OUTRAGEOUS ! bushites take "carriers of 1000 soldiers' coffins" to TRIAL

[diamond14]

this is OUTRAGEOUS...arrests and TRIALS for those who dare to honor OUR soldiers by "carrying 1000 soldiers' coffins" to OUR White House....




http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/119501

WASHINGTON DC, Tuesday March 15th, 2005:

On Oct 2nd 2004, during an anti-war memorial service and protest-military-family-speak-out, who's loved ones were killed in Iraq, Iraq veterans and others carried more than a 100 coffins draped in the US flag to mark the publication of a 1000 US soldiers death in Iraq... They intended to deliver them to the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, to remind the US president who is asking for more $$ to send more soldiers to Iraq, when already more than a 1000 died...

They could not get near the white house: a police barricade erected to stop the anti-globalization protests against the International Monetary Fund stopped their procession. So 28 of them decided to cross the police line. They calmly crossed the barricades, sat on the Ellipse lawn and chanted, carrying the names of fallen US soldiers in Iraq.

Away from the news, discretely like a dirty secret, they are on trial tomorrow, 5 and a 1/2 month after their arrest. They chose to represent themselves to take back their power from a government who no longer listens to them.

[Demit]

1. I wish the story had noted what they're being charged with

[diamond14]

2. bushites ALWAYS arrest/charge/put-on-Trial ANYONE who stands up

to their power....the POWERFUL and SILENT coffins are particularly troublesome to bush* and his CRUSADING minions....all across America, permits have been denied, only a small number of coffins were allowed to be displayed, or the entire display was SHUT DOWN....it's been a legal fight the whole way, and few Americans understand that....




IMO, it will be the SOLDIERS (like John Kerry did for the Vietnam War) that finally rise up to shut down bush* WARS...and bushites are very well aware of that historic possibility, and have specifically targeted the soldiers, their families, and the coffin display, and the BOOTS display....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. bushites ALWAYS arrest/charge

There have been a multitude of similar demonstrations where nobody was arrested.

[Lone Pawn]

26. The difference is

they weren't doing anything illegal in those demonstrations.

[HEyHEY]

105. There you go, bringing up pertinent information again

[Lone Pawn]

25. So you're saying that protestors are always rounded up and arrested?

Not true. The only ones that have ever been arrested are those who broke the law while protesting--like these. If you don't get a permit, complain about that--but don't complain when you're arrested for being in violation of the law.

[Goldmund]

76. I can personally attest to that being absolutely untrue.

"The only ones that have ever been arrested are those who broke the law while protesting"

If you had hung out in NYC during the RNC -- or at least read about what was happening -- you'd know what I'm talking about.

[Lone Pawn]

83. Okay, link?

Who was arrested and charged despite breaking no laws?

[Goldmund]

89. Here's one of the thousands of links.

You can google for the rest:

http://www.2600.com/rnc2004/printer.html

Read it. I myself saw most of what he's talking about in that article.

I saw random passers-by get swept up in orange nets with my own eyes. I saw protesters being arrested after chanting anti-Bush slogans (thereby identifying themselves as protesters) after not having been touched beforehand, walking on the sidewalk. I myself avoided getting arrested just for being there simply because I could run fast enough. There are thousands upon thousands of accounts like this.

The abuse was so blatant that they couldn't even bring up any charges against many protesters, prompting a judge to order their release:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57531-2004Sep2.html

Also from that article:

"Several dozen of those detained said that they had not taken part in protests. Police apparently swept up the CEO of a puppet theater as he and a friend walked out of the subway to celebrate his birthday. Two middle-age women who had been shopping at the Gap were handcuffed, and a young woman was arrested as she returned from her job at a New York publishing house. "

[Lone Pawn]

92. Did you miss the word

"charged?" Whenever police believe mass demonstrations are out of hand, they detain and release. It's common safety practice.

I'm asking about people who were actually arrested and charged as these idiots were.

[Goldmund]

95. They were not out of hand. These were random arrests...

...with the sole purpose of intimidation and illegal supression. Read the actual links I posted, or google it yourself, if you're so clueless about it already.

I guess by your standard, they can send any liberals who "get out of hand" to Guantanamo and as long as they don't charge them, it's cool.

