Unfreedom of speech

Originally posted by skywalker: No surprise here. Mark

Here either. And look at the controversy it is causing because there are people within this very community who would deny a person holding a sign to state their mind with it.
I've been involved in a number of peaceful protests before the day of "penning protesters" came about. There was no violence except from those who opposed the (more peaceful) things we stood for. sheesh.

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by khazadman: yeah,but rokenn,you don't seem to realise that all these things have been done before by presidents(lincoln,wilson,and roosevelt) during wartime,and these measures were always rescinded when the war was over.

Does that make it anymore right? I suppose by that logic the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII was ok and we should fully support the same for Arab-Americans if the Administration decides that is the best thing to do.

Magik:
I have seen many articles over the last few months dealing with many of these issues. From CNN to NPR to O'Reily's No Spin show. The article I quoted was from the AP newswire, which IMO is a fairly good source of news.

Lol all three of those sources are highly biased and have readily apparant agendas and they aint to the right or center [img]smile.gif[/img] O'reily's protest of no spin is like the NRA saying they are not pro-gun. [img]smile.gif[/img] Yes I agree they are good sources of NEWS but it in no way can they be considered unbiased...just for the record [img]smile.gif[/img] You should see what AP newswire looks like before it gets into this country [img]smile.gif[/img] You would be AMAZED what they filter out..strictly for your own good of course [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cerek:
There is a large difference between a peace protest and a bunch of sports fans celebrating a victory (or mourning a defeat). Back in the 80's I took part in many demonstrations and marches and they were all peaceful.

You might want to study up on "mob mentality" It doesnt matter if it is a group of catholic nuns or Hells Angles large groups of people CAN be dangerous. Yes some demonstrations are peaceful unfortunately lately in this country other elements take the opportunity to cause problems...remember Seatle during the WTO meetings? or Washington during the World Bank meetings?? Peaceful protests got ugly because not everyone in them was quite as peaceful as you might like to believe. I still maintain a small town in Pa. can't take that risk with the nations leaders in town. (granted the secret service helps but still...)

Here is another food for thought item:
On one hand we have a person accused of planning to make a 'dirty bomb' on uncorroborated information

Today they found that Mousoui or however you spell it was actually involved in planning the second wave of attacks....this was breaking news this morning. So Im not sure what the "evidence" was. I would also point out that this guy was/is not a citizen if I recall correctly and is considered a priosoner of war? I could be worng on that.

On the other we have a Florida doctor caught with a huge cache of weapons, bombs, anti-personal mines, and detailed attack plans for attacking local Muslim buildings.

One had full access to the legal system from the day he was detained, the other did not. One was armed to the teeth, the other was not. One was captured based on 'secret evidence', the other by police responding to a domestic disturbance call. One is Muslim, the other is not.

Can I ask what you have against the idea that the US government cannot release any and all its sources of information? Do you have any idea what is involved with national security and intelligence services? I will also point out that certain people in the judicial branch have been shown the "secret evidence" and have upheld the governments position. Just because you (not you specificly just you in a general sense [img]smile.gif[/img] ) are an American Citizen does not entitle you to access to all the nations secrets, sources or methods. Try and look at it from an operational stand point too. Im not saying you are wrong to be suspicious but it really looks like you don't really know how some things work. It isn't too surprising though because really most people are never involved in national security so have no reason to understand it...but you have to trust the system of checks and balances to work or you cannot have a nation

Remember the second greatest act of domestic terrorism was perpetrated by an ex-military white christian.

Seriously ... I am missing who you are...oops McVeigh? Yeah there is a lot there I dont understand...and I dont think we all know the whole story on that....Good point!

I guess my main point here is that if we focus so hard on denying rights to or subjugating certain ethnic/religious groups to special measures we do two things. We alienate people within those communities that may have valuable information and two we will miss the guy coming from the other direction with a truck bomb and a van full of weapons.

Again you make some valid points, however comma if 99 out of 100 robberies are caused by guys wearing red hats, you would be a damn fool not to profile guys wearing red hats...that is just a plain fact of life...and if you are a guy who wears a red hat and are innocent, then you should be intelligent enough to work with the system and understand why your red hat draws attention.

I like your posts, they are clear and concise [img]smile.gif[/img] I just disagree with your stance on a lot of things, that and I do like to point out the other side.

