Are war protesters terrorists?

[JayhawkJumper 0]

All I can really say about war protesters is they claim war solves nothing. It's too bad nothing was accomplished in the revolutionary war, civil war, WWI, or WWII. There are evil people in the world, who flat out WILL NOT listen to diplomacy. So what do you do? If you believe diplomacy hasn't been exhausted, what should we do when it is?

I wonder what an Iraqi would say to a protester that is holding a sign basically saying "Keep Sadam in Power"

All this being said, I am greatful to the anti-war movement and if it disappeared, I would probably become opposed to the war. If we don't have people questioning authority and making sure our public officials know they will be held responsible for anything they do wrong from war to something as little as getting a hummer from an intern, we aren't free. A society of total consensus would be the scariest thing I can imagine.

[Luna 0]

Quote

but they also don't want a court case that could end up declaring their anti-public-demonstration laws unconstitutional at any level. If that happens they lose their ability to even remove protesters who are in the way.

http://www.democraticdialogue.org/report8/report8h.htm

Specifically, "The underlying thrust of the numerous interpretations of the Constitutional implications of local laws, state laws and police decisions is that the Constitution demands that freedom of assembly should be protected and facilitated by the authorities if it is held in a peaceful manner and in a traditional public forum. A public forum is defined as property that is owned by the government and open to the public, in practice this normally means most streets, sidewalks and parks. However, even this is never such an unconstrained right as might be suggested.

The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general order (Hague v CIO, 307 US 496, 515-16, 1939).

Exercising the right to demonstrate therefore has to be balanced with the rights of other sections of the community, and public assemblies can be limited in some ways providing that the restrictions are content neutral’, that is they are not imposed to censor the expression of ideas. As one member of the New York Police Department told us ‘there is a Constitutional right to demonstrate and to protest, but there are still questions to be decided where this right ends and where the wider public rights begin’.

The Supreme Court has formulated a doctrine to guide such decision-making processes known as the ‘time, place and manner doctrine’. This stipulates that while people have a right to demonstrate, the authorities have to be aware of the broader picture. They therefore do have the right to impose ‘reasonable’ restrictions on the ‘time, place and manner’ of such public events in order to prevent them from unreasonably interfering with nearby activities and individuals’ (Gora et al 1991:165-6). Having the right to demonstrate does not mean that one has the right to demonstrate where one will, when one will or how one will without due regard for one’s fellow citizens."

Despite lots of looking, this is the closest I can come to an explanation of what the "time, place and manner doctrine" really means. So basically, the Supreme Court has said that there MUST BE restrictions on public demonstrations. It's already been tried, and while some anti-demonstration laws that do not meet the requirements of this doctrine can be found un-constitutional, they would clearly uphold a law that simply prohibited demonstrating in a certain place, at a certain time, or in a certain manner, without getting prior approval.

I'm walking a marathon to raise money for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Click Here for more information!

[billvon 2,463]

>The authorities may choose to look the other way, but that is a
>move that is purely discretionary.

Of course, and they use that discretion very wisely. Some laws are still on the books, for example, simply because they have never been challenged. But arrest one person for oral sex (and yes, there are laws against that in some states) and the law would be thrown out very quickly. Police and DA's know this.

>Bill, I don't think a jaywalking law will ever be declared
>unconstitutional. Do you?

If it is used to keep protesters off the streets it will be. Our courts take the constitution very seriously (fortunately.)

[wmw999 2,166]

Quote

But arrest one person for oral sex (and yes, there are laws against that in some states)

We're proving here in Texas that no law is too ridiculous if you're someone they disapprove of. I believe the sodomy laws have been invoked against homosexuals.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,463]

>All I can really say about war protesters is they claim war solves
> nothing. It's too bad nothing was accomplished in the revolutionary
> war, civil war, WWI, or WWII.

Nothing _was_ accomplished in the civil war, other than a lot of dead people. The revolutionary war was won by the terrorists, who used terror tactics instead of the agreed-upon method of standing in lines on a battlefield and shooting at each other. WWII was fought to defend our country from a foreign attack; I'd hesitate to apply that here.

But in any case, you are right in that war does often accomplish its stated objective for at least one side - which is to drive the enemy back or destroy him. It does not stop terrorism, or free the people (check out how many afghanis are still under control of the local warlord) or stop future wars (check out Israel to see if violence works to stop violence.) You can win a war; but winning a war often does not fulfill all the promises made _about_ winning the war.

>There are evil people in the world, who flat out WILL NOT listen to
> diplomacy. So what do you do? If you believe diplomacy hasn't been
> exhausted, what should we do when it is?

War. Sometimes everything else fails. I just believe it should be an absolute last resort. We should not, as a recent bumper sticker proclaimed, just "give war a chance" and see how it goes.

>I wonder what an Iraqi would say to a protester that is holding a sign
> basically saying "Keep Sadam in Power"

I don't know; I suppose it would depend on how he felt about Saddam, whether he was a Shi'ite or a Sunni, whether he worked for Saddam's government etc. I would guess most would be annoyed, unless they saw that as the only alternative to having their family killed by US bombs. In any case I'm glad I live in a place where that Iraqi could make his own sign and walk around with it.

[wmw999 2,166]

Quote

All I can really say about war protesters is they claim war solves nothing.

There are some who say that. Others (the majority) say it should be a very last resort, or used in self-defense. This is effectively a preemptive strike, unless you buy that we're doing it mainly for the Iraqi people who live in other countries and want to go home.