Also, where did I miss any words? You said "The only ones that have ever been arrested are those who broke the law while protesting". Factually untrue.

If you think that no protesters have been charged without breaking the law, does that mean that you think that every single protester charged has been found guilty?

[Lone Pawn]

101. No, certainly not.

I've read your links, and I've read links from slightly less alarmist, less biased sources as well. I've also heard Republican horror stories from Boston and the DNC, and those were greatly exaggerated as well.

Did I say Guantanamo? Of course not. If the police actually believe that certain pockets of the protest could erupt into violence, then they're allowed to detain overnight and release without bringing charges. Clearly in order to maintain detainment charges must be brought, and clearly Gitmo is in violation of US law.

Finally, I meant 'arrested and detained' and clarified as such in the post you just replied to.

[Goldmund]

102. Washingtonpost is an alarmist source alright.

As far as the other article -- since I have seen with my own eyes 90% of what he's talking about, I really don't have anything to debate.

The police did not and could not have believed that certain pockets of the protest could erupt into violence. Had you been there, you would know. If you're waiting for FAUX to report it, wait away.

"they're allowed to detain overnight" -- they were illegally detained for over 40 hours.

You said no protesters have been charged without breaking the law.

I'll tell you that most protesters who actually were CHARGED in NYC were found not guilty. After having to show up to court 5 or 6 (and having to get off work -- another form of intimidation) times without the prosecutors ever showing up; when the limit of how many times they can fail to show up to court was reached, the charges had to be dismissed. My roommate went through that exact scenario after she was arrested on 2/15/2003. You know what for? For holding up a sign. A thug cop on a horse ripped the sign away from her and threw it to the ground. She went to get it and was handcuffed.

If you want to keep this illusion up, go ahead. Is that a girl-scout knocking on the door of your suburban home? Ah, freedom... It's good.

[FreedomAngel82]

108. I remember reading about the RNC protestors

and they were arrested and not given a lawyer. Not told why they were being arrested. Held for over seventy-two hours. And not given a phone call. Go to http://www.truthout.org and in their media section watch the video of people being arrested for NO reason and one woman tells how they were treated. Disgusting!

[TWiley]

97. Which Idiots? The police who made the arrests, or the

fascist republicans who encouraged it?

<<as these idiots were>>

[Tigress DEM]

103. How about "pretending" to protest and getting arrested?

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/entertainment/article.adp?id=20050315171009990003&cid=921

<snip>
Dawson, 25, and Grosgalves, 28, were arrested while shooting a scene for a film about political protests, using an actual rally by thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators marching past Madison Square Garden as a backdrop.

Police said the pair were blocking traffic and violating municipal laws that bar protesters from concealing their identity with masks. When Marshall showed officers they had a legitimate permit from the city, police handcuffed him, too, and hauled away all three.

But Arnone said video of the incident made clear "that neither street nor pedestrian traffic was being obstructed as a result of the defendants' actions ... and that they remained civil and followed the directives of the police."

Dawson's lawyer, Ben Brafman, hailed the dismissal as a "complete vindication" of his client, adding that she "never violated the law and should never have been arrested in the first place."

[FreedomAngel82]

109. In this article it said

they had a legitimate permit with them.

[Tigress DEM]

111. Actor/Actress, legitimate permit, still arrested. Yep.

The court did the right thing though.

[FreedomAngel82]

107. Yep

Exactly. Anybody who goes against them they have to silence and get rid of. Sad, really. :argh:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. ???

They chose to represent themselves to take back their power from a government who no longer listens to them.

WTF?

[diamond14]

4. they probably don't have the money to fight the bushites, so they put

a proud spin on being CRUSHED by bushites....


"Freedom of Speech" has been totally removed by bushite facism....


you can't even display the COFFINS of OUR dead soldiers - died for bush* LIES....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. They couldn't find a pro bono lawyer?

For anti-war protesters?
In DC?!?

Give me a break.

[diamond14]

12. welllll....there are 21 people taken to TRIAL by the bushites...

after waiting almost 6 months....at this point in time, MANY pro-peace lawyers are working HARD on the events for this week/weekend....

it takes a LOT of legal work to get permits and maintain permits and fight with bushites over stupid little permit details and interpretations....certainly a LOT of pro-peace VOLUNTEER attorneys are REAL BUSY...and I think that the timing is DELIBERATE by the bushites...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Yes.

