"I'm not really aware of cities being able to suspend the constitution."

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

That's what a lawyer said (CBS news tonight, filmed in Seattle streets), after being removed from a "mass arrest" she was trying to observe for legal purposes.

A handcuffed woman sitting in a group of prisoners on the street said, "We were arrested for trespassing -- on a public street!"

Well, you know what they say.

Practice makes perfect.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 01, 1999

Answers

scary
It's coming

-- just 30 days left (normal@life.vanish), December 01, 1999.

Ron,

I saw that too! I sent a very strong e-mail to the Mayor of Seattle, all the City Council members, and the SeattleTimes newspaper.

"Who trained your troops - Hitler?"

Deb M.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), December 01, 1999.


Ron,

Geez, I know you're concerned over those poor demonstators, but what about the kids working at Starbucks, who now have no job and no money for Christmas? My daughter who lost 2 days of work due to lock-downs of buildings, the mom who has filthly words spray-painted on her car and finally, we taxpayers, who have to pay for police overtime and street cleaning and window replacement?

The cops warned over and over that the perps be arrested if they continued to obstruct traffic and they were, 'cuz they wanted to be arrested.

It's not the beginning of anything, it's just what happens when you break laws that we-the-people elected representitives to pass and hired public servents to enforce.

Next week, no looters and punks (oops, demonstators) = no National Guard, no loss of liberties, business as usual.

What would you do if you ran the Zoo? Who's rights come first, the property owner, the worker who looses money or the "demonstrator who wants to yell obscenities around children? Explain why we, who live here should have to put up with this crap?

-- Randers (coyotecanyon@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.


I didn't think the lawyer lady looked like a rioter, and the people behind her in the "mass arrest" looked like old hippies, not the blackshirt rioters I've read about.

As to "laws", last I heard, it wasn't a question of *laws* being broken, but decrees, issued by fiat, banning people from public streets.

As to your daughter's problem with rioters, sorry, I don't have a dog in that fight, nor do I accept that two wrongs make a right.

I *do* take issue with the sentiment that welcomes an exchange of freedom for "order".

From everything I've seen today on da toob, the police went for the easy, soft targets -- not rioters, not vandals, not thieves. Just "embarassments" to Our Glorious Leader.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 01, 1999.


Randers:

"It's not the beginning of anything, it's just what happens when you break laws that we-the-people elected representitives to pass and hired public servents to enforce...Next week, no looters and punks (oops, demonstators) = no National Guard, no loss of liberties, business as usual...What would you do if you ran the Zoo? Who's rights come first, the property owner, the worker who looses money or the "demonstrator who wants to yell obscenities around children? Explain why we, who live here should have to put up with this crap?

I don't know about you, but up in Canada, we have what we often call a "democratic tyranny"--we elect 'em every 4-5 years, and they do whatever they want to during their tenure. If you have a problem, and take it before the elected official, you're often ignored or derided.

When your gov't does not represent you, shouldn't you have the ability and RIGHT to stand up and be heard?

Have you forgotten YOUR Boston Tea Party?

Have you forgotten YOUR famous "no taxation without representation"?

What--in your personal opinion--was YOUR war of independence all about?

GET A GRIP.

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), December 01, 1999.



The question stands.

What would you do. Who's rights get defended, the property owner, the worker, or the paid protestors? There's a lot of investment in this one four-week period by retailers. Many will be broken by the loss of business, many will miss car payments, rent payments, tuition...

It's not trading freedom for security. WE decide on laws for the greater good.

You decide Ron, who looses?

-- Randers (coyotecanyon@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.


Ron,

"From everything I've seen today on da toob, the police went for the easy, soft targets -- not rioters, not vandals, not thieves. Just "embarassments" to Our Glorious Leader."

EXACTLY!

Kurt,

God Bless you mister! I wish we had a few more just like you...

Wake up people! You have to pick which battles are worth winning, and this is THE ONE!

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), December 01, 1999.


Quoth Randers:

"It's not trading freedom for security. WE decide on laws for the greater good."

Wrong, twinkie. "Laws" had NOTHING to do with it.

Hint, Ms "for the greater good" Randers -- DECREES are *not* LAWS.

Man, you are SCARY!

"You decide Ron, who looses?"

We all lose when enough idiots start thinking like you.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 01, 1999.


NO ONE has the right to act in any manner that injures the public's safety, health or peace or destroys public property. The basic power of government is called the "police powers." This is the power to declare what is injurious or dangerous, to pass laws prohibiting such actions and to enforce those laws. You have a right to free speech, but not to act in an injurious manner under its banner.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. The action of conducting an organized parade to demonstrate en mass in a city is ususally considered an action that is potentially dangerous or injurious to the public peace, health or safety. As such, it may be prohibited. However, you may acquire a permit to conditionally conduct such an activity. The conditions would be directly related to mitigating the perceived danger or injury and would be proportional to that perceived danger. The activity that is prohibited/regulated is not the speaking itself or the content, but the manner and context under which that speech is conducted.

If you act in such a way as to injure my safety, health, peace or property, I may also bring a suit against you. If it looks like an anticipated action of yours will injure my safety, health, peace or property, I may sue for an injunction to prevent you from engaging in the action. Likewise, the D.A. may obtain an injunction.

-- anon (anon@anon.calm), December 01, 1999.


Ron, personal insults now?

Look, it's pretty simple, who's "rights" do you defend?

Say I'm a small shop owner and I spent every last dollar to bring in Christmas goods for sale. Now, every day we allow the demonstrations is another day I literally cannot feed my family.

Who's rights, mine or theirs?

-- Randers (coyotecanyo@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.



Mine.

I'm having a hard time grasping the mentality that makes excuses for armored riot police to beat the **** out of a bunch of aging hippies, who were *clearly* not the blackshirt thugs doing the looting.

