Glenn Greenwald, predictibly, views these as fascist attempts to stifle dissent. But the Strib, a very liberal paper, presents a slightly different picture:
Bolstered by emergency help from the Minnesota National Guard, police in St. Paul arrested 284 people Monday after outbreaks of violence and road obstructions linked to rogue bands of demonstrators among an otherwise peaceful throng estimated at 10,000 people.
The demonstrations, on a steamy first day of the Republican National Convention, began with block after block of marchers -- far fewer than the 50,000 some had predicted -- chanting and peacefully waving signs on downtown St. Paul's narrow streets. As the day wore on, the carnival atmosphere turned ugly.
Before most of the demonstrators had finished their march, a few hundred protesters splintered off and became confrontational and sometimes violent. Some smashed windows at Macy's and a downtown bank building. Others challenged police by blocking roads.
Police are arresting journalists, which is generally an indication that they're in full-on flip-out mode. And in my own experience as a protest kid, the police are generally way too willing to use force on protesters, particularly ones they find politically distasteful. This is a small minority, but once they start something, the other officers generally have to follow them in or stand silent witness to a riot. So my natural assumption with these kinds of arrests is that the police were somehow at fault.
So as best I can tell, there were some adolescent, violent protesters who ruined things for everyone, and fault should be apportioned about equally between them, and the hotheaded police who reacted to their nonsense by spraying tear gas at everyone.
I'd say that this makes a very good argument for eschewing public protest at these things. It's about the most ineffective form of political expression possible--the last really effective protest movement was the Civil Rights marches, which were effective precisely because they presented middle class folks in their Sunday best getting attacked by the police. The black churches ruthlessly policed out the troublemakers and the weird-looking ones.
Protest marches are fun, of course, in the way that extremely mild suffering in any cause is fun--it makes you feel good, and you get to spend time with your friends, usually outside in fairly nice weather. Anyone who gave blood after 9/11 knows exactly what I mean. But political theater should be practiced only if it appeals to the audience, which protests rarely do these days. No one polices the troublemakers, so they bait the police into overreacting. Nor do they bar the puppet kids, who get all the media attention, because, well, puppets are funny. As far as I can tell, the inevitable reaction is public disgust, not least because even quiet and well run protests inconvenience a lot of people who are not politically aware. Those people do not think "I bet these people have a legitimate grievance"; they think "What jerks!" The only time I've ever heard genuinely anti-Catholic sentiment is when I've been in a city when a papal visit is disrupting traffic.
I have no doubt that I will now incur vituperation from commenters convinced that by decrying the tactic, I am secretly trying to tear down the cause. Au contraire. As I learned from Stephen Gale, who taught a class at Penn on terrorism, goals and tactics are very different things, and their effectiveness is not all that well correlated. I don't think libertarian protests work any better than any other kind; I wouldn't go to an NRA protest or an eminent domain rally for just that reason. I do think that people have the right to stage protests free from state harassment. But just because I think you have a perfect right to do something does not imply that I believe you should.
So the scattered violence by the black bloc explains the pre-emptive raids that took place over the weekend involving peaceful groups with established records of non-violent protests?
Good argument.
I know you don't much care for him, but is Greenwald lying when he describes the pre-emptive raids of houses not anywhere near the convention itself? That seems like more of a libertarian concern (bar reader interest of course) than the predictably unproductive street protests.
Seconded that what you want to look at is mainly the pre-emptive arrests over last weekend, and the confiscation of that big green bus full of protestors on the highway on the way into the city.
Also the arrest of Amy Goodman looked to me like classic security-guy assholishness: you're bothering me, you're asking to talk to my boss and if I put you through to my boss he's going to give me shit for it, so...you're under arrest. That's more a matter of individual thuggery than state policy, but it may be that a tone was set at a policymaking level; certainly if they were sending police ahead of time to arrest "potential protestors", that would establish an atmosphere in which police might be pretty aggressive and unaccountable.
And the people whose houses were raided by machine gun wielding men before any protests were staged??????
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/31/raids/index.html
Holy shit, Megan, how the fucking hell do you sleep at night?
Well, at least there were no 2x4s involved, Nutella. They only took Megan's idea for pre-emptive violence to heart, not the specifics.
What a courageous libertarian defense of liberty!
Of course they should arrest people who smash windows. And we can have all sorts of debates over what to do in a disorderly street scene.
But the weekend arrests, prior to the protests, are scary. Particularly scary is that, at least according to Greenwald, some of the people targeted were apparently from groups that had videotaped NYC protests in 2004 and used their videotapes to get some protesters acquitted.
We're not talking about people who smashed windows--we're talking about people who took video of people not smashing windows and used the videos to show that these people were not doing anything violent and get them acquitted. There is absolutely no reason to arrest people engaging in such activities.
anecdotally, I used to play with the protest kids in Mpls-St. Paul and I think Megan is right, among all the fabulous vegans, greens and community organizers were a handful of people who were attracted to the movement for the chance to smash stuff. St. Paul police are a pretty good lot & I think they recognize the difference there.
The story isn't the street protests, it's harassing groups prior to the event that raises the red flags, and that fits an ongoing pattern of federal law enforcement being deployed forcefully by the administration outside of the usual constraints.
Setting aside the street protests do you have a take on the apparently broad use of the FBI and National Guard here? No one reported on it, but I didn't have the sense that Denver was anything like this.
I seem to remember that in 1999 the blackshirts used similar techniques for a protest in Seattle that ended up quite effective. Their proximate goal was crippling WTO discussions, with an ultimate goal of preventing freedom of trade from spreading. That WTO conference did indeed collapse, followed recently by the entire round it was part of.
Don
I never did figure out why "anarchists" were protesting in favor of more government restraints on trade. The anarchists of my youth would be appalled.
"Minneapolis is not a very Republican kind of town"
Um, this was all going on in ST PAUL, which is much less a republican kind of town than Minneapolis.
But ... the pre-emptive arrests were conducted by County sheriff's deputies--acting under dubious authority--and this post mentions the National Guard, which we are now acutely aware is commanded by the governor, who happens to have been on the Republican veep short-list.
Yeah, Megan, I'm always on your side (and I don't like Greenwald) but if you his and Jane Hamsher's videos, there is some horseshit going on.
You're failing the test of standing up for people you disagree with.
It's not just these specific incidents, though there are many, many examples in Minnesota that clearly represent unconstitutional violations of the right to free expression. What really gets me down is that this is all part of a depressing trend towards ignoring unconstitutional tactics by the police and private security. This country has to decide if we really believe in the right to protest the powerful or not.