Bush fears the protesters. Since all of our protests so far have done so much to slow him down.

Please give it a rest. If they just pled guilty (since they are, in fact, guilty) the judge would probably just let them go or give them a slap on the wrist. This is a lame publicity stunt.

[diamond14]

17. these BRAVE patriots should be HONORED, rather than calling their

actions a 'publicity stunt'....


These BRAVE American Patriots deserve a LOT of publicity...and I will NOT be quiet about this....attempts to silence this are reprehensible....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. Look, I'm sorry.

I've protested. I've been there. Sometimes fucked up shit happens, and people who've done nothing illegal get arrested. THAT is fucked up.

If you want to argue that the barrier shouldn't have been there in the first place, then argue that point. But you can't seriously be arguing that people who selectively break the law shouldn't be called to task for their actions. That is a bunch of bullshit.

[Lone Pawn]

23. It is a publicity stunt, and Bush isn't 'behind this.'

I will phrase this as simply as possible.

1. These people crossed a police line that said 'do not cross.' That is breaking the law.

2. When somebody breaks the law, they get arrested and taken to trial.

3. One should not be exempted from the law because of one's political beliefs.

4. Therefore these people should have been arrested.

5. Therefore this arrest is not interesting.

There's nothing to silence about this. It's just stupid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. Of course it's a publicity stunt. Because * wants to keep as much

of this as possible under the radar.

Things didn't change in the 60's because of people being nice and following all the rules. Gotta shake things up, get noticed, and stay in the spotlight.

It's called civil DISobedience.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. They weren't arrested for displaying coffins.

Of course, it's difficult to tell *what* they were arrested for, because the article doesn't say.

[Lone Pawn]

24. They are by law entitled to a public defender.

You obviously have no idea what's going on here.

Moreover, they weren't arrested for displaying coffins. They were arrested for violating a police line, which they clearly and flagrantly did.

[FreedomAngel82]

110. Was this on public property?

If this was on public property and they weren't bothering people and making violence etc. then what's the problem?

[Zynx]

5. Why the hell are the representing themselves?

Even if they have no money, they are entitled to a public defender.

Representing yourself is just idiotic - I don't care if you are trying to make a point or not. Most people don't even know courtroom procedure, and that tends to irritate the judge.

[diamond14]

6. it's shocking that LOTS of LAWYERS haven't volunteered their time

we have plenty of lawyers in DC...it's our MAJOR industry....


but the lack of interest by Main-Stream-Media...this whole bushite shame has been totally brushed under the carpet....


just because you roll up your sleeves and buy the materials and build the coffins, carrying the Soldiers COFFINS out to the White House, and handling all those logistics and costs....it doesn't mean that you know anything about COURTS and TRIALS....so these people need help....


I commend them as American Heroes, who put their own safety and careers and lives on the line to HONOR OUR SOLDIERS (under bushite rule)....their story was DISAPPEARED by bushies media....THIS FREQUENTLY HAPPENS to evade the SHAME-on-bush* and to crap all over these people at trial...welcome to bushite regime !!!!

[Lone Pawn]

27. If they want a lawyer, they just have to ask.

Under miranda rights, they were explicitly told that:
1. They have the right to a lawyer.
2. If they cannot afford a lawyer the court will supply them with one for free.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Because they want to martyr themselves?

Not that there's any way of knowing for sure, given the total lack of any useful information in the indymedia article.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Good timing. The trial begins three days before the 3/19

protests -- a quiet reminder to protesters that they can and will be arrested if they join the protests against the war.

[Lone Pawn]

11. Or rather, if they join

protests that are done in an illegal manner.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. Legal is as legal does.

There's no mention in the constitution of 'free speech zones'. The government cannot forbit the people the right to peacefully assemble. They did that. They didn't rush the barricade, beating down the cops as the trampled over them. There was no disturbance. It was a peaceful assembly.

What part of that do you not understand?

