http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/10/16/7208813 The article also describes how when contacted about this the SS reported that it was "message-neutral" when dealing with crowds which clearly is not the case if they put only anti-bush people in the enclosures. Its actually common practice for law enforcement to discriminate against anti-government protestors....I remember at the salute to Israel parade last year the pro-israel folks were on one side of the street and the much smaller protest group was on the other and the cops went and took away all the wooden sign-posts from the protestors as having wooden sign posts is against the law in new york(or so they say, haven't looked into it)...after they did this, I noticed across the street that a great many of the salute to israel supporters lining the street had wooden sign posts, but that the police weren't even monitoring their activities, despite the fact that many of them were carrying signs with threatenting messages like "No Arabs=No Terror", and also were screaming and cursing at the protestors. It will be interesting to see how this case turns out. Will the right to peaceably assemble be another constitutional amendment unofficially done away with for those who oppose government policy?
Maybe it is because the "pro people" are less likely to attack or do violence than the "con people". It makes sense, but then so does keeping murderers in jail, but we let them out anyway. Yeah, screw common sense in favor of political correctness, don't want to offend anyone's sensitive feelings.:bugeye:
Did you see what i wrote about the israel parade? so the folks with the peace signs are more likely to get violent than the folks with the "all arabs must die" signs? The idea that anti-war people are more likely to be violent than pro-war people is absurd.
Uh, do you not remember the anti-war protests in the 70s, or their behaviour doing the 1st and 2nd Gulf War? Bunch o' peace lovin' folks they were. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In the 70's there was some violence admittedly, but only from certain groups(like the weathermen) and it could be argued that it was only in response to the far greater violence in vietnam. And there was plenty of violence against protesters domestically too. the violence in recent times has with very few exceptions been directed AGAINST the protesters by the police
Some, have you never seen footage from the 70s? By the police? Gimme a break, those protesters at the IMF conferences and world trade conferences were a bunch of altar boys, right?:bugeye:
Yeah, but what was happening in Vietnam was happening to the Vietnamese, not the protestors who never left American soil. And killing or injuring innocent Americans doesn't change what was happening in Vietnam to the Vietnamese. With the violence caused by some protestors, it's no surprise. You mean protestors who were destroying public and private property? How dare those fascist police officers enforce the law and property rights!
They were, by and larege, people who's whole ideology is based on non-violence. I was at some of those world trade events and witnessed the police starting trouble..sometimes for example, they decide a crowd needs to move and they advance with their shields up, disregarding the fact that there is a wall on the other side of the crowd and there is no where for the protestors to go...other times they attack and arrest people for not clearing streets fast enough or obeying orders and then charge them with "assaulting a police officer"(i know people to whom this has happend)
There are very few officers, who actually go looking to start trouble, that is a peacenik fantasy. Kind of funny that some many peace protests are violent affairs with the protesters throwing rocks, attacking officers, destroying property (hey that building is repressing me, burn that offending auto). How come these fights don't or rarely ever occur for pro-govt. and pro-America rallies? A peace protest is most times nothing more than liberal gang violence.
There are very few officers, who actually go looking to start trouble, that is a peacenik fantasy. Kind of funny that some many peace protests are violent affairs with the protesters throwing rocks, attacking officers, destroying property (hey that building is repressing me, burn that offending auto). How come these fights don't or rarely ever occur for pro-govt. and pro-America rallies? A peace protest is most times nothing more than liberal gang violence.
There are very few officers, who actually go looking to start trouble, that is a peacenik fantasy. Kind of funny that some many peace protests are violent affairs with the protesters throwing rocks, attacking officers, destroying property (hey that building is repressing me, burn that offending auto). How come these fights don't or rarely ever occur for pro-govt. and pro-America rallies? A peace protest is most times nothing more than liberal gang violence.
true that was a bad example There were a few cases, like the days of rage, where protestors initiated violence back then, but in general, violence at these types of events is initiated by the police or counter protestors. everyones heard of the hardhats beating up the hippies. No I mean protestors who didn't get out of the way fast enough when the cops yelled "get out of the street" while charging forward swinging their clubs. Or protestors who asked if they could leave the pen the cops had been keeping several thousand people confined in with no food, water, or restrooms for 3 hours. Or protestors who took pictures of police brutality. I've been at events where the first two happend. No property destruction occurred at either of them.
... courtesy of the US. With such a "don't care, it's over there" attitude, why be in Vietnam at all? Same argument as the anti-war protesters, no?
Why not address the entire statement rather than a fragment of one sentence? It had nothing to do with a "don't care, it's over there" attitude.
They are ordered to start trouble. The media widely spread images from seattle of a few events that led people like you, to believe that all these events are horribly violent..there've been one or two where there was property damage. ALL of them have had unprovoked police brutality. And don' t tell me its a peacenik fantasy. I've seen it happen. There are many videos and photos of it happening that you can probly find online with a little searching. These things don't happen at pro-american rallies because no one attacks them.
okay. I think they were aware of that, and I'm hoping you're not suggesting that people should place geographical limits on their concerns. Though actually, when it comes to the US that might ot be such a bad idea. Anyway... You mean innocent Vietnamese being killed courtesy of US paranoia and self-interest? No, I guess not. Though with the non-existent news coverage given to any anti-government protests, it mightjust generate a peep of interest.
the kind of demonstrators i hate the most are those who are the anti establishment anarchists coke heads / pot heads looking for things to break and cops to harass, hiding behind a peace sign. when i see those i just wanna climb a nice bell tower with my 'peace' sign and my high powered rifle...... disclaimer to authorities: i do not own any rifles, nor do i know any bell towers!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So nobody has yet properly explained why they keep the anti's away from the gvt people etc? I mean, if I was a terrorist, I would just grab a big "Welcome president Bush sign" and stick my explosives in the handle. Over here in the UK we have a good history of police brutality, from peterloo (OK, that was the army) to the miners strike. Things are better nowadays, the police have learnt, and ultimately, the demonstrators are less dangerous anyhow.
Exactly. There is no rational security reasoning behind it. As the article points out(if you follow it to its origin at salon and go through their annoying ad process) the agencies that practice this type of discrimination all blame it on someone else...local police departments say its a secret service policy, and the secret service says it leaves these things to the local authorites..an nypd officer when questioned about the sign-post doulbe standard responded that the policy came from "abover the departmental level" otheadp, There really havent' been very many cases of anarchists running around smashing things since seattle, and even there the chaos was contributed to largely by police brutality. As I said, all you see on the news from these demos is the one guy in a black ski mask breaking stuff rather than the 200,000 people marching peacefully. and thanks for demonstrating my point about pro-war people being more violent than anti-war people.
