling a legal, recognized regime. That said regime is despotic and deserves to be toppled matters not a whit.

Keeping on topic, there are plenty of good, honest folks who are every bit in support our troops, and have no faith that our current leaders are acting in the best interests of we, the people.

 

[GoRon]

Ceetee

From an admittedly quick read of the resolution it seems you missed the obvious fact that they AUTHORIZED the use of force and supported a diplomatic approach.

It doesn't appear that the authorization was contingent on some diplomatic outcome.

 

[ceetee]

Here's where it gets all muddled up. These things should really be written in plain verbiage, without all the "whereas's".

Congress authorized Bush to:

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Now right there, it says that he is only allowed to enforce the U.N. resolutions, and defend our national security. Show me one U.N. resolution that says "Saddam has 24 hours to get out of Iraq". (One of Bush's reasons for attacking, if you remember.) We already know that we were in absolutely no danger of being attacked by Iraq. We know this. So where's your justification for the invasion?

Yes, force was authorized, but only as a way to enforce existing U.N. resolutions.

 

[AZLibertarian]

ceetee

...it says that he is only allowed to enforce the U.N. resolutions, and defend our national security. Show me one U.N. resolution that says "Saddam has 24 hours to get out of Iraq". ...

There isn't one. The Congress didn't cede our national security interests to the UN. The resolution gave the President the authorization to use our military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate", not the UN (emphasis added). The Congress gave the President the means to set the conditions of Saddam's exit, and to determine when it was time to use force to enforce the many UN resolutions.

Regarding...

We already know that we were in absolutely no danger of being attacked by Iraq.

I don't agree that we were in "absolutely no danger". Iraq had made a habit of shooting at our planes, he'd made an attempt at our President's life, and there was a widely-held view that Saddam was likely to seek WMDs (if he didn't already have them). In the days after 9/11, to ignore Saddam until he'd either directly or through terrorist surrogates, hit us with a WMD would have been irresponsible. Remember--President Bush was being criticized at the time for the intelligence failures related to why we didn't pick up the 9/11 plotters before their attack. He acted preemptively to prevent Saddam from hurting us badly.

 

[ceetee]

"As he determines necessary and appropriate" for what? To what end? It's right there in that same section. "Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Not a blank checkbook. Not carte blanche to do anything he wants to.

By your logic, our nation is in iminent danger of attack from dozens of directions out there... do we attack them all? Or one at a time? What do we do when the time comes to attack Korea and China? Or Panama? Or Venezuela? Or the Phillipines? The list is almost endless.

Or do we only attack the weak, that we know we can kick he crap out of? Remember, everybody likes the guy in the white hat, but nobody likes a bully.

Getting back on topic, it's ideas just like this one that deserve to be protested. And the best thing about being an American is that you have the right, the duty, and the obligation to speak your mind, and nobody can come and put you in the Gulag for it.

 

[max popenker]

The enemies of the United States are Islamofascists that are in ALL of the middle east countries.

Well, about 20 years ago they were "freedom fighters", weren't they? When the same Bin Laden and his Al'Quaeda fought against the "evil empire" of USSR, they were natural allies of US. Raised by US, trained by US, armed by US...

Now, they turned agains US and suddenly became "Islamofascists"... Isn't it ironic?

And, still - where's the long promised Iraqui nukes and other WMD's, the official "casus belli"?