[Lone Pawn]

85. Sure. Citizens do not obey the Constitution, and no part of the

Constitution applies to any civilian. It applies to laws that the government has made. Even if you believe that a law is unconstitutional, breaking it is still unlawful. The legal recourse is to challenge it in front of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules the law does not violate the Constitution, then it does not. End of story.

It does not matter if the assembly was peaceable or not. It was in a police security zone. Just as the Consitution does not allow me to demonstrate in your living room without your permission, and just as it does not allow me to walk into the Senate chanting and holding protest signs during a vote, it does not allow them to cross a police line just because they're protesting.

I believe I understand the situation more than you do.

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. Sometimes bad laws need to be broken.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it was illegal for the kids to sit at the Walgreen's lunch counter. It was a bad law.

Civil disobedience is pushing on a bad law, and taking the lumps you get for doing so, until enough people have noticed just how bad it is and demand it be changed.

Are we already forgetting that at one time the entire country was a free speech zone?

[Lone Pawn]

10. Oh, for Christ's sakes. Give it up already.

They crossed a police barricade. It doesn't matter if you were chanting soldier names or "George Bush Is My God And I Jerk Off To His Picture Every Night"--if you go into an area that explicitly says "this area is forbidden. If you go in this area you will be arrested," you will unsurprisingly be arrested. There's no story here, except how a bunch of damn fools thought that their idealism would somehow trump the law.

And choosing to represent yourself is foolish. "Take back your power?" That doesn't even make logical sense. They will gain no power by denying themselves a public defender, and likely will simply make things even worse for themeselves.

I'm surprised you think lawyers generally fall all over themselves to defend people that clearly and admittedly broke the law, but are pleading innocent on purely political grounds.

[diamond14]

18. are you trying to SILENCE any publicity for this trial?

:puke:

interesting: the evocation of God's name in order to silence....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. Given that this is a publicity stunt...

...and given that nobody will care, there's nothing at all to silence.

[fooj]

54. I care.

:hi:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

61. Yes, but that's my point.

you already care. They're not changing anyone's mind with this.

[diamond14]

64. hahahaha....ohhhhhh....mmmmmyyyyyyy......

LOL....

[Lone Pawn]

22. Publicity? It's a non-story!

Some idiot protestors crossed a police line and found themselves arrested! Wowee! Nobody gives a damn!

[bloom]

28. There are a lot of people on this board who like to protest

and try to get the story out.

A lot of people "give a damn".


Maybe you have a "better" way of bringing to light the deadly aspects of the war. Or maybe not... :shrug:

[Lone Pawn]

29. They weren't arrested for protesting! Protesting is just fine!

They were arrested for...wait for it...wait for it...

BREAKING THE LAW WHILE PROTESTING!

They crossed a police barricade. That is illegal.

I do have a "better" way. That would be protesting without being in flagrant, illegal violation of a police do-not-cross line.

[bloom]

32. civil disobedience

Maybe you've heard of it.

Sometimes "illegal" gets more done than the legal variety. Think lunch counter sit-ins in the South. Tree-sits in the west. Critical Mass bike rides.

It's not like someone/something was hurt.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. Think lunch counter sit-ins in the South.

The fact that you would even dare compare these people to the lunch counter protesters explains a lot about why they're not taken seriously.

And the other two items you mention have both accomplished essentially nothing for their respective goals.

[bloom]

40. Oh I dare

illegal is illegal.

So do you defend the rights of the lunchcounter people - but not of these?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

43. Let's just say I have a bit more respect for them risking their lives

than I do for these folks, who are decidedly not risking anything more than a night or two in jail.

Edit: There was actually a point to the sit-ins, as well. AND they were effective.

[Lone Pawn]

42. Tree-sits? Bike rides?

Wow. Those are damn effective. Just look at all the good they haven't ever accomplished.

Speaking of which,

1. Civil disobedience is still disobedience. You will be arrested. That's part of the package. You wanna be a martyr? Here's a hint: martyrs don't get off with a warning because they tell their crucifyer that they're a martyr.

2. In civil disobedience, the law broken is related to what they're protesting. You find a racist law unfair? Break the law and show the world how unfair it is. Refuse to move to the back of the bus. Drink from the Whites Only fountain. Don't leave the lunch counter. But were these protestors protesting the existence of police barricades? No! They were protesting Bush's war! How does breaking a police barricade make a statement about a war, other than "please arrest me?"