Pax.[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Moni: quote: Originally posted by skywalker: No surprise here. Mark

Here either. And look at the controversy it is causing because there are people within this very community who would deny a person holding a sign to state their mind with it.
I've been involved in a number of peaceful protests before the day of "penning protesters" came about. There was no violence except from those who opposed the (more peaceful) things we stood for. sheesh.[/QUOTE]It really doesnt matter if it is the "peacful protesters" or the opposition that that group brings out that starts the violence, the local police force has to deal with the results, and if 3000 people get mixed up with 2000 nasty mean violent people all over the town they cannot handle the load...they have to work with what they have and make procedures for what they can handle. It is NOTHING new to have designated places for protesters. Do you think any of the Anti-Clinton mob got onto the National Mall when he was out and about? Not a chance..and even then there were snipers on the roofs. (Until Clinton was in office you never saw them...they were there but not visible, in his second term, you started to see them *sigh*)

All Im trying to say is that you can't lay this on the current administration or the last one, crowd control has been around for decades and just because one loudmouth got into the papers doesnt mean any thing new has happened.

[ 09-06-2002, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Attalus]

Also, why are all these activities by the government on monitoring groups, etc., construed as denying or forbidding them? The second amendment says that you may say what you like, but not that you can do it anywhere that you please.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK: Lol all three of those sources are highly biased and have readily apparant agendas and they aint to the right or center O'reily's protest of no spin is like the NRA saying they are not pro-gun. Yes I agree they are good sources of NEWS but it in no way can they be considered unbiased...just for the record You should see what AP newswire looks like before it gets into this country You would be AMAZED what they filter out..strictly for your own good of course I like your posts, they are clear and concise [img]smile.gif[/img] I just disagree with your stance on a lot of things, that and I do like to point out the other side. Pax.

Knowing the bias's of your news sources is half the battle Also listening for is not being said is important as well. I have a feeling you will flame this but I am going to say it anyways [img]smile.gif[/img] A great primer on dissecting news is Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" It is a bit dated but still relevant, imo. Another more recent work is David Brin's "The Transparent Society", I would love to hear your thoughts on that book Magik.

I enjoy your posts as well Magik, even if I only agree with ya about 10% of the time [img]smile.gif[/img] I can always count on you, Morgan_Corbesant, and khazadman to disagree with me [img]tongue.gif[/img]

ps had to edit out your smiles as they put the post over the limit.

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by Attalus: ...The second amendment says that you may say what you like, but not that you can do it anywhere that you please.

Good point! It could only take one loud mouth, unruly person to ignite the burning fire within the entire group of protestors..turning them into a killing mob.

[Lox]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Lox: When they came for the Afghans, I didn't say anything. When they came for the Yemenis, I didn't say anything. When they came for the Syrians, I didn't say anything. When they came for the Palestinians, I didn't say anything. When they came for the Saudis, I didn't say anything. When they came for the Koreans, I didn't say anything. When they came for the Columbians, I didn't say anything. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.

errr don't you think this is being a bit paranoid? As I said, Hickvill Pa. (I grew up in PA) doesnt have a troop of police to ensure security and safety for a crowd of 3000, it is not uncommon to limit areas for protestors, for everyones safety and sake.

Oh and by the way Lox..are you sure you want to side with some of those governments? having witnessed only some of them up close, I am convinced that the world would be a much much safer place if they just suddenly disappeared.[/QUOTE]I don't think I'm being paranoid. Rokken makes a good point about the American Internment camps in the northwest during WWII. Thank goodness we came to our senses. And I'm not siding with the governments. Maybe I should have ended each of the groups with -Americans. I picked those nationalities because thats who Bush wants us to hate the most right now. I could have included Blacks, Gays, Left-Handed people or Soccer fans, but I didn't want to seem too flippant.

This discussion of the erosion of rights reminds me of the millions of dollars of private property that is confiscated by the (US) government in drug cases. When someone is suspected (I suppose they have to be charged, but I don't think they have to be indicted) of a drug offense, the government can seize their assets - cars, house, etc. This is before they are found guilty. I don't have the time right now to go out and find the details of this, but I will on Monday (no internet at home right now ) I saw a Dateline or 48 Hrs or some network tv news show on this and they had people on there that were exonerated that still could not get their property back.

I worry whenever the government wants to restrict rights/freedoms even a little bit. They don't seem like much one at a time, but after a while, it adds up.

Kaltia:
I'm not sure of the origin of the quote, but it definitely wasn't a Lox original. [img]smile.gif[/img] I recently heard a version of it during the opening act of a They Might Be Giants show. A Jewish folk singer/stand-up comedian sang a song called "I had to give up my freedom to protect my liberty," and he introduced the song with the same kind of quote.