What would Sam Adams think about this? Patrick Henry?
Well, someone needs to pull the warrants and see what they say, and also have a look into the people who were arrested. It doesn't say much that only 2 people got arrested out of 20, or whatever; if the police were looking for an authentic terrorist using a peaceful group for cover, of course they'd come in with guns drawn and put everyone on the floor until they had ID'd the real suspect and got their evidence. The tactics are thuggish if there was no threat, but appropriate if there was a real threat.
So the question is: were the police justified in thinking there was a threat? (Hint: the word of the people detained is not by itself satisfactory evidence.)
Oh, and somebody tell Mr. Greenwald to stop describing the weapons the police brought with them. "Semi-automatic rifles" are not exactly terrifying to people who have a clue. Nor are they "machine guns," Nutella. But I think it more likely that you are right and Greenwald wrong.
Rob, so next time you bring me over for dinner, I'll just spend the whole evening with an M-16 pointed at your head.
You, having a clue and all, won't mind.
Bravo.
"Semi-automatic rifles" are not exactly terrifying to people who have a clue.
Hrm. While I'm not terribly sophisticated about guns, I do know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. I'd like to reserve the right to be terrified under circumstances where the police are threatening me with either, regardless of my knowledge of the distinction.
Hint: the word of the people detained is not by itself satisfactory evidence
Nor is the words of the police, nor your obvious preference to find in the favor of the police in any circumstance.
Hint: the word of the people detained is not by itself satisfactory evidence
Nor is the words of the police, nor your obvious preference to find in the favor of the police in any circumstance.
Right. If you believe in a cause, and want your voice to be heard (rather than read or not-read), then you should fear taking your voice to the street because of fear and intimidation of those who have the weapons and the power.
Great argument.
Remind me again who gives you the space to spew this drivel? I'd like to "protest" them. You're a disgrace, Meagan
Nor is the words of the police, nor your obvious preference to find in the favor of the police in any circumstance.
Really? Such a preference is obvious? My suggestion is that instead of making videos of people who are not exactly objective, reporters interested in the situation should seek out documentary evidence and sworn statements. Now, they may be unavailable--sealed, for instance--or they may contain only conclusory and self-serving allegations, but if the police were in pursuit of a genuine bomb-thrower, their actions were justified. Hence, the first question to be answered is not "Were the protesters terrified by the raids?" (duh) but "Were the raids justified by the evidence?"
Nutella and LizardBreath: having any gun pointed at you is a terrifying experience. My only brush with that was being swept by a revolver (double action, for those keeping score) held by an idiot at the range; I got my hand on the barrel and my face in his in less than a second. But Greenwald chose to pepper his account repeatedly with a description of the guns in an effort to make it seem even more terrifying. This harmed his credibility with me because it suggests that he is trying to push buttons rather than report facts. Hence my suggestion, which he can take or leave as he pleases.
The reason it's customary to link to what someone writes when criticizing what they've written is to prevent brazen lying like this.
I said -- so clearly that even you should have been able to digest it -- that the people who committed violence or otherwise broke the law should be arrested. What I wrote had nothing to do with anything you said I wrote.
Nonetheless, keep cheering on preemptive arrests of lawyers, journalists, videographers and legal observers -- along with home invasions and mass arrests of people who had no connection whatsoever with any criminality -- and then keep boasting about what "libertarian" you are. It's good for even more deep entertainment than you normally produce when you move your mouth.
Jut to be clear--because I haven't been--my broad point is that the actual tactics of the raids (guns, possibly including semi-autos, drawn, people in house cuffed, computers seized) were standard and unobjectionable when pursuing people plotting violence. They are terrifying; they are meant to be. They are intended to rapidly overcome any resistance and place the space under the control of the police. When trying to get at terrorists or drug kingpins, that is the outcome for which we should all hope.
So the focus on tactics or weapons types or general terrifyingness is misplaced. The focus needs to be on the justification. If there were no criminals in the houses searched, nor any good reason to think there would be, then even a knock-and-announce, weapons-in-holsters "raid" is unjustified and improper.
I'd like to reserve the right to be terrified under circumstances where the police are threatening me with either, regardless of my knowledge of the distinction.
Amen to that. It's amazing how large a 9mm hole looks when you're staring down it...
As a former protester myself, I can confirm that the notion that protests are about "persuasion" is completely false. It's theater, in which we force the public to serve as mirrors in front of which we get to enact our own fantasies. It's about the feeling -- however short-lived -- of empowerment, virtue, and liberation.
That protests often are completely counter-productive to the official "causes" espoused by their organizers does not bother protesters one bit, because the official cause is just an excuse to congregate and perform. Note that few protests nowadays have any coherent theme -- they just attract an incomprehensible hodge-podge of different groups with different agendas, some of which are thoroughly incompatible with others.
I'm reminded of a column by Lee Harris (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3459646.html) in which he recalls protesting Vietnam back in the 1960s. At one point, he mentioned to a fellow protester that their strategy of blocking traffic and smashing things was turning more people against the antiwar movement than gaining support, and so was actually working against the stated aims of their protest. But his friend didn't care:
"And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy."
Ms. McArdle: Why are you conflating two separate issues into one post. Do you think that the nature of the protests today justify the pre-emptive arrests that took place over the weekend? If that's the case then I hope that you realize that any time you call yourself a libertarian from now onward, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence in your readership is going to laugh.
i did not see any video of the protests. i have read some brief accounts such as the one excerpted from strib so i cannot intelligently comment on what happened to precipitate the arrests and the allegations of violence by either the police or the protesters.
i have been tear gassed, slammed by nyc police night sticks across my head and solar plexus, knocked around by mounted police horses, and arrested a few more times than i than i would have wished. it's not fun, and it really hurts.
that said, my experiences in the streets during some tough demos, taught me one thing: the police own the streets. as soon as you step off the sidewalk and take to the street, you are in unfriendly territory. anything can happen, and often does. if you step off the sidewalk and take to the streets you must know that, expect trouble, and recognize that the police can and may take you down whether you are a young woman, an old man, in a wheel chair, a journalist, a tough guy, or the queen of diamonds, because you are on their streets.
so stay on the sidewalk unless you know what you're getting into.
adin
"if you step off the sidewalk and take to the streets you must know that, expect trouble"
And now, in a situation that Megan McArdle has no proble with, you can expect trouble merely by being in your home--no need to leave the sidwalk or your house.