[bloom]

45. Do you support the "Free Speech Zones"...

"What happened was, quite simply, an establishment of the south part of the Ellipse as that now famous Orwellian space known as a “free speech zone.” We have seen too many of these “free speech zones” lately and they have become a cancer on our body politic."

-from their argument
 
-----------------

[Lone Pawn]

52. Answer below nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. Banging head against wall does not make you a hero.

Since all of these protests up to now have had essentially a 0% success rate, I would suggest that you find another avenue for getting your story out. Preferably one that doesn't demand that I view you as a hero or martyr. Why not spend your time doing work for Human Rights Watch, or one of a multitude of other NGOs that are, if nothing else, at least well-respected by far more sectors of the American public than anti-war protesters.

[bloom]

34. I didn't say that I was -but I don't condemn the ones who do go this route

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. I don't condem them either.

Neither am I going to consider them heros or martyrs. And I'm not going to support this idiocy of pleading innocent to charges of which they are clearly guilty.

[bloom]

39. Do you support the "Free Speech Zones"...

that are crafted to keep any dissent away from the eyes of B**h.



"What happened was, quite simply, an establishment of the south part of the Ellipse as that now famous Orwellian space known as a “free speech zone.” We have seen too many of these “free speech zones” lately and they have become a cancer on our body politic."

-from their argument

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. No.

>that are crafted to keep any dissent away from the eyes of B**h.

They are crafted to:

1) Make sure you never have a photo of Bush with protesters in the background

2) Make it easy for the police to contain the demonstration in case shit goes down.

3) Occasionally for bullshit national security reasons.

[Lone Pawn]

44. No, and neither do I, and I don't mind

people protesting the idea of a free speech zone. At the same time, I'm not going to get angry if people are arrested for violating a free-speech zone law. They were told what the law was. They're rather idiots for crossing it, and even more idiots for pleading innocent for a charge they more or less admitted guilty to in their argument.

[bloom]

48. Are you with "yibbehobba" ?

you seem like a pair.


I'm not angry they are arrested - I just don't condemn what they did.

And I don't think they are "idiots" for trying to do something. I wish more would.

[Lone Pawn]

50. I agree with him, yes.

I'm not 'in cahoots' or anything like that.

I don't condemn what they did either. I just think it was worthless, and I especially think this OUTRAGE the thread title would have me feel is worthless.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

51. I don't necessarily condemn them.

I just think they're idiots. They're free to do whatever idiotic thing they want, get thrown in jail, etc. If this is what makes them happy, so be it.

At the same time I'm under no obligation to support what they're doing, and I'm quite free to call "bullshit" on the people who are labeling them as heroes.

And no, I'm not with the mollusk dude.

Edit: No mollusk in evidence. I read the screenname as "Lone Prawn" instead of "Lone Pawn"

[fasttense]

80. Maybe the previous protests have not been successful because

the protesters did follow the law.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

113. Crossing a police barricade will not end the war.

Every union could go on strike, and it would not end the war.
Everyone opposed to what's been done could stop going to work, take to the streets, and bring this country to a halt... and it would not end the war.

Since there's not even the slimmest chance of anything that radical happening, I think it's safe to say that these folks aren't going to end the war either.

[Tigress DEM]

104. Non-Story is "SS Personal Accounts will help Young People"

Because it's not true. It's an opinion.

You can say that crossing the police line deserves an arrest. OK.

However, the White House does not BELONG to the Prez. It belongs to the PEOPLE. The fact that 1000 flag draped coffins were brought into DC to protest 1000 soldiers dying in Iraq should be news.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with how they did it, the fact is it happened. They were denied access to present their case publicly via peaceful protest to the White House.

So they crossed a police line that was there to keep out protesters of an entirely different protest. Calmly. Got arrested. It's still news because it happened on the White House lawn for God sakes.

News isn't about who is right or wrong, it's about what is important that is happening in our world. If you can't see what is important about this protest, you're not thinking clearly.

[walldude]

88. Sometimes the law is wrong...

They crossed a police barricade put up so the person that the protests were directed at didn't have to see them. I've seen Bush break alot of laws, why the fuck isn't he on trial?

