I like this guy!

Brave man. Even if you don't agree with him, you have to admire him taking chances on speaking out against things. Its almost a crime, these days.

My current favorite: Freeway Blogger

Originally posted by Kitsune
Brave man. Even if you don't agree with him, you have to admire him taking chances on speaking out against things. Its almost a crime, these days.

My current favorite: Freeway Blogger

Is it?

I don't think I heard of anyone being arrested for speaking out agaisnt Dubya.

I don't think I heard of anyone being arrested for speaking out agaisnt Dubya.

Matter of time before W's critics are labeled "enemy combatants" and hauled away to detention zones, denied counsul, tried in secret courts and shipped off to unnamed gulags.

I like W (which isn't to say I agree w/ him about everything) but Ashcroft and the Patriot Acts have Stalin and Lenin beaming with pride. Ashcorft's callous disregard for the rights afforded to us under the Constitution is appaling.

Oh I agree that Asscroft is a religious fanatic determined to take away as many rights as he can. I also wrote articles on the Patriot act and the DMCA regarding how both are unconstitutional, limit our freedoms and hinder sientific development.

But I do not see anyone being arrested, not now, not tomrow.

Thus I don't see the guy as having 'guts' in speaking out against Bush.

Originally posted by FileNotFound

Is it?

I don't think I heard of anyone being arrested for speaking out agaisnt Dubya.

I'm not aware of anyone being arrested, but certainly some people have been detained for lengthy periods or put under watch for speaking out.

I can't help but find it disturbing that our country, that prides itself on freedom of speech, set up "free speech zones" that restrict peaceful protests to several city blocks away from the actual event they are protesting. The Mayor of Tampa, Pam Iorio, declared all of Tampa a "Free Speech Zone" when Bushed visited, recently. The battle between City and Federal ideas met a wonderful clash that day.

Thus I don't see the guy as having 'guts' in speaking out against Bush.

Agree 100%. Just exaggerating to make a point.

And the DMCA is a classic case of legislation for cash. And speaking of which, I'm sure you heard Orin Hatch's idea (spoonfed to him by his 'owners') that the RIAA should be permitted to hack into computers suspected of pirating music. And all the while, he's running a web server using unregistered software.

The Constitution is under seige from within and without.

Originally posted by FileNotFound
I don't think I heard of anyone being arrested for speaking out against Dubya.

Go to one of Dubya's public appearances, carrying a sign displaying your polite, non-profane, but firmly-held displeasure with the President.

Watch as you and those expressing similar sentiments are ordered to move to a designated "First Amendment Zone," too far away to be seen or heard, while pro-Dubya attendees are allowed to remain up close.

Refuse to move, on the grounds that the entire nation is a "First Amendment Zone."

Watch what happens.

<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/09/news_pf/Opinion/Zones_hinder_free_spe.shtml">Example one</a>

<a href="http://www.metrobeat.net/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A1622">Example two</a>

<a href="http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/06/17_Dictatorship.html">Example three</a>

Need more?

Originally posted by Kitsune


I'm not aware of anyone being arrested, but certainly some people have been detained for lengthy periods or put under watch for speaking out.

I can't help but find it disturbing that our country, that prides itself on freedom of speech, set up "free speech zones" that restrict peaceful protests to several city blocks away from the actual event they are protesting. The Mayor of Tampa, Pam Iorio, declared all of Tampa a "Free Speech Zone" when Bushed visited, recently. The battle between City and Federal ideas met a wonderful clash that day.

Who has been detained?

As far as I know all that was done is that the girl was questioned (at home, the agents didn't even enter, they talked through the doorway) regarding having some pro taliban material because she had an antibush poster.

At no point did they say "YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT POSTER!" they just wanted to know if she had any ties to the taliban etc.

Not a big deal. End of story.

Originally posted by FileNotFound


At no point did they say "YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT POSTER!" they just wanted to know if she had any ties to the taliban etc.

