posted December 15, 2011 04:51 PM            

which i happen to consider a lot more serious than being asked to pay $50 bucks a month so my neighbour's kid can go to the doctor. (which is also in the courts, right?)

it seems if the constitution overrides everything else there is nothing to worry about, from obama or anyone else.

posted December 15, 2011 11:53 PM            

what about the way the natives were treated? we acted as if they were not really human, didn't we? unless they became "white man copycats" - and even some who did - they were escorted to their isolated areas.

so what makes you think it can't happen now?

i think there are quite a few people who consider the spying that goes unchecked a downside to the patriot act.

quite a few who disagree vehemently with the govt's right to "off" an american citizen on unclear evidence and without so much as a charge.

and quite a few who lost large patches of time because they happen to be of middle eastern descent and still communicate with or travel to their home countries.

and whether or not this NDAA puts citizens in jail - i am pretty well satisfied for now that the final draft rules that out - it puts the military on the ground here. some might say one further step down the road to martial law.

i have talked to quite a few hysterical people about this. i have also tried not to be one of those hysterical people. however giving the military too much involvement here, and the prez and armed forces carte blanche to assassinate or imprison whomsoever they SAY is "aligned" with al-qaeda or practicing terrorism...a bit much.

as i said this too will go to court.

posted December 18, 2011 01:36 PM            

for young black and latino folk, "liberty" is a somewhat different thing than it is for most white people. and there are more than .1% of the country who go through this on a regular basis ALREADY.

this bill also justifies things like the critical wounding of scott olsen while he STOOD at a protest. the use of military force against PEACEFUL protesters, and sorry, trespassing or not there was no need for any of the violence in the OCCUPY events. people like rush limbaugh are ginning up the idea that these protesters are "domestic terrorists".

when LAPD cleared the OWSers those arrested were detained for 8 hrs and more, handcuffed and denied food, water, even bathroom relief, many kept in one-person sized cages and forced to urinate on themselves (the women). the males were made to kneel for that extended period of time on hard surface.

no one was allowed to call a lawyer or even family to tell them where they were.

we need a new bill to make all this LEGAL? to make it okay for the president to authorize the murder or detention UNTIL THE END OF HOSTILITIES of american citizens who happen to be abroad, and STILL, the language is fuzzy enough to be interpreted by some as giving permission for chargeless detention here at home.

when i weigh having to pay into a national health plan and MARTIAL LAW against each other, there is NO CONTEST. i am shocked that the so called CONSTITUTIONALISTS here continue to believe that anything done in the name of military efficiency is AOK.

posted December 18, 2011 01:43 PM            

"First they came for the socialists and i did not speak out because i was not a socialist

then they came for the trade unionists, and i did not speak out because i was not a trade unionist

then they came for the jews and i did not speak out because i was not a jew

then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me

- pastor martin niemoller, c 1946

posted December 18, 2011 02:42 PM            

nor is it LEGAL to hold them in handcuffs and cages without charge or phonecall for 8 hours...

meanwhile i know of at least one murder case which has left a friend of mine in constant anxiety that the perp, never really LOOKED for and still at large, will find her and "eliminate" her, the only witness.

i am not saying that "trespassers" should not be booked. where did you get that idea? they are WILLING to be booked, pay bond, etc etc. being shot and pepper sprayed in the face, and thrown to the ground for no reason - since they might go limp but they would not RESIST - is not okay.

posted December 18, 2011 04:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
Going gently into that good night, eh Randall? Alice Paul, Martin Luther King, Cesar Chaves, Henry David Thoreau, Mother Jones ... shall we continue? "Lawless" Americans all, and thank the Good Lord for each brave soul.

---

posted December 18, 2011 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
even fricking abigail adams vowed to defy "laws which do not represent us"

---

posted December 18, 2011 04:41 PM            

trespassing on public property in peaceful assembly? hmm, what is wrong with this concept?

while i am not saying they shouldn't get a permit, sometimes symbolic gestures make strong points.

heard a man on the radio the other day who said that he, NOT a protester, was in a park in oakland (not a protest site) 2 HOURS BEFORE CLOSING time recently, to view the perseid shower (must have been around nov 20) and was accosted by one of oakland's finest and a cocked gun held to his face...

please find an excuse for this if you can randall. this is a middle class white guy who lives in oakland and has nothing to do with any mobs or trespassers.

posted December 19, 2011 02:01 PM            

in the 60s, admittedly before your time, the civil rights protesters marched in alabama to the accompaniment of mounted police with powerhoses and billy clubs.

did they have a permit to walk on the road? did they actually legally need one?

i believe rosa parks broke the law when she sat on that bus. naive and disrespectful! should she have done otherwise?

these protests did not change the law. many were beaten bloody if not to death and of course we know what happened to MLK jr. however, they INSTIGATED change just by their persistence. and sad to say, the brutality of the establishment generated a lot of shame which was part of the momentum for change.

the OWSers will not get most of what the media SAYS they are asking for. however they ARE instigating change, and not just here but all over the world. the law, as usual, will lag behind.

posted December 19, 2011 02:13 PM            

i suggest you try kneeling for ONE hour - and if you haven't eaten, drunk or been to the john for a few beforehand, you will PERHAPS get some idea of what is entailed. NO CARPETTED FLOORS mind you! and keep your hands behind your back!

posted December 19, 2011 03:00 PM            

and as to insulting the civil rights movements, rand paul thinks the civil rights conditions now law insult the individual rights of business owners.

posted December 19, 2011 06:41 PM            

quote:

---

When a police officer asks you to leave and you do not, peaceful resistance becomes resisting arrest. Keep in mind that they are there illegally to begin with. When you resist arrest, you get force used upon you. What is so difficult to understand about that? Law abiding citizens such as teachers, etc. should comply when approached by an officer of the law. To not comply is to resist, and to resist arrest is something lawless people do.

---

You have here called into question the means not the aims. i.e. Breaking the law is an unacceptable form of protest. I have given you examples of well known (and successful!) American practioners of civil disobedience who willingly, one may say intentionally, broke the law. Should I fetch quotes to illustrate what sort of insults were viciously tossed in the direction of Alice Paul, Martin Luther King and their respective supporters? Nowadays it's easy to applaud MLK as an American hero, but in King's day many branded him an agitator, a communist, and much much worse. President Wilson called Mother Jones "the most dangerous woman in America." Why? Because she had the audacity to balk at 60 hour work weeks for 12 year olds? Are you ok with child labor? No, of course not. Not here in America anyway. But if the Multinationals you defend employ a new generation of 12 year olds in foreign nations, that's acceptable? Is that worthy of protest? You are aware that Alice Paul served time in jail for ... wait for it ... "obstructing traffic", yes? But whether you support the aims of MLK, the suffragettes, the labor unions, etc is irrelevant. History confirms that in the interest of meaningful protest sometimes a few laws must be broken.

Furthermore, excessive force is a legitimate concern. In regards to the infamous Berkeley case, should the protesters have been handcuffed and led away? Sure. Should those same unarmed, subdued protesters been pepper sprayed? Certainly not! This is excessive and it speaks to the militarization of our local police forces and security teams. They're scared, they're paranoid, and understandably so as the fear of terrorists and drug cartels and christ knows what else have been pounded into their psyches since at least the easrly 80s. Over reaction is inevitable.

You might want to have a look here ... http://www.shouselaw.com/pepperspray.html

posted December 19, 2011 07:36 PM            

quote:

---

I'm not blind at all. I see exactly what they are doing

---

no sir, you most certainty do not.

Examples of civil disobedience are comparatively an insult ??