I like Glenn's outrage that trendy leftie Amy Goodman got arrested when she was trying to argue with the cops about her two producers who were "wrongfully arrested." She and Glenn knew this because, well, because they did. Democracy Now! has no lawyers who can handle this?
I don't look in here nearly as often as I used to; looking at the last several postings, I don't see anything terribly thoughtful, insightful, or even libertarian about them. What I see is _contrarianism_. And plenty of it.
Megan McArdle is really Camille Paglia posting under a nom de guerre, AICMFP.
One more dishonest, distorted, and blatantly misleading post by Megan McArdle.
Megan, for the love of God give your blog a rest and save the Internet some bandwidth.
Megan is the queen of tedious, sleep-inducing drivel.
If republican protestor's had their homes burst into by the SWAT team I would be outraged. It's the same that you, mighty fans of logic that you are, can't muster they same.
A 2x4 is a 2x4, I suppose.
If these people had been the tiniest bit of a real threat they'd be plastered all over the news and Bush would be all like "ZOMG the terrorists are already here."
Democracy Now! has no lawyers who can handle this?
Oh well, that makes it all right then. Strike out 'probable cause' and replace it with 'retained counsel'.
Hey everyone take a deep breath,
This is a passionate issue, and though I mostly disagree with the "feel" of this post, a civil discussion should be maintained. Some valid points are pretty much invalidated by the rancor with which they have been written.
I think there are two very different topics in discussion that are getting conflated.
1.) The preemptive raids over the weekend - Megan how do you feel about how those raids were chosen and conducted. If they were justified - Why do you feel they were, and if they were not what do you think people's response to them should be.
2.)The arrests and violence and during the marches: What should the majority, totally peaceful, protesters have done to avoid what happened as they can not possible control everyone , and (Warning paranoid thought ahead) the possibility for the government or other groups to plant "violent" protesters into a march to generate just such an outcome. I know this last is a little out there, but just take as a hypothetical - If you wanted to stage a peaceful protest, and not end up shot, or breathing tear-gas - what steps would you take. As it should be possible to do in this country - I hope.
Anyway those are the questions I would like megan or other commenters to answer, In as civil a manner as possible.
In terms of the "pre-emptive" raids:
Blocking the roads is a crime. Conspiracy to perform a crime is a crime. Arrest of criminals in accordance with a duly-issued arrest warrant is standard, unobjectionable procedure under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
The judge may have issued an excessively broad warrant, which may have included people who were not members of the conspiracy. In this specific case, that means a handful of people who may not have been members of the conspiracy, but were certainly aware of the conspiracy.
Aside from that, there were a few incidental arrests of the type that happen when people try to interfere with the police as they go about their lawful duties. People too stupid to figure out that you appeal arrests to the authorities, not an armed officer executing an arrest warrant, occasionally wind up in jail a short time for trying to interfere in the execution of arrest warrants.
In summary:
1) Don't conspire to break the law unless you want to be arrested.
2) Don't nod your head and keep silent when you hear of a conspiracy to break the law unless you want to be arrested.
3) Don't interfere with the execution of an arrest warrant unless you want to be arrested.
These are not hard rules to follow, and they don't significantly impinge anyone's liberty . . . unless the underlying law does. And no, a law against setting up ad-hoc roadblocks does not constitute an infringement on liberty.
Megan's entire post does not mention them nor cover what they cover. You don't know what you're talking about.
Read Greenwald's post. He makes it quite clear. The raids were performed on people who made no threats and planned no illegal activity. This bull-crap that Megan talks about is besides anyone's point to begin with. It's just a damn smoke screen.
READ THE LINK:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/30/police_raids/index.html
ABL:
It would take me a long time to explain to you why what you just wrote is not significantly different from the way Vietnamese authorities justify locking up democracy activists whenever they feel like it.
Let's just say that "Blocking the roads is a crime. Conspiracy to perform a crime is a crime." gives law authorities enough leeway to arrest anyone they feel like, anytime they feel like it, if there isn't gimlet-eyed oppositional scrutiny of how they interpret "blocking the roads" and "conspiracy". Watch the video of what Amy Goodman was doing when she was arrested. She was repeatedly asking a riot policeman to direct her to his superior so that she could inquire into the status of two of her co-producers who had been arrested earlier.
McCardle calls herself a libertarian. That is some funny sh*t. She must be one of those freedom hatin' libertarians who uses that word like a fashion accessory. You know them more commonly as Republicans.
I don't look in here nearly as often as I used to; looking at the last several postings, I don't see anything terribly thoughtful, insightful, or even libertarian about them. What I see is _contrarianism_. And plenty of it.
Yes.
Echoing brooksfoe, look at the video of Amy Goodman's arrest. She was arrested for trying to respectfully talk to a cop.
It is of course perfectly lawful to execute a search warrant when you have probable cause that people are conspiring to commit a crime. Moreover, it is of course true that probable cause is not the same as "beyond a reasonable doubt", so sometimes search warrants will be executed against people who turn out to be innocent.
However, it's also worth considering that executing a search warrant against an innocent journalist, activist, or lawyer in advance of a demonstration can have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech. Suppose armed agents of the government show up at your house the day before you were planning a lawful assembly to protest a government policy. Suppose they find no evidence of criminal conspiracy, and indeed you aren't planning any criminal conspiracy. Might you nonetheless be more reluctant to go and exercise your first amendment rights the next day?
However lawful the execution of the warrants might be, due to the chilling effects it would be better if searches before protests were done only rarely.
On a recent visit to St. Paul, I happened to talk with a college student about the how Republicans would put the protests to their own use. He clearly understood what I was alluding to, but he wasn't buying my caution: "After eight years of Bush, we need to be out on the street."
To him I must have looked old crank who had had my protest time in the sixties and seventies, but now wanted to keep him from having his say. But what I was trying to tell him was that having my say in the streets ultimately didn't serve my ends. It woke the sleeping giant of hyper-reaction, which still rules, even in a city like St. Paul.
Sometimes I think that Republicans choose liberal cities so that their conventions will be the object of protests.
I AM SIGNING UP FOR CLASSES AT PENN!!!! Do you recommend the terrorism class? (Class starts tomorrow, I am doing this kind of last minute...)
My hunch is that Greenwald must think he's on to something here, since he even posted one of his comments under his own name.
Semi-automatic rifles" are not exactly terrifying to people who have a clue.