Not a big deal. End of story.

You don't find it a big deal that The Secret Service was dispatched to someone's private residence because of a poster they had on their wall? Don't you find it even mildly disturbing that a government agency took their time to investigate an American Citizen for an anti-bush slogan?

Originally posted by vsp


Refuse to move, on the grounds that the entire nation is a "First Amendment Zone."

Watch what happens.

Need more?

I am aware of the first amendement zones and bs in the patriot act that can label a protestor as a domestic terrorist.

YET these are NOT related to being arrested for speaking out by writing an article and posting it online.

Id say he had guts if he went protesting with that article - but he isn't.

Originally posted by Kitsune


You don't find it a big deal that The Secret Service was dispatched to someone's private residence because of a poster they had on their wall? Don't you find it even mildly disturbing that a government agency took their time to investigate an American Citizen for an anti-bush slogan?

They were told to investigate somebody for having anti bush material.

Secret Service can't ignore tips. They backed off when they realized how timid the poster really was.

Yes it's disturbing, yes it's wrong. But it's not 1984 or even 10 years ago Soviet Russia.

Originally posted by FileNotFound
Yes it's disturbing, yes it's wrong. But it's not 1984 or even 10 years ago Soviet Russia.

I agree that it isn't a huge deal, but I also don't agree with the tactics being used on citizens for things that aren't true threats. The mere fact that anyone is being reviewed for speaking out against an elected official bothers me. It is your legal right to do this and you shouldn't have to live in fear that someone is going to come knocking at your door to find out why you did it.

Originally posted by FileNotFound

YET these are NOT related to being arrested for speaking out by writing an article and posting it online.

Id say he had guts if he went protesting with that article - but he isn't.

I only said that because, well, if The Secret Service will come to your door for having a poster on your wall, then what kind of scrutiny will you be held to for having published something on the web for the entire world to see?

Originally posted by FileNotFound
I am aware of the first amendement zones and bs in the patriot act that can label a protestor as a domestic terrorist.

YET these are NOT related to being arrested for speaking out by writing an article and posting it online.

Id say he had guts if he went protesting with that article - but he isn't.

Protesting is protesting, whether it's online or in-person.
You don't think that the FBI file on the author didn't just get a little wider?

It's one thing for them to thoroughly follow-up on reports of actual threats towards the President. When I worked for the sysadmins at N.C. State, we had a Secret Service visit when one of our conservative students became overagitated by the election of Bill Clinton, and posted a twelve-word exclamation to a USENET newsgroup. (Six words were "Clinton," three were "Fuck" and three were "Kill." Arranging them into the proper configuration is left as an exercise for the reader.) The mere presence of the word "Kill" in proximity to the President-elect's name was enough to trigger Secret Service radar, and they had a little chat with the student in question.

It's quite another to interpret non-violent anti-Bush (or anti-war) statements, actions or paraphrenalia as a direct threat to the President, worthy of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/national/23FBI.html?ex=1070551431&ei=1&en=b52559fd569640f5">monitoring by the FBI</a>, investigation by the Secret Service (the aforementioned girl-with-a-poster), or even temporary denial of basic Constitutional rights (freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, from the examples I provided). Anti-Bush material is NOT A CRIME, nor even remotely close to being one.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who mistake anti-Bush or anti-war sentiments for <a href="http://www.amarillo.com/stories/120303/opi_letters.shtml">anti-Americanism</a> or worse.

Oddly enough. Very little it seems.

The difference was that somebody complained to SS about it.

SS didn't go out looking for people with posters.

It's very likley that somebody just wanted to mess with the girl and filed a completly overblown tip about the girl.

There aren't exactly many cases of things like these happeneing.

When SS gets tips that appear totaly overblown they still need to check them out just because they can't risk ignoring it. What if it's true? It's easier to check it out...

