Quote:

---

a bum, leech, and scumbag, all on my dime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
The issue with torture is the uncertainty. If there were no uncertianty, then there would be no excuse for torture. Is it THIS person, or ANOTHER ? Did they DO this, or NOT ? A KNOWN guilty person isn't being tortured, they're being punished. That's what I see as a deciding inconsistancy.

So you do agree that my question and yours are not the same.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
A person who is KNOWN to be guilty is legally in a different category. That makes it a different question.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
With 'free speech' zones ?

---

What's your problem with free speech? Personally, I'm in favor of free speech...perhaps we differ on this point.
H

---

Quote:

---

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former detainees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement accuse the agency in a lawsuit of forcibly injecting them with psychotropic drugs while trying to shuttle them out of the country during their deportation. One of the drugs in question is the potent anti-psychotic drug Haldol, which is often used to treat schizophrenia or other mental illnesses.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
Would you think that was right? Or in any case, an infringement of your rights?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
...

I don't see a problem here, although like everything else there is always the potential for abuse...especially by Democrats.

I note for the record about your example of a Democrat getting into the White House in 2008...I assume you meant on a tour or something.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I'd sure like you to explain that one too, 'Hero'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What about a motorcade where there IS no speech given, and therefore, no chance of interruption ? Should people with the 'right' signs be allowed while people with the 'wrong' signs get excluded ?

And being evicted and arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirt ? Whaa ???? Are brown shirts now required ?

---

Quote:

---

I've never heard of folk just standing on the side of the road being removed

---

Quote:

---

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.' The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

If you read the details of the arrest, you'll find that he did not "resist" arrest, he just refused to go when they told him to and was peaceably taken to jail. For carrying a sign. So now you've heard of ONE case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

If you read the details of the arrest, you'll find that he did not "resist" arrest, he just refused to go when they told him to and was peaceably taken to jail. For carrying a sign. So now you've heard of ONE case.

---

It sounds like a staged political event, in which case the President had a right to control the venue. He did not take away the person's right to speak, he merely moved it for a limited time AWAY from the President's right to speak.

The man was free to express any message he wanted, in any form he wanted, to anyone he wanted, any time he wanted, any place he wanted (all within normal reason, can't mow the lawn at midnight and such)...but he had no right to take advantage of the President's venue because the President has the same rights and the same reasonable protections.

Setting up the "free speech zone" protects him and the President both by giving them both a place to express themselves without undue interferance from the other. God Bless America

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
BDN - it's the imperfection of posting - is there snark or are you saying that seriously? Really, I'm not sure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm being serious. Hero is defending the legality of free speech zones that have been in place since the Vietnam war. I thought this thread was about the 'Police State' that has supposedly arisen during Bush's tenure. If all Signy can come up with is one incident 5 years ago than I think some perspective is needed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
We're not going after Hero because of "one" isolated five year-old incident. And if that's how you truly think of it, then you haven't been paying much attention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
(Would Hero speak up if the love Hillary crowd corralled all the Repubs into a corner far from the cameras?)

---

Quote:

---

I do know that it has been a practice of this administration to keep critical messages out of Bush's view, as if to preserve his delusional belief that he is right. Arresting a peaceful person for not agreeing to be silenced (moving him to a place where he can't be seen

---

Quote:

---

A person, the President or otherwise, can't freely speak if someone else refuses to be silenced. Since the govt can't legally silence them, the only remedy is to provide them an alternate forum where they can shout to their heart's content without stopping someone they disagree, or the President, from speaking their piece.

---

Quote:

---

I seem to recall that guy from the Minutemen being denied free speech at Columbia by kind of folk your defending.

---

Quote:

---

They simply had no right to the President's venue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Personally, I'm going to give as much as I can to the FSF and ACLU. If there's a demonstration - I'm going to join it. And I'm going to write, write, write to members Congress. And think of anything else I can do.

Or maybe I'll just sit on my duff and complain ...

***************************************************************
... polish my gun, and feel all heroic.

---

Quote:

---

REALLY hate to break it you, but those two organizations are FUELING the flames of violent revolution, no not fanning, but instead dumping barrels of gasoline outright.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

I've been reading the 'bury guns' thread.

I wonder how packing a pistol, or even a rifle, is going to do any good when the SWAT team outguns you and you get 'disappeared'.

All you supposed libertarians out there - you going to get up on your hind legs about this ??
-----


"It's scary how many neo-Nazis line up to shit on the Constitution."And how few freedom-lovers rise to defend it.

Hey - you libertarians out there - Do you think your guns are going to help you as your neighbors stand behind their curtains to spy on what's going on ? And later they'll say - gee I never would have guessed ... and much later they'll say ... hey whatever happened to ...