Look, back in '68, we had Daley's thugs beating the **** out of a bunch of *young* hippies, because they were an embarassment to Herbie Humpfrey. Now, we have it happen because they're an embarassment to Slick Willie.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Back then, people chanted "the whole world is watching", to shame their attackers.

The one thing that's changed is that now the fist comes down *because* the whole world is watching.

The Prime Directive is that Bill Clinton Shall Not Be Embarassed, and it doesn't matter how many heads of people *just walking down the damn street minding their own business* are cracked in the process.

If you'll excuse me for a moment, I think it's time for me to wander away from this nonsense shaking my head in disbelief.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 01, 1999.


Mr. Randers, it is our RIGHTS that are being taken away. Our rights are RIGHTS and not privileges to be given and taken away by the whims of our bureaucratic elected officials. Our country was started by people protesting against abuses by the British. All this ABUSE, O"EXCUSE ME MR. RANDERS, by arrests are the police protecting their Lords and Ladies who run the world, "WTO", and all their global rich elite cooperations. Freedom of Speech is the most precious when we are suffering of some abuse by those who try to control us and the only thing is left is to open our mouth to address our grievences.

-- Kayla (kaylam@jetcity.com), December 01, 1999.

Randers, can you please explain this statement by your chief of police: The only personnel who can wear gas masks without being arrested are police. Any demonstrators caught wearing gas masks in this declared state of emergency are subject to arrest.

I sympathize with the problem the police have controlling hooligans. But to criminalize citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights for protecting themselves against pepper spray is nothing less than an attempt to squash that most precious right of all: Free Speech.

Regards, Brett.

-- brett (brett45@bigfoot.com), December 01, 1999.


Randers,

I realize that some store owners and employees lost money and I do NOT support riots but it WILL BE YOU who will be paying the innocent people who had their rights trashed when they sue the city and win. And they will win.

Remember, when .gov acts, it is with YOUR authority, and when they screw-up, it's YOU who foots the bill.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), December 01, 1999.


Ok lets play connect the paranoia dots...

We need a disturbance to show what happens when people are bad

It needs to be scary so get me some guys with anarchy symbols and ski masks.

Those guys will break windows and whip up the tree huggers to a frenzy. PS-get some spray paint too.

Then show some real hellish chaos scenes on TV, crowds running amok doing damage, shootem with some rubber bullets etc., after all these guys are CIA, they're used to rubber bullets.

Make sure we get the point accross that the locals are powerless to stop this sort of thing, then get the mayor to ask the gov. for Nat Guard troops.

Then restore some order, and quickly. Arrest anyone you see, even homeless people, I don't give a shit. Arrestem all. Hell outlaw the damn gas masks for gods sake.

This will allow those bastards with no labor rules to see how serious the American people are about labor issues and at the same time let all the sheeple see how nice and good our boys in the NG are at restoring order. God bless America.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.



Good stuff, Ron. This whole thing sucks. Some folks here are getting confused between a legitimate right to protest and the fact that a percentage of the protestors destroyed property. Prosecute those who destroy property, but do not abrogate the Constitution, nor the right of the people to demonstrate whether you agree with their sentiment or not. We live in scary times in which power easily aggregates to a very few hands. How may a counterview of the people be presented? In the media or in the streets. The streets are sometimes the most viable option. Remember the Boston Massacre? (Kind of like Kent State.) I guess these battles often have to be re-fought.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 02, 1999.

This is new ground all right. Up to now in our system of justice, a person is not subject to arrest until he or she is seen committing a criminal act, or when reasonable grounds exist for suspecting that he or she has committed a criminal act.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), December 02, 1999.

Kayla, I've been reading your posts and I'm giving you a electronic pat on the back,good work Girl! (hope i've got the gender right) the peace at any price bunch who are worried about Starbuck closing for a day remind me of the good germans who traded freedom for security and found security wanting,personally I hope the protests will spread and give the corporate pirates the message, No children in wage bondage,No continued distruction of America's industrial output, No more exporting jobs to the detrement of America's workers. No more WTO dictates. no more threats to sovergnity via internationalist bankers who bolt to the 3rd world becuse Americans demand a decent living. We will NOT be corporate dupes.We will not surrender. those of the left and right will join to prevent this takeover.the bodies and ghosts of those who paid the highest price DEMAND it.Kayla bless you and all those who can see past their pocketbooks and the ever increasing demands for more. Steady state will save our world!

-- Merek Mura (merek@aloha.net), December 02, 1999.

To me it is clear cut. The riot police could have easily subdued the handful of rioters while leaving the peaceful protestors alone excersising their constitutional rights. Instead, what I saw on TV and newspapers was the rioter blackmasks doing their misdeeds unhindered by the police, while the police focused on the peaceful protestors.

I am not a conspiracy theorist or paranoid, this is simply black and white case of power abuse.

In yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer's reports of the events, there were a couple of interesting quotes:

"The protestors' success at delaying WTO business angered some delegates. "How is it possible that the world's so-called superpower is unable to control a few protestors?" said Spanish delegate Ramon Tamames. Another astonished delegate, Peru's minister of industry and commerce, Juan Carlos Hurtado, said: "I don't understand why they did not organize better security measures. We knew at least 10 days ago this was going to happen. This meeting is the most important of this century."

Do these statements give anyone a clue as to what the power-that-be of the world think of Democracy?

The article goes on to say: "But some U.S. observers said the massive protests could make it easier for Clinton and Barshefsky. "If enough people are angry about the chaos on the streets, they will push even harder to get a deal done," said Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers."

So Randers, are you angry enough about your daughter losing 2 days at work that you want all of your rights taken away, and let Clinton and global powers decide of your and her future without your say?

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), December 02, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