Originally posted by FileNotFound
When SS gets tips that appear totaly overblown they still need to check them out just because they can't risk ignoring it. What if it's true? It's easier to check it out...

Very true. This is why I'm pleased that the TIPS program (or whatever it was called) was done away with. Nothing like your neighbor getting upset at you for playing the music a little too loud and then calling in to say they heard you discussing commercial aircraft in a suspicious way.

Yes TIPS.

The really scary part was training the UPS/FedEx/USPS delivery guys to take a 'peek' into your house as they asked for a signiture for the package. Maybe see something suspicious, even suggested that they ask what the package is etc...

That was by far one of the most insane documents I ever read.

Originally posted by vsp


Go to one of Dubya's public appearances, carrying a sign displaying your polite, non-profane, but firmly-held displeasure with the President.

Watch as you and those expressing similar sentiments are ordered to move to a designated "First Amendment Zone," too far away to be seen or heard, while pro-Dubya attendees are allowed to remain up close.

Refuse to move, on the grounds that the entire nation is a "First Amendment Zone."

Watch what happens.

<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/09/news_pf/Opinion/Zones_hinder_free_spe.shtml">Example one</a>

<a href="http://www.metrobeat.net/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A1622">Example two</a>

<a href="http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/06/17_Dictatorship.html">Example three</a>

Need more?

Whoopee do. In 1960 I took a nixon sign (I know, I know) to a Kennedy rally. Black eye, bloody nose, torn clothing and a very pissed off mother. What's new?

Was it the secret service who did it? Was it the police?

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Whoopee do. In 1960 I took a nixon sign (I know, I know) to a Kennedy rally. Black eye, bloody nose, torn clothing and a very pissed off mother. What's new?

The point is that in 1960, you were allowed to stand your ground and be visible. I'll wager that Kennedy's security team didn't drag you off and stomp you without provocation.

Doing what you did is sort of like wearing Cowboys silver-and-blue to an Eagles home game; it's understood that you're opening yourself up to a certain degree of disagreement and harassment. (In Philly, it may also be opening yourself up to extensive dental reconstruction.) But you're still allowed to do so, if you can take the heat; there's no fine print on the ticket saying "Cowboys fans must watch the game from the 200-level men's room on closed-circuit TV." You can sit in your seat and yell HOW 'BOUT DEM COWBOYS just as loudly as those around you are chanting E-A-G-L-E-S.

If you're being intentionally disruptive, they have the right to ask you to leave. But if you're being calm and presenting your opinions and angry, drunken louts cross the line into physical harassment, _you're_ not the problem. You're not the one at fault, and you're not the one who should be hauled in front of Judge McCaffery. You have every right to go against the grain, even in the other guy's home turf, and the law protects you as much as it'd protect the other guy if you started throwing punches.

These "First Amendment Zone" incidents are not based on security issues in the slightest; it's been repeatedly shown that sign-carriers are being segregated _specifically because of their ideologies_. Supporters stay; protestors get shuffled away, even during open-to-the-public events, to a place where Bush and his supporters don't have to listen to or see any contrary opinions. Public disagreement doesn't look good on TV cameras or on the front page, y'know.

Except that the last time I checked, this was still the United States of America, and it's not supposed to work that way.

(Note that I'm not saying that nonconformists _deserve_ to be harassed, physically or otherwise, whether they're at an Eagles game or a political rally. I'm saying that at events with high levels of emotion, us-against-them mentalities and rabble-rousing, which certainly includes both sports and politics, I'm not _surprised_ that it happens, and anyone who is surprised shouldn't be.)

Ah, it doesn't matter. You'll never hear about this stuff in the news, anyways.

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Was it the secret service who did it? Was it the police?

Well the cops showed up about the loud music and probably saw the poster and apparently the loud music didn't come from the student but some other flat. It's likley that the cop got pissed off and figured to fuck the kid over by submiting a report to CIA.