[Straight Shooter]

15. I just want to know why the barricade was erected in the first place.

Is this SOP now, or was it done specifically in anticipation of the coffin protest? What was the true rationale behind the barricade? To protect the grounds? To protect the most paranoid man in the world?

The reason and the timing for the barricade will reveal a lot about what's really happening here, whether the White House was doing a little domestic pre-emptive strike against the protest. Perhaps it was the subject matter which sounded the alarm at the White House to "circle the wagons."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. From the OP

They could not get near the white house: a police barricade erected to stop the anti-globalization protests against the International Monetary Fund stopped their procession

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. If the barricade was to prevent anti-globalization protesters

and these were not anti-globalization protesters, I think that gives them grounds for the not-guilty plea.

[Straight Shooter]

100. I read that, but it doesn't answer WHY in this particular instance.

This is what bothers me: what is the underlying rationale behind the barricade? Also, is this standard operating procedure for any protest?

[ramblin_dave]

30. Closing statement from today's court appearance

Sent to me by one of the 28 arrested that day - part of their closing statement to be read today in court:

We are here today accused of violating 36 CFR § 1.5. Yet the facts in evidence show that it was the government that abused this law by closing this space on an unsubstantiated U.S. Secret Service allegation that something really bad (i.e., a terrorist act) might happen there during the period of October 1- October 3. I guess it’s good to be “Secret” because it means you can do whatever you want to do to quash dissent and no one can ask you to prove that the threat was real because “national security” is at risk.

But as noted in the pending ACORN et al. v. City of Philadelphia et al., Civil Action No. 03-4312, which we introduced earlier, “Excluding protesters from traditional public forums where Administration supporters, spectators and other members of the general public are allowed to congregate and relegating protesters to distant protest zones is not a tactic new to the current presidential administration.”

The government used the statute wrongfully to limit our rights of assembly and free speech. This is because the Administration did not like what we or someone else might have to say. Our proposed Memorial at the north end of the Ellipse as originally permitted was in fact lawful and true to the highest democratic tradition of this country. Had we been allowed to present the names of the dead to the White House, there likely would have been no arrests and we would not be here today, but our Memorial and presentation of names was considered to be political dissent that the government saw fit to crush.

The tradition that allows us to redress our government when we believe it is behaving badly. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” and we were endeavoring to be true patriots.

The government cannot prove a terrorist threat that day, indeed, has only asserted one. To close this public space and then charge us with violating 36 CFR § 1.5 was a classic red herring meant to divert attention from the government’s desire to silence us by prohibiting us from approaching the White House. Silencing us by keeping us far away – as you have seen in the picture we presented – had nothing to do with security.

What happened was, quite simply, an establishment of the south part of the Ellipse as that now famous Orwellian space known as a “free speech zone.” We have seen too many of these “free speech zones” lately and they have become a cancer on our body politic.

We submit to you that no “terrorist threat” existed to justify the closure of the north end of the Ellipse, and certainly not from us or our actions. The government has provided no proof of an emergency situation related to our actions, and has only asserted that security needs at the World Bank (many blocks away, having nothing to do with our petition, and separated by miles of barriers) had something to do with it.

Frankly, your honor, and in closing, why should we believe a government that took us into a war in Iraq while asserting that a doomsday emergency existed when – as we all now know – it did not? Look at the good, peaceable people in this courtroom who up until the last moment appealed to the Park Service to allow these non-violent citizens to deliver the names of the dead to the White House. When we were refused our rights to petition our Government, even then we comported ourselves with all due respect of the Park Service officers even while insisting we had a right to approach the White House (our White House) on public ground (our public ground),

Then compare our dignified actions to the abusive and loose use of a law by the government in order to prevent legitimate non-violent dissent in a public park.

After doing so, I hope that you will see fit to dismiss these charges and serve notice to the government that this is still a country where people can lawfully exercise their first amendment rights by speaking to their elected officials. Thank you.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Damn.

They really should have accepted a public defender.

[merh]

46. Wonderful closing. Thank you for providing it.

I think it deserves a thread of its own! :toast:

[fooj]

56. Dissent is patriotic!

Hi merh-what's up?