There are some things that need a mass response. Buying guns isn't going to help you one bit.
-----

Personally, I'm going to give as much as I can to the FSF and ACLU. If there's a demonstration - I'm going to join it. And I'm going to write, write, write to members Congress. And think of anything else I can do.

Or maybe I'll just sit on my duff and complain ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Wow, I cannot believe you are all going after Hero for ONE isolated incident that happened over 5 YEARS ago.
Perspective people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero, you must be confused. The "event" was a motorcade, open to the public. How did he not have a right to the "venue"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
We say, the zones are nice, but legal freespeech -outside- the areas of the presentation are being suppressed, and Hero says 'Look at the pretty free speech zones.'

---

Quote:

---

In any case, I've lost interest. There's no point in trying to point out any single incident of problem because even if a point is made, it will simply be ignored.

---

Quote:

---

Edit: And if you follow Hero's posts, he never once even suggests it 'might' be ok to defy a cop's order.

---

Quote:

---

Much later Edit: 5 years is recent. Sadly, in this country, such issues take 2-3 years to make it through the courts.

---

Quote:

---

If we don't have a court decision in hand, Hero will 'sit on high' and proclaim that the poor fool had it coming for standing up to the officer and telling the officer he had no right to tell him where to go.

---

Quote:

---

If appeals aren't complete, Hero will explain to us how when it gets to the supreme court, it will get shot down because, after all, he's the constitutional expert.

---

Quote:

---

A motorcade is not open to the public.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

A motorcade is not open to the public.

---

Huh? General transportation of the President from point A to Point B is not open to the public. But we're not talking about transporation. We're talking about seeing and being seen by ... the public. And if you can find any laws regarding Presidential motorcades and their status as a "private event" I'd like to see you post it here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LeadB:
In any case, I've lost interest. There's no point in trying to point out any single incident of problem because even if a point is made, it will simply be ignored.

---

Wow, and the same thing happens when you blow a single incident or a series of isolated unrelated incidents out of proportion, package them up with generalization and rumor and slap 'Evil Govt. Conspiracy' on them.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Edit: And if you follow Hero's posts, he never once even suggests it 'might' be ok to defy a cop's order.

---

If you think the order's unlawful, challenge it in court. Its never a good idea to challenge the guy pointing the taser at you. The very act of defying a lawful order is a crime, which means arrest, taser, strip search, perhaps resisting, lost teeth, and Bubba your cell mate.

Or you could simply disagree with the officer, then file a complaint, have a hearing, win a judgement, and get some money and the satisfaction of knowing you resolved your conflict in a civilized manner.

Unless your wrong in which case you still avoided Bubba.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Much later Edit: 5 years is recent. Sadly, in this country, such issues take 2-3 years to make it through the courts.

---

It depends on the case. If its a Federal Civil Rights action heading to the Supreme Court...3 years minumum.

Most of these cases can be handled quickly in District Courts. By quickly it can be as little as a day or as long as a year.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If we don't have a court decision in hand, Hero will 'sit on high' and proclaim that the poor fool had it coming for standing up to the officer and telling the officer he had no right to tell him where to go.

---

It depends on the circumstances. If your trespassing, being disorderly, interferring with the other party, or acting in a beligerant manner...then they have a duty to tell you where to go and a duty to shock the hell out of you if you refuse and resist.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If appeals aren't complete, Hero will explain to us how when it gets to the supreme court, it will get shot down because, after all, he's the constitutional expert.

---

Can't argue with you there. I am this board's foremost expert, which does not mean a heck of a lot since most of you are pretty Constitutionally challenged...although I consider myself number 2 here at the office.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
BFD. (That's NOT Buffalo Fire Department) So the President has an event and some folks make an attempt to plan nice things. So what? That doesn't mean the president has any particular "right" to keep dissenters away.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero, you must be confused. The "event" was a motorcade, open to the public. How did he not have a right to the "venue"?

---

A motorcade is not open to the public. It merely makes use of public streets...like a parade. And like a parade they are entitled to protection and crowd control. If they want everybody out there doing whatever, thats fine and its generally how it is. But if they want a more controlled event...they have that right too.

The protestor can stand on the street all they want. The venue is provided by the arrival and participation of the President and he is under no obligation to be forced to share his venue with a dissenter and under no obligation to listen to their message.

Its fine to want everyone to have equal time for their say. But there are 300 million folks in this country...we can't let them all have the podium at the same time. If they want to have a speech or make a statement, thats fine. But there's no law says they get a microphone or captive audience. They want a microphone (either an actual one or a metaphorical one in the form of press coverage) they can earn one, they got no right to take the President's.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
There were about 220 arrests during the protests with only 4 convictions. ' That seems like a pretty poor ratio.

---