Sorry - I was asking xoxoxoBruce whether it was the cops or the secret service who beat him up for having a Nixon poster. That's the difference between "First Ammendment Zones" and roughhousing between opposing rally attendees.

"First Amendment Zones" are a HUGE violation of the Constitution. The real First Amendment zone encompasses every piece of land within the borders of the United States or its territories.

I don't require a permit to exercise my rights, and I would not allow someone to tell me where I can exercise them, especially in public land. And if someone were dumb enough to use force against me to make me move to another area, they'd be met with force and even though I wouldn't win the "force" game, I'd make sure there were a few people hurting next to me.

I don't consider the use of force to defend against unjust force to be a crime even against those in uniform. I also don't consider assault against a police officer to be any different or worse than that against any other person.

I reserve the right to kick the ass out of any cop who uses force against me for exercising my natural and unalienable right to exercise free speech anywhere I want on publicly owned land.

Originally posted by Radar
I don't require a permit to exercise my rights, and I would not allow someone to tell me where I can exercise them, especially in public land.

But Radar, this means you are a liberal hippy and obviously unpatriotic! Security and peace of the Homeland come before your freedoms! :p

[COLOR=indigo]Security and peace of the Motherland, you said?[/COLOR]

I thought he said Fatherland...

"First Amendment Zones". Cordoned-off symbols of freedom. Random (RANDOM!) searches of your car at airports based on nothing more than hot air from a former PA governor. Cameras everywhere. US citizens detained secretly, and/or tried in military tribunals, or just held without charges or access to an attorney. Courts which put up only wishy-washy opposition to these actions.

And no complaints at all from the public at large, particularly not to anything marked as preventing terrorism. The "grand experiment" that was the United States is over. It has failed. The terrorists have won, and freedom has neither champion (Sorry, Radar, you don't count) nor constituency.

Take a big ol' bite of that cynical cake, russotto!
The "Grand Experiment" isn't dead, but you could certainly make a strong argument that it is on its last legs. Paul Krugman (yes, of the NYT) was on MPR today talking about, amongst other things, the psychology of revolutionaries (taken from writing by Henry Kissinger) and when you take the points he outlined and compare them to the Neo-conservatives and they're behavior over the past ten years or so, we have some scary shit on our hands.
Does anyone doubt that the Neo-conservatives want to fundamentally reshape the political and social landscape of the United States? If you have any doubts, see what the think tanks (who are the philosophical brains behind Bush and Co.) write about, not what the current administration says it is doing (NEVER trust the horse's mouth).
So, does anyone want to take bets that in the next, say, three decades we either have a Depression-sized depression and/or massive internal strife (probably, though not necessarily, military in nature) that leads to the break up of the United States of America?
mmm....cynical cake.....ooohhhhhhh

The breakup of the United States would be a _positive_ outcome compared to what I see happening. Which is what Orwell outlined in _1984_ -- a boot stomping on a human face, forever. A stable and unfree United States, arrayed against other stable forces to provide threats by which the various restrictions are justified.

Putting the blame on "Neo-Conservatives" or any other political group is pointless -- ALL the major political groups on both sides of the aisle support what is happening. On the Democratic side, only Wesley Clark is willing to stand up for civil liberties in the face of a terrorist threat, and he's a fringe long-shot.

BTW, since I wrote that, random searches were expanded from airport roads to all roads into New York City. Without so much as a peep from the media.

Holy crap. That is just about the scariest shit I've heard of this side of Patriot 2. I keep my ear to the ground for that kind of stuff, and I can't believe that I haven't heard a word of it (I believe you, it's just weird). Can you send me a link about this? Some words need to be spread around a bit.
thank you in advance.

Sorry, I can't give you a link to signs on the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway which indicated that "All Vehicles Subject To Search At NYC Crossings". But they were there. As was the backup this caused at the George Washington Bridge .

Originally posted by Radar
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j112603.html

What an ultra moron. And that's all I have to say 'bout that.