[merh]

59. Not much! What's up with you!

:hi:

[Lone Pawn]

47. *sigh* how noble. Too bad they don't understand that the purpose

of the judge is not to determine whether or not the law morally ought exist, but whether or not the law was broken. That was a speech that is more suited to giving to a representitive voting for such zones, not a judge attempting to determine if the zone was violated or not.

[ramblin_dave]

53. The statement claims the law was misused

and a judge can indeed rule on that.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

57. And they really should have gotten a lawyer.

Because their statement is awful.

[Lone Pawn]

58. They claim the law 'might have been misused.'

They have burden of proof--the government for practical reasons cannot and does not explain every threat it recieves. When it comes to matters of national security, the government is not expected to inform every inconvenienced citizen exactly what threat is present. These protesters are merely assuming that there was no actual threat and are demanding that because they were unaware of the nature of the threat, clearly no threat could have possibly existed--and, moreover, that they were aware of the nonexistance of the threat at the time. That's not a legally solid case.

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. That sound suspiciously like the arguement that we needed to

invade Iraq because the president said so, and he must know stuff that we don't so we have to trust him.

It's bullshit.

[Lone Pawn]

86. I agree. It is quite specious.

It is, however, the manner in which the government and legal system operates. In matters of national security, when the government and police tell you that you are disallowed from entering a certain area, you do not have the legal right to disobey them because you think they may be lying.

[fasttense]

87. The people who sat at white only counters were breaking a law too.

Did they go to jail?

[TWiley]

98. Do you support the concept of the "free speech zone"?

Apparently, republican lies can be told through churchs and national news media outlets, but any questioning of the bushtapo must be done in distant "free speech zones"?

How can you support those idiots? Do you hate America?

[diamond14]

55. yes, it was a MEMORIAL to our dead soldiers, NOT an anti-bush protest

it continues to amaze me when the fundi-freepers start SCREAMING about those people carrying coffins in a MEMORIAL service....

even on this thread, there's a massive effort to SILENCE publicity about this, and a failure to READ the news report, or to READ the court arguments....


they simply argue that we should SHUT UP....when indeed, the BOOT memorial and the COFFIN memorial are SILENT tributes to OUR dead soldiers....


the CITY OF SAN DIEGO allowed ONLY 150 pairs of boots to be displayed...looks like plenty of room for the rest of the boots here...some military families were LEFT BEHIND, and their children's boots were eliminated from the MEMORIAL by the City of San Diego



bush* National Park Police and Secret Service Police arrested 21 people and hauled them to JAIL and TRIAL....

[Lone Pawn]

60. Their statements disagree with you.

They spend all their time talking about Bush's failures, not memorials. But that's beside the point.

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE WORDS 'POLICE LINE - DO NOT CROSS?'

Just because I'm not terribly broken up about some foolish kids crossing a police line and acting surprised that they were arrested for it doesn't mean I'm a freeper.

Apparently you didn't see this when I posted it earlier. I'll repost it for you.

This is why I do not care.


1. These people crossed a police line that said 'do not cross.' That is breaking the law.

2. When somebody breaks the law, they get arrested and taken to trial.

3. One should not be exempted from the law because of one's political beliefs.

4. Therefore these people should have been arrested.

5. Therefore this arrest is not interesting.

[diamond14]

63. the word "bush*" is NOT used in their court argument & memorial is SILENT

your logic is convoluted, and has no basis in reality.....


seems more like an attempt to SILENCE any publicity about the shameful bushite arrests and legal actions against true AMERICAN PATRIOTS, who honor OUR dead Soldiers....




the MEMORIAL to OUR dead Soldiers is SILENT ! totally SILENT...
you claim: "They spend all their time talking about Bush's failures, not memorials." ........
No, they don't talk at all....
SILENT MEMORIAL...



AND....the word "bush" was NOT written in their COURT ARGUMENTS...

[Lone Pawn]

66. Replace the word "Administration" or "Government" with Bush if you don't

understand that.

My logic is quite simple and quite straightforward. If you have a problem with it, address the problem--don't just say you can't understand a five-step response. Which number is untrue?

And for God's sake, stop with the capitalization.