Have you ever had an H&K MP5 pointed at you? It's a frightening experience, I'm sure. I know what it is. I have a clue. But if the safety was off and it was pointed at me, I'd piss my pants.
Bravo to Glenn Greenwald for posting a rebuttal here. Unlike most of us, he knows what he is talking about.
Thoreau - It is of course perfectly lawful to execute a search warrant when you have probable cause that people are conspiring to commit a crime. Moreover, it is of course true that probable cause is not the same as "beyond a reasonable doubt", so sometimes search warrants will be executed against people who turn out to be innocent.
However, it's also worth considering that executing a search warrant against an innocent journalist, activist, or lawyer in advance of a demonstration can have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech.
Sorry, what you are saying is that search warrants are OK, but that activist attorneys, anarchists, other violent groups and the journalists that "embed" with them should have special rights against the scrutiny other citizens can be subjected to. Something about their free speech being chilled. Ignoring that the assholes show up precisely to shut down the movement and free speech of regular citizens that show up at both Democrat, Republican meetings. And regularly employ brownshirt tactics against speakers they wish to silence on campuses.
Nor are "journalists" pure of complicity with violent extremists or disruptors. To get exciting footage of clashes and breaking windows and evil cops retaliating so just the "bad cop part" shows up on later news and website agitprop - many not only "embed" and know of crimes and misdemeanors plotted that they don't want to "ruin" from happening by telling cops. Other journalists are actually members of Code Pink or anarchist groups that use press credentials to penetrate security (a favorite tactic of theirs in Congressional hearings). And a good deal who may not be radicals, but want that footage edited and submitted to their employers to only show police brutality - to fit with the 50 year old "civil rights marchers vs. evil cops" narrative they believe still is the approved journalist narrative..
Yesterday, a pack of them surrounded a bus of cub scouts being brought into the Convention - rocking on the bus, cursing and threatening the kids before cops drove them off.
Also yesterday, the Connecticut delegation was attacked by an organized group of radicals withing the security zone. Security passes were grabbed at, they got one from one delegate. Blows were exchanged after one older delegate was knocked to the ground. A former Congressman, Rob Simmons, and the State leader were sprayed with bleach. Demonstrators then locked arms on command and tried to drive the CT Republicans into a plate glass window and wall section. Several required EMTs and clothes changeout from the bleach dousing.
Local cops did not investigate the incident on request of the delegates, leading CT members to move investigation to the FBI, which is looking at the incident.
Delegates and dignitaries have been assaulted at other "Dissent Events", notable WTO and G-8 meetings here and abroad. In Rome, a few years back, people were killed. Including one who used a fire extinguisher to bash in windows in a cop car surrounded by the mob. Then tried to brain an Italian cop with the extinguisher, who put two rounds in the kid's face. The other cops locked and loaded their submachine guns. Kid was a "professional protestor from a Good Family".
We need to be proactive with these violent troublemakers, and that includes arrests of violent conspirators ahead of time if a judge reviews and considers such raids falling under a legal warrant.
That beats being reactive after witnessing burning buildings, attacks on delegates or invited speakers on capmpuses, complete transportation paralysis affecting the work and lives of hundreds of thousands. It sure beats Canadian cops outnumbered and resorting to batons to the heads of protestors (which they can only do when they are in fear of their lives or their men). Or the protestor exhulting in his violence in one instant then dead on his feet in the next instant as an Italian cop put two rounds through his face and out the back of his skull.
Hey, mebbe it was just some lost Denver cops, like the ones who busted the ABC producer for sidewalk filming of fatcats at last week's convention.
Let's just say that "Blocking the roads is a crime. Conspiracy to perform a crime is a crime."
Exactly, the conspiracy to commit a crime should really be reserved for true crime. You know, murder, robbery treason etc. Blocking the roads is essentially a traffic violation. Every time I get in the car and drive I commit a crime. Speeding, not coming to a complete stop etc. I guess I should be arrested and thrown in jail right now, because I plan on speeding on the way to work tomorrow morning.
As for requiring a permit, all I have to say is "papers please comrade"
Have you ever had an H&K MP5 pointed at you?
An MP5 is a select-fire submachine gun. But as I said, I was sloppy with my meaning.
The judge may have issued an excessively broad warrant, which may have included people who were not members of the conspiracy.
Did you see the items listed in the warrants?
"glass containers such as bottles and jars: wicks such as cloth, paper, twine, "
"Assembled improvised explosive devices and unassembled components of the devices to include but not limited to, metal, glass, plastic or cardboard containers."
"Sticks and poles"
So, if you have cardboard boxes, Mason jars, broomhandles and dishcloths in your kitchen, there's apparently probable cause that you're a conspirator to riot.
Of course, if all you found was a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a bunch of pot, you've probably stumbled upon the extent of libertarian activism.
Apparently, I'm also sloppy with what buttons I push.
To have any gun--including a colonial musket--pointed at one is frightening. But that the police should have and deploy semi-automatic weapons in a raid on suspected criminal hideout is not particularly frightenting, nor is the marginal fright induced by semi-automatic weapons--as opposed to revolvers or pump actions--particularly great.
Sorry, what you are saying is that search warrants are OK, but that activist attorneys, anarchists, other violent groups and the journalists that "embed" with them should have special rights against the scrutiny other citizens can be subjected to.
I'm saying that when considering whether or not to investigate allegations against people who are presumed innocent (yes, everyone is presumed innocent in our system of justice) you should consider the effect that the manner of investigation might have on their exercise of their constitutional rights. Justice is a balancing act.
Also, one of the targets of the search wasn't producing propaganda. They produced videos that were presented to a jury and used to refute allegations made against protesters. If video evidence contradicts the allegations against them and they are consequently acquitted, justice was served. You may not like the fact that protesters who disagree with you were acquitted after being accused by cops, but the fact remains that collecting evidence that leads to acquittals in court is a perfectly valid activity.
@ Megan - you were a protest kid? I'd say your about my age (37). I went to college in Philly at the same time as you did. What exactly were you protesting? The fall of the Berlin Wall, Operation Desert Storm (100 hour long war) or was it the World Wide Web, The booming economy. What Megan, what my protest kid, did you protest????
We need to be proactive with these violent troublemakers, and that includes arrests of violent conspirators ahead of time if a judge reviews and considers such raids falling under a legal warrant.
I'm not sure you have the same understanding of the term "American" as I do.
What Megan, what my protest kid, did you protest????