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Moni: quote: Originally posted by skywalker: No surprise here. Mark

Here either. And look at the controversy it is causing because there are people within this very community who would deny a person holding a sign to state their mind with it.
I've been involved in a number of peaceful protests before the day of "penning protesters" came about. There was no violence except from those who opposed the (more peaceful) things we stood for. sheesh.[/QUOTE]It really doesnt matter if it is the "peacful protesters" or the opposition that that group brings out that starts the violence, the local police force has to deal with the results, and if 3000 people get mixed up with 2000 nasty mean violent people all over the town they cannot handle the load...they have to work with what they have and make procedures for what they can handle. It is NOTHING new to have designated places for protesters. Do you think any of the Anti-Clinton mob got onto the National Mall when he was out and about? Not a chance..and even then there were snipers on the roofs. (Until Clinton was in office you never saw them...they were there but not visible, in his second term, you started to see them *sigh*)

All Im trying to say is that you can't lay this on the current administration or the last one, crowd control has been around for decades and just because one loudmouth got into the papers doesnt mean any thing new has happened.[/QUOTE]Well forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't you just lay a little blame on the Clinton admin for stuff to *sigh* over? Who exactly was it that we didn't see until his second term anyway?

You wouldn't see me involved in in any protests, peaceful or otherwise these days. Our current government makes speaking your mind a dangerous option and it is only going to get worse.

An old man holding a sign is hardly a group of thousands lol.
But then again, look what happened in Oregon recently with anti-Bush protesters.
No need for me to say anymore, esp when you can't force the seeing public to remove the blinders they so willingly wear.

[ 09-06-2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Moni ]

Originally posted by Lox: I don't think I'm being paranoid. Rokken makes a good point about the American Internment camps in the northwest during WWII. Thank goodness we came to our senses. And I'm not siding with the governments. Maybe I should have ended each of the groups with -Americans. I picked those nationalities because thats who Bush wants us to hate the most right now. I could have included Blacks, Gays, Left-Handed people or Soccer fans, but I didn't want to seem too flippant. Ok I see. Well I realize Bush enumerated this list in his "Axis of Evil" speach but what gets forgotten is that he didn't make the list. That list has been on a list of Baaaad people for a long time. This discussion of the erosion of rights reminds me of the millions of dollars of private property that is confiscated by the (US) government in drug cases. When someone is suspected (I suppose they have to be charged, but I don't think they have to be indicted) of a drug offense, the government can seize their assets - cars, house, etc. This is before they are found guilty. I don't have the time right now to go out and find the details of this, but I will on Monday (no internet at home right now ) I saw a Dateline or 48 Hrs or some network tv news show on this and they had people on there that were exonerated that still could not get their property back. I worry whenever the government wants to restrict rights/freedoms even a little bit. They don't seem like much one at a time, but after a while, it adds up. I agree with you 100% on this one. The seizure of property before guilt has been established has been especially abused and seems on the surface to be horrible, but we aren't talking about people like your grandmother or you or me. These guys come under suspicion and under fire for good reason. Be that as it may though, if they are not convicted they should not be suffering penalties.....UNLESS it turns out the property in question is stolen, illegal or in some other manner proven to be illicit in nature. So many of the "details" get left off the front two or three pages of the story and are burried deep in the text and so don't get noticed. I understand NY. FL. TX. and Ca. are especially bad about this particular seizure tactic.

Originally posted by Moni: [/qb]

Well forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't you just lay a little blame on the Clinton admin for stuff to *sigh* over? Who exactly was it that we didn't see until his second term anyway?

You wouldn't see me involved in in any protests, peaceful or otherwise these days. Our current government makes speaking your mind a dangerous option and it is only going to get worse.

An old man holding a sign is hardly a group of thousands lol.
But then again, look what happened in Oregon recently with anti-Bush protesters.
No need for me to say anymore, esp when you can't force the seeing public to remove the blinders they so willingly wear.[/QUOTE]

I only brought the previous administration up as an illustrative point, that ALL recent presidents have had protesters kept at a distance. I was not indicting Clinton of any wrong doing in my post.

As for your comments about it being "dangerous" to speak your mind, you can't show me a single person who has been imprisoned just for peacefully speaking his/her mind. By THIS administration or any other since the 1960's. You are just putting out a baseless accusation in this case.

The old man you speak of was a single person, but his sister and he were part of if not affiliated with the "PROTESTERS" in this small town in Pennsylvania.

As for my blinders, if you would give me the name of one innocent protester who did nothing but spoke his mind (in keeping with pre-existing local ordinances) and then was jailed, tortured or abused by the Bush administration, I will be happy to talk to the fellow and hear what he has to say. But I have seen you several times accuse the Bush administration of making it dangerous for you to speak.....and yet, there is no evidence that it is true. Im sorry if Im upsetting you with my disagreement but I refuse to base my position on unfounded fears.

I hope you do continue to post, I guess I cannot allay your fears, just as you cannot sway me into fearing them with you, untill I see some evidence.
But you do bring a unique point of view to the discussions and I even agree with you some times [img]smile.gif[/img] and that has to be worth some satisfaction?? or maybe not