[diamond14]

72. demanding that words be CHANGED in a court briefing? WOW !

that's getting more and more off the DEEP END.....


the REALITY is that the word "bush*" was NEVER used, and so your claims are shown to be TOTAL ILLUSIONS.....



:puke:


:puke:



:puke:

[Lone Pawn]

82. Then replace the word "Bush" in my earlier post with "Administration."

You're well aware that "Bush" is often used as shorthand for "The Bush Administration", as is "This Administration." Nobody seriously believes that Bush himself killed anyone. His administration, which is led by him, did. Failure to acknowledge that is far more 'off the deep end' then equivocation such as your own. And please...quit the random capitalization.

[Tigress DEM]

106. #5 is wrong. You can speak for yourself but not the world.

If people getting arrested for actually crossing a picket line or protesting wasn't interesting then:

The name Ghandi wouldn't make sense to anyone.

Women's sufferage was a big waste of time.

Teamster's strikes or Airline strikes would get no coverage.

The million man march was just a parade.

The 1000's who protested the Bush European Tour were just a figment of their own imagination.

No one would give a damm if Michael Jackson really did keep it in his pants when he had little boys in his bed.

Protests on this scale are newsworthy whether you like it or not, so you need to get over yourself, dude.

[TWiley]

37. Republicans mourn McViegh and sob about Ruby Ridge.

Maybe this could become our "Waco".

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. Yes!

If we're lucky, maybe someone will be burned at the stake!

[Lone Pawn]

49. That's not true.

The number of Republicans who mourn McVeigh are about equal to the number of Democrats who would mourn bin Laden.

[TWiley]

96. I am not so sure about the repubs where you are from.

The hard core conservatives around here identify with McVeigh because he allegedly bombed the building to avenge Ruby Ridge and Waco. Evidently, that building housed some officials who were involved in either the Ruby Ridge standoff, the Waco stand-off, or both.

The "Christian Identity" church is a common link. If you are unfamiliar with them, they are the denomination of choice for many members of the KKK, Aryans, Neo-Nazi, Posse Commutates, Maltia, National Alliance, Skin-Head, CCC, Neo-Confederate, and other Right Wing Groups.

Dr Pierce of the "National Alliance" wrote the "Turner Diaries", a Right Wing book McViegh was fascinated with. Dr. Pierce is also considered a Christian Identity Saint.

Mainstream pubbies would condemn McViegh, but the Republican party has moved from underneath them. Those in power are from the more extreme fringes of the RepubliKlan.

[fasttense]

112. Oh that is certainly NOT the case.

I live in the South and a day does not go by when I don't hear or read some reference to the Waco's in WACO and poor McVeigh.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone Pawn]

67. Hey, yibbehobba, respond to this post!

One more and you hit 1000!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

68. Dude!

Dude.

[Lone Pawn]

70. Dude...

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[not systems]

74. Wow. Didn't name names or anything...

very hilarious.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

78. To be fair...

...it's not as if the post to which he was responding is that clean either.

[clem_c_rock]

79. Anyone want to stand in front of the class and talk about US democracy??

WTFE

[ramblin_dave]

81. Defendants found guilty

of intruding on a public space that had been closed because the Secret Service said something bad might happen. Fined $50. An appeal is planned.

Tomorrow's action: Publicly defend soldier's who resist Iraq service for reasons of conscience. It's against the law to speak out in support of soldier's who do this.

http://www.iraqpledge.org/

[libertypirate]

84. Why does this judge remind me of a catholic priest?

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Tjx7ORH-9ykJ:www.dcd.uscourts.gov/facciola-bio.html+%22Judge+Facciola%22&hl=en

Besides the obvious...

Magistrate Judge Facciola is an adjunct professor of law at Catholic University.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissB]

91. I'm sure you've gone down to your recruiting station

and signed up for what you apparently consider to be a moral and just war. Right?

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

99. Psst

www.snopes.com/politics/war/reynolds.asp

While Snopes doesn't say it's completely true or false, it does link to this one: www.orwelliantimes.com/2004/04/26.html which gives a thorough debunking of this drivel.

Nice try. Your parting gift is a lifetime supply of Rice-a-Roni(TM) "The San Francisco treat!".

[not systems]

114. The protesters are great Americans...

people who create, enforce and support arbitrary laws
suppressing free speech less so.