The public school down the block from her, probably. Or maybe something else important, like the lack of a good vegetarian restaurant on her block.
I love the double standard here. If fundementalist Christians started slashing tires and dropping sandbags on buses, Greenwald would want them shot. I have no doubt Greenwald only cares about this because he endorses the brownshirt tactics of many on the left and thinks no one on the right has any right to free speech. Is anyone here dumb enough to think Greenwald would care if they had shot antiabortion protestors in Denver? Fat chance. That is how this works. That is how it worked with the Nazis. The Nazis would show up at every other group's meetings and beat the crap out of everyone and if the police did anything about it, it was oppression. That is how people like Greenwald and the people at these protests operate. The whole idea is to engage in as much violence and intimidation as possible and if you are arrested scream oppression.
The protestors at both the conventions are facsist thugs. There is nothing libertarian about blocking streets, breaking windows and screaming at people. But when it is the left, that is par for the course.
"And the people whose houses were raided by machine gun wielding men before any protests were staged??????"
Where were you guys when the machine-gun-wielding men were raiding houses to seize Elian Gonzales and deport him to Cuba?
1. Nobody has a right not to have other people scream at them. Nobody should be arrested for screaming at someone else. This is particularly true in the context of a short, one-time affair like a convention, rather than an everyday business or public place like a library or school, where constant protests might eventually be deemed harassment. If I yell at you for an hour, it's an argument. It doesn't become harassment until I start coming back every day for a month to yell at you; that's when you can get a restraining order.
2. Blocking a street, while illegal, is very subject to interpretation. Offenses like "interfering with public order" are what the Chinese use to lock up Tibet protesters at the Olympics.
3. Breaking windows is illegal and subject to arrest. It does not however make you a "fascist".
4. Unless I'm mistaken, Glenn Greenwald used to be a Republican. But that is neither here nor there. Regardless of party affiliation, he, like everyone else, would care very, very much if police had shot antiabortion protesters in Denver.
5. The ominous thing about police behavior in St. Paul is not the way they have handled crowds, by and large. It is the pre-Convention penetration and arrests of groups allegedly planning to protest. The FBI seems to have no ability to distinguish between fringe political groups that pose a threat of violence and fringe political groups that pose a threat of acting freaky-deaky and liberating barnyard animals in public places.
Greenwald: "...preemptive arrests of lawyers, journalists, videographers and legal observers -- along with home invasions and mass arrests of people who had no connection whatsoever with any criminality..." if true, the police had no reasonable cause to be "proactive" [what a Orwellian mutation of the word]. What evidence was presented to the judge who issued the search warrant?
The whole thing smells of the kind of zealotry some cops get their rocks off on.
I'm surprised by the reaction to Megan McArdle. She has proudly described herself as "...born and raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and yes, she does enjoy her lattes, as well as the occasional extra dry skim milk cappuccino. Her checkered work history includes three start-ups, four years as a technology project manager for a boutique consulting firm, a summer as an associate at an investment bank, and a year spent as sort of an executive copy girl for one of the disaster recovery firms at Ground Zero . . . all before the age of thirty."
Basically she doesn't know shit.
Adin
As to the effectiveness question: I am interested in the question of why there is little or no public resentment of frequently inconvenient absurdist participatory street theater events like those staged by "Improv Everywhere", while there may be lots of resentment of people wielding giant puppets when those puppets are making a political statement.
Everyone should have their chance to have their say. The problem is that the idea of getting your say is shouting the other guy down and making sure he can't say anything. The Democrats had their convention. I have no sympathy for the protestors there either. This started happening on college campuses 20 years ago. The idea is that they will shout and intimidate everyone else into not being able to speak. It is unAmerican and corrosive of civil society. How are we supposed to ever have any discussion in this country is everyone just shouts and throw things at each other?
Chris Ford pretty much summarized my feelings on the topic. The police stopped some preplanned violence. Left outraged at inconvenience, hurt feelings.
This isn't about peaceful protest. This is childish frustration at being unable to disrupt a political convention by inciting a riot.
But what do I know? I'm just a lousy taxpayer who gets to pay for all the extra police to keep order. I'm sure my insurance premiums also help cover the losses as well.
Offenses like "interfering with public order" are what the Chinese use to lock up Tibet protesters at the Olympics.
This is why the permitting issue is a major problem. China told everyone, "you can protest, you just need to fill out these forms first" then right before the Olympics, anybody who turned in those forms were arrested for the duration of the Olympics.
The dangerous part is that the precedent is now set that the police can just go into your house, arrest you and hold you for a while so that you can't speak out against your government. You aren't charged with anything, so there's little the courts can do to help you. However, they have stifled your speech and assemble rights along with making you less likely to ever try something like that again.
Jordan T.
You can totally speak out against the government. You just can't run down and cause a riot. My entire adult life I have watched leftist thugs come into political rallies and speeches for the sole purpose of distrupting it and depriving of the chance to be heard. I am sick of it. They have a huge abortion protest every year in Washington. People just march down the street. No one is arrested or beat up or anything. Why can't the left do that? Because most of them are brownshirt thugs that is why.
Terrorists took over the twin cities, attempting to murder hundreds by throwing cement off of bridges. Weapons of mass destruction were used against delegates, in violations of all laws of war, never mind civil society, by thugs attempting to prevent the exercise of basic human rights. Vehicles containing delegates, guests (cub scouts), and passers by were attacked, rocked, and much violence threatened against them.
But the real scandal is that a reporter who interfered with the duties of police officers and refused lawful orders was arrested, as she knew she would be, and that conspirators were arrested and their weapons seized. Riiiight.
The real scandal is that there were so few people arrested, that all charges will be dropped in a spirit of amity, and that only non-lethal methods of control are used. In case of a riot, ALL rioters should be shot. Every last one of them. They are engaged in a war against the legal government of the United States and should receive immediate and merciless justice. All those who participate in a violent protest are using terroristic methods and should be jailed for life. They have stepped outside civil society and never deserve to be let back in. This goes for any protest of any kind, terrorism is terrorism. But then I think that any american who helped NORAID should be shot as well - I'm actually honest in my disgust with terrorists.
As to GG - how are those socks tasting? You are a disgrace, a fool, a liar, and a blot on humanity.
What dolts the convention organizers are. Think how McCain would benefit if the leftist rioters were permitted to get out of control and trash the convention on prime time. But of course these amateurs put the safety of convention goers above the political gain to be had by letting pinkos run wild.