I can't imagine we're really doing it for the people who are currently in the war. We might say we are, but the coalition armies are shooting around them, and even if we're trying to avoid civilian casualties (and yes, I think we are), we're busy killing their husbands, fathers, and sons. Some of those husbands, fathers, and sons are much loved.

Quote

I wonder what an Iraqi would say to a protester that is holding a sign basically saying "Keep Sadam in Power"

I haven't really seen any signs like that. I think that's what you infer if you think that the only way Saddam will be removed will be by a unilateral strike by the coalition. Just as it's a damn poor imagination that can only think of one way to spell a word, I'd have to say it's a damn poor imagination that can only think of war as a solution to a situation like this.

But if you want to give other countries the opportunity to follow you, and to show them how powerful you are -- well, we're doing that.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DYEVOUT 0]

Hee Hee, I was only signalling the impending inrush of the left.

Quote

That would be brass. I'm so far behind on my reloading that I'm having to buy factory.

Two words - Dillon Precision.

----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."

[JayhawkJumper 0]

For one thing, the civil war put an end to slavery, although the ideology of the South won out in a lot of regards, aided by D.W. Griffith's film "Birth of a Nation". Watch the film Amistad and tell me that the civil war didn't accomplish anything. The war was however, seriously downplayed by a great deal of the re-union imagery of the press and film industry, making a claim that was the civil war, the bloodiest war in history was just kind of a "goof".

I know there aren't any signs saying "keep sadam in power", but if you are under the opinion that we should back out of Iraq, that means you want to keep Sadam in power (in a round-about way I know). Even though this film isn't about civil rights (although its a nice benefit), we don't realize how much someone suffers until its shown to you. Is you hear that 10,000 people die, you think, wow thats tragic and thats a lot of people, but if you see a scene in a movie of the brutal torture and rape of a child having their intestines drug out and allowed to slowly die for 2 days.....your blood will boil (even though its just a movie, and movies don't show this type of thing, even though it happens in places like Iraq). As a sidenote: Sadam's son raped a 15 year old high school girl over and over until he beat her to the point she wasn't attractive anymore, so he covered her in honey and fed her to attack dogs (alive). Her parents might not even know what happened. The Iraqi people definately aren't going to take out Sadam on their own, when they tried at the end of the Gulf war, we allowed them to be mowed down my machine gun fire from helicopters.

Lastly, I don't favor war by any means, I truly don't know what to think. You hate to see even one life lost, one mothers child gone, but what happens if Sadam develops a nuke and decides Israel and Kuwait should be wiped out? It's a catch-22, and hopefully 20 years from now we will be able to look back and realize we did the right thing, but only time will tell (and hopefully we are around to see that day).

[Lindsey 0]

The fact that we're debating this shows me that whether you agree with a particular protest or not, these protests in Portland have accomplished a good deal in pushing people to examine the relative importance of our Constitutional rights. It's hard for me to imagine anyone thinking that's a bad thing...

Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[bmcd308 0]

>>should be seeking approval, and most likely a permit, from local authorities in order to conduct your demonstration within the law. <<

If you need a permit, which can be denied, are you not making protesting a privelege? It is one of the basic tenets of our country that protest is a right.


>>I did not participate in the poll because, as usual in polls, the choices were totally skewed.<<

Yeah, that was done on purpose. Since it is incredibly difficult to make a good poll, I went ahead and made one as bad as I could on short notice.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[bmcd308 0]

>>That is exactly right. Our constitution protects our freedom of speech in the strongest possible terms; it does not protect our daily lives from disruption. There is a big difference there. <<

I think we both owe beer. We agree on a political matter.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[kiltboy 0]

Let's see .

Terrorists are people that use fear as a weapon. They kill indescriminately they bomb maim, shoot, torture, conduct punishment beatings and a whole host of other assaults on basic human rights.

Protestors voice an opinion through peaceful means.

No comparicon protestors are not terrorists.

David

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

For one thing, the civil war put an end to slavery

No...actually slavery was declared illegal by the federal government. That's what ended slavery. War wasn't necessary to pass that federal law. The South then fought against the authority of the federal government for that reason as well as many others. The war accomplished the suppression of a rebellion and breakaway of part of the nation. It also strengthened the power of the federal government and centralized power whereas before hand the states had more say in what happened within their borders then the federal government did.

With the exception of the slavery issue I side more with the South's viewpoint that laws and government should be more localized instead of centralized. There are certain key issues that need to be regulated across the nation for the protection of people's rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (e.g. slavery), but the civil war effectively changed the balance of power from the states to Washington in a much more broad application then just protecting civil liberties (which IMO should be the only goal of a centralized government).

We can thank the father of the Republican party, Lincoln, for that. Funny how the Republicans have been the proponents of smaller central government in recent history when they were the reason for the shift in power, and are now trying to consolidate that power even further and even extend it beyond our own borders.

[bmcd308 0]

>>No...actually slavery was declared illegal by the federal government. That's what ended slavery. War wasn't necessary to pass that federal law. The South then fought against the authority of the federal government for that reason as well as many others.<<

The fight started before the law.

The fight was about whether you could cancel your membership in the club that was called the United States. The Southern states felt that membership in the United States was no longer working for them, so they wanted to quit. The Northern states did not think that they should be able to quit. They fought it out. Turns out, you can't quit.

Anyway, the Civil War was about states' rights, particularly the right to secede from the Union, not about slavery.

BMcD...

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[JayhawkJumper 0]

The north threatened the South's way of life, that's why they wanted to secede. What did the South see as its way of life? The plantation system, which depended on slaves. The reason slavery isn't brought up more often is history classes and books is because a segregationist memory largely won