John,
Greenwald was a First amendment lawyer. He also has written posts defending Mark Steyn against the Canadian government for violating Steyn's right to free speech....
Oh wtf am i doing, you won't listen
Megan McArdle - yet another "libertarian" with no use for liberty.
When did "libertarian" become the code word for "authoritarian statist"?
Argh. I had a long post ready, and my computer crashed.
Greenwald: "So here we have a massive assault led by Federal Government law enforcement agencies on left-wing dissidents and protester..."
Short form: Greenwald's wrong. But he may not be as wrong as I wish he was.
Six raids, at least one of them clearly legit (I'm guessing that four of them were, and two of them bogus, but that's just a guess at this point) leading to a total of six arrests is not "massive." It may be right, it may be wrong; it ain't massive. And it's being led by Fletcher in RamseyCo -- with some of the grow
As to the intent of the faux protesters, decide for yourself if smashing windows and throwing sandbags off overpasses onto buses is "protest" or something else. And then browse over to http://twitter.com/rnc08 and http://twitter.com/rnc08_sectorX (substituting 1 through 7 for the X), watch what the "RNC Welcoming Committee" has been doing, and read between the lines.
Not all of it is bad. "Lafayatte and Grove releasing arrestees, please go and support them" sounds innocent, doesn't it?
How about "On Kellog, between St. Peter and Wabash, 3 delegates on foot, being blocked, police confrontation imminent!" Sound like people just exercising First Amendment rights?
Decide for yourself, say, whether "Black block moving with bash back, WINDOWS OF DELEGATE BUS SMASHED AT KELLOG" is simply reporting, or celebration.
"Greenwald was a First amendment lawyer. He also has written posts defending Mark Steyn against the Canadian government for violating Steyn's right to free speech...."
So what? He is wrong to defend these thugs. If the Canadian government had only convened a mob to shout down and knock Styen in the head, they would have been okay with Greenwald.
Yes, Greenwald understands the right to free speech. But he has a real blind spot when it comes to leftist thugs. If you can't say something without having a mob show up to break windows and beat the crap out of you, then you don't have a right to free speech.
I am interested in the question of why there is little or no public resentment of frequently inconvenient absurdist participatory street theater
Because there is little public awareness of such things? I've never heard of it.
Speaking for myself, I like the puppets. There's a good chance the people in them are idiots, but they are amusing idiots, which is more than most protesters can say. And who among us hasn't wished to lovingly make a gigantic paper-mache sea turtle and wear it in the street while being tear gassed? That sounds more interesting than my average weekend.
The FBI seems to have no ability to distinguish between fringe political groups that pose a threat of violence and fringe political groups that pose a threat of acting freaky-deaky and liberating barnyard animals in public places
That is precisely the issue, which hasn't really been addressed. What (if any) evidence justified the raids? And how is the FBI supposed to find out if when they send in informants, everyone starts yelling at them?
"Greenwald was a First amendment lawyer. He also has written posts defending Mark Steyn against the Canadian government for violating Steyn's right to free speech...."
So what? He is wrong to defend these thugs. If the Canadian government had only convened a mob to shout down and knock Styen in the head, they would have been okay with Greenwald.
Yes, Greenwald understands the right to free speech. But he has a real blind spot when it comes to leftist thugs. If you can't say something without having a mob show up to break windows and beat the crap out of you, then you don't have a right to free speech.
You aren't charged with anything, so there's little the courts can do to help you.
There's always a Bivens or 1983 action, although those are pretty tough to win unless things are just as outrageous as people are claiming here.
I largely agree with brooksfoe. I don't dispute that here was an element of criminals who planned to become violent, but when dealing with political speech I think the government is somewhat obliged to wait. Preemtive raids, conspiracy charges and the like may be legal (IANAL), but even if they are it's not good policy and it's lousy precedent.
A large police presence? A hard crackdown if violence occurs? Sure. But not preemptive action. That's got "chilling effect" written all over it.
On a tangent, it strikes me that those who lack confidence in their ability of their positions to rationally persuade others feel the need to resort to violence. In the US, those people seem to be almost entirely on the left. Why is that?
To rove, chris, john, meghan and all other big government authoritarian pseudo-libertarians with delusions of left wing rioters dancing in there little heads, I ask this question. Have you ever wondered why there is never any footage of actual riots or even video of some ass throwing a bottle at a cop. I am sure the SCLM would plaster it all over T.V. 24/7. Is it an anarcho-conspiracy of silence? Your thoughts. Thanks in advance.
Mozart,
I don't have to see the films. I have seen it myself. I was in Seattle during the WTO riots. I also live in Washington and saw the anti-war rallies last September. These people are thugs. Terrible thugs. I lived here during the million man march and walked right through the crowd and never felt threatened or anything but welcome even though I am white. I have been to the yearly Roe V. Wade march and have never felt threatened.
The left is full of violent thugs. Greenwald is a bad guy, but that is the problem. The decent people on the left can't help but defend and make excuses for the thugs.
Rob Lyman writes: "That is precisely the issue, which hasn't really been addressed. What (if any) evidence justified the raids? And how is the FBI supposed to find out if when they send in informants, everyone starts yelling at them?"
The FBI should have a valid reason to "send in informants." It shouldn't be spying on groups just for the fuck of it.
In the 60s the FBI was known for sending in agents to provoke incidents, not just to gather information. I don't see why anyone gives them, and not the protestors, the first benefit of the doubt.
John writes: "I don't have to see the films. I have seen it myself. I was in Seattle during the WTO riots. I also live in Washington and saw the anti-war rallies last September. These people are thugs. Terrible thugs. I lived here during the million man march and walked right through the crowd and never felt threatened or anything but welcome even though I am white. I have been to the yearly Roe V. Wade march and have never felt threatened.
The left is full of violent thugs. Greenwald is a bad guy, but that is the problem. The decent people on the left can't help but defend and make excuses for the thugs. "
You make excuses for torture and the murder of thousands of people, John. What does that make you?
I like how you don't need to see the film, though. Your mind is like a steel trap wrapped around a vacuum.
So John, do you approve of Amy Goodman's arrest? It is on video and she did nothing.
Of course in a group of 1000's there can always be a few troublemakers who deserve to be arrested. I have yet to see any evidence. Evidence in case you didn't know is something liberals require before arrest and conviction.
I will take you at your word about witnessing some punks at demonstrations. Despite the fact that it is always risky to take any conservative at their word, and despite the fact that the media would plaster any footage they had across the television.
"Greenwald is a bad guy,"? Why? Because he believes in freedom and due process more than you do? Is it because he is a better American than you. Please explain.
"Your mind is like a steel trap wrapped around a vacuum."
Can I steal this line Moe?
Despite the fact that it is always risky to take any conservative at their word, and despite the fact that the media would plaster any footage they had across the television.
I managed to see the video of the WTO riots all they way in Germany. What the hell were you doing that you missed it?
Rob Lyman,I do remember video of protesters being beaten by cops (with obligatory talking sh*thead accusations of rioting) if that is what you are talking about. If you have video of protesters instigating something, I would appreciate a link.
Although, heads up, I may use the few bad apples defense;)
To be clear, I have seen video of civilians running away from teargas and being pushed around by cops and bubble-headed bleach blond "reporters" saying "riot" breaks out at WTO protest, but I prefer to trust my lying eyes rather than CNN, MSNBC and especially FOX.
I guess the downtown shopkeepers smashed their own windows then. Probably part of an insurance fraud scheme.
"I guess the downtown shopkeepers smashed their own windows then." says rob
Link please.
Also see my comments at 4:49 and 4:05 about few bad apples.
Do you approve of Amy Goodman's arrest?
And finally Rob, your patriotism is the one in question. Do you believe in free speech and due process or not?
TOPIC:
Most "riots" are started by the police.
DISCUSS
Do you approve of Amy Goodman's arrest?
Not from what I've seen--but I've also seen enough to know there are 2 sides to most stories.
And finally Rob, your patriotism is the one in question. Do you believe in free speech and due process or not?
Yes, that would be why I am opposed to convicting the police based on internet rumors. On the patriotism thing, well, that's just very weird. Not sure where that came from.
Link please.
The fact that you would even ask indicates that you do not, in fact, have the slightest idea what John and I are talking about when we refer to the WTO in Seattle.
Anybody who doubts that Seattle's downtown was seriously smashed up during the WTO, or that there were plenty of violent morons at work, is lying when they claim to have any familiarity with the matter whatsoever. There was rioting, an estimated $2.5 million in damage (more in lost sales from retailers who had to close), and diplomats were literally physically prevented from entering the conference.
There was plenty of bad police behavior and questionable decisions by city leadership, too. I'm certainly not going to deny that.
For several years after, there was similar violence--indeed, worse violence, involving a woman hoisted naked above a groping crowd, gunshots, and one death--at large public gatherings such as Mardi Gras, because the thugs had learned they could get away with it.
Here's a retrospective from a few days after the WTO that covers these bases.
The most clearheaded and even-handed report I've seen on Monday's march was on Voice of America - which is, of course the US propaganda outfit for foreign consumption. In this case protests legitimize the pretension of democracy in a oligarchic state.
On he other hand, for the rest of us local yokels, the media is represents dissent as limited to a hard-core group of ideologues who are unreasonable as well as potentially unbalanced.
We had 10,000 peaceful demonstrators in the street on Monday, and all we're seeing in the local media is some 300+ idiot kids playing at revolution - goaded, no doubt, by the usual agent provocateurs.
The police are over-reacting of course. But let's not forget - this is the country of "Dangerous Police Chases" and "Cops". Most people know that these snotty, over-privileged punks have it coming because Television tells them so.
In the 1960s, a prominant Marxist academic penned "Repressive Tolerance" - which formed the basis of the 60s "Politics of Confrontation". The theory being that the Left knew it was right, and other speech by people outside the Left was actually a tool of repression, and should not be allowed, but silenced and shut down.
Ironic since Marcuse was a Jewish refugee from Germany who nevertheless by being a Communist and a witness to Nazi tactics - concluded that both the Bolsheviks and the Nazi Brownshirt tactics for shutting down "incorrect thoughts" by intimidation, violence, shouting down was highly effective on the masses. And would make "opposition groups members fear speaking out", depriving them of a public forum or hesitate to even show up where organized Leftist (thugs and screamers) awaited.
One such thug determine to shut down others free speech, the liberty to travel freely to a place of their choosing on public ground or as an invitee in a private forum appears to be mozart, who appears to think it is "patriotic" for Leftists to assault others free speech rights, their right to peacefully assemble, even their right to travel freely and have theit private property unmolested by anarchist and Marxist baseball bats and molotov cockrails. While stopping such creeps is unpatriotic, because it might "chill" the precious darlings:
And finally Rob, your patriotism is the one in question. Do you believe in free speech and due process or not?
The public, after 9/11, made their sentiments on domestic or foreign enemy terrorism quite clear. Better to be proactive than reactive. Catch them in violence or conspiracy to violence and use every law enforcement and legal resource to pin the bastards to the wall.
And while racial minorities have Federal protection from any group of thugs that attempt to suppress peaceful demonstration and free speech, the majority is not so protected from Leftist thugs and "silencers" yet by other than misdemeanor tresspass and breech of peace charges.
Laws are being considered after the Seattle WTO riots to make penalties harsher for those who have embraced a lifestyle of disrupting other's free speech, free assembly rights, freedom of movement, and right to be free of violence or intimidation.
Most consideration falls in amending civil rights law - to protect the rights of majorities, and intellectuals who disagree with Leftist dogma.
And finally Rob, your patriotism is the one in question. Do you believe in free speech and due process or not?
Rob responds,
"Yes, that would be why I am opposed to convicting the police based on internet rumors. On the patriotism thing, well, that's just very weird. Not sure where that came from."
No cop has ever been convicted based on internet rumors. You are being dishonest and very silly. It is hard enough to convict a cop based on irrefutable evidence.
On the patriotism thing, I am questioning your belief in the Bill of Rights and therefore your patriotism. why do you hate America Rob Lyman? The fact that people like Rob support McCain, says a lot about J. Sidney's lake of character and love of country.
I am questioning your belief in the Bill of Rights and therefore your patriotism.
Ah. Well, i think that Bill of Rights denialists are idiots. I mean, it's right there for anyone to see. It's not like God, who's invisible, or evolution, that's at least hard to see. My little pocket constitution has it right there in between the part about nine states and the part about not suing states.
As for whether I subscribe to your particular interpretation of the BoR--which would seem to require denying the obvious thuggishness of people who deliberately prevent diplomats from conducting a meeting on lowering tariffs, or demanding strict proof of their well-publicized destruction of property, as well as assuming that police, broadly speaking, are almost always in the wrong--well, no, I'm not sure I can agree with that somewhat offbeat exegesis.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080902/D92U955O0.html
From the AP today.
Members of the Connecticut delegation said they were attacked by protesters when they got off their bus near the Xcel Center, KMSP-TV reported. Delegate Rob Simmons told the station that a group of protesters came toward his delegation and tried to rip the credentials off their necks and sprayed them with a toxic substance that burned their eyes and stained their clothes.
One 80-year-old member of the delegation had to be treated for injuries, and several other delegates had to rinse their eyes and clothing, the station reported.
If Rightwingers pulled this at a Dem Convention, Glen Greenwald and many of the ilk on here would want them rounded up immediately. You wonder why Republicans like gun rights? Because we understand who are enemies are.
John, if only the police hadn't goaded those poor kids into it, I'm sure everything would have been peaceful.
The FBI should have a reason to investigate? SCREW THAT.
I'm worried about government punishing people inappropriately, not about them investigating people inappropriately. ANYONE or group who is advocating violence, or is likely to advocate violence, should be under surveillance. The FBI should be inside EVERY little KKK group, white pride group, anarchist group, and PIRG.
But then I believe in Liberty, not licence to anarchy. The commenters here LOVE thugs, terrorists, criminals, anyone that destroys or seizes property or attempts to hurt Americans.
You can't arrest or beat too many hippies, but you can arrest or beat too little.
John and Rob... you link the words "leftist" and "thug" every single time. People are people. And they're bad eggs in every political persuasion. Even some staunch right wing evangelicals protesting abortion can be pretty gnarly. Be aware that by resorting to "name calling" you descend to a verbal thuggery that is pretty ugly actually.
Rob and John would like to ignore the long, long history of police violence (and outright murder) in this country because they're conservatives, and they value property rights more than they do human rights. To Rob Lyman, a smashed window is more important than a protestor's smashed skull or a journalist being beaten and jailed for nothing.
Or so it seems. I've looked at his posts here a couple of times trying to see why I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing it.
Maybe Rob's just got a fetish for windows, and he's not the apologist for goon squads he appears to be. Maybe.
I think you are on to something Moe. I do believe that Rob, john, hey and Chris Ford do value the life of a window more than the skull of a human. Unless that skull votes Republican of course.
And Rob Lyman, I am sure that our interpretations of the Bill of Rights vary dramatically. I believe in reasonable suspicion before interrogation, probable cause prior to arrest, a right to counsel, and conviction only upon a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I would assume a fascist such as yourself would disagree.
And same to you Hey, John and Chris Ford.
Can we all agree that antiwar or anti-republican protesters should be treated the same way as anti-abortion or Ron Paul protesters?
Protesting is patriotic as long as it is performed in a nonviolent manner. [This categorical imperative does not apply to the drunk guys involved in the Boston Tea Party, Adams, Jefferson, Hancock, or Washington, et. al.]
err, that would be pro Ron Paul activists.
John and Rob... you link the words "leftist" and "thug" every single time.
I do not believe I have used the word "leftist" even one single time, nevermind linking it to anything else on a regular basis. But of course, you are welcome to prove me wrong. In the process of doing so, you might note that I am a different person from John, Chris, and hey, and do not necessarily share their rather harsh views.
To Rob Lyman, a smashed window is more important than a protestor's smashed skull or a journalist being beaten and jailed for nothing.
If you really have looked at the posts several times and found evidence for this belief, you may wish to ask your optometrist to update your prescription. Smashed windows are evidence--which mozart seems determined to ignore--that protests were not peaceful and that police had a sound reason to disperse crowds. The windows themselves are uninteresting; if they had been smashed by a force of nature instead of violent morons, I wouldn't care.
And speaking of smashed skulls, I think it fair to ask for evidence of one, either at the WTO or the RNC.
I would assume a fascist such as yourself would disagree.
I think you would be surprised by the degree to which fascists such as myself support a reasonable understanding of constitutional rights. If you have evidence of interrogation without suspicion, arrest without probable cause, denial of the right to counsel, or conviction without adequate evidence, please feel free to offer it.
Can we all agree that antiwar or anti-republican protesters should be treated the same way as anti-abortion or Ron Paul protesters?
I would definitely agree with that, provided that we assume their behavior is the same.
Rob Lyman says: "I think you would be surprised by the degree to which fascists such as myself support a reasonable understanding of constitutional rights. If you have evidence of interrogation without suspicion, arrest without probable cause, denial of the right to counsel, or conviction without adequate evidence, please feel free to offer it."
Oh, come on, Robby. We both know you don't give a fat flying fuck about the civil rights of (for instance) the people arrested in the preemptive raids. In the long run those arrests and detentions won't hold up to scrutiny - if you were an honest man you'd concede that right now and stop bloviating.
Rob, do you have any evidence of widespread violence by protesters? [Aside from those Ron Paul types who kind of scare me and I think should be water-boarded as a precautionary measure]
Of course, some people in any crowd may get out of hand, but do you have any evidence that this has happened to any significant degree?
Can we all agree that antiwar or anti-republican protesters should be treated the same way as anti-abortion or Ron Paul protesters? Says I
"I would definitely agree with that, provided that we assume their behavior is the same." says Rob
I would never compare the behavior of anti-republican protesters to the behavior of some anti-abortion activists. Some in the anti-choice movement are terrorist who bomb clinics and kill doctors and I wouldn't want to slander good liberals by association.
Rob, do you have any evidence of widespread violence by protesters?
Of course not. The violence has been scattered and the vast majority of protesters are peaceful. I have never said otherwise.
Some in the anti-choice movement are terrorist who bomb clinics and kill doctors and I wouldn't want to slander good liberals by association.
The terrorists who do those sorts of things are typically arrested and prosecuted, no? Eric Rudolph is serving 5 consecutive life sentences after bargaining his way down from death.
We both know you don't give a fat flying fuck about the civil rights of (for instance) the people arrested in the preemptive raids
If only a middle ground between "beat more hippies" and "don't give a fat flying fuck about civil rights" were possible. Then some hypothetical commenter, adopting this middle ground, could urge that the parties concentrate on the content of the warrants, the affidavits supporting them, and the evidence, if any, that the police used to justify their actions.
What a pity that hypothetical commenter does not--indeed, can not--exist.
hey: "You can't arrest or beat too many hippies, but you can arrest or beat too little."
Yeah, because that's really the big problem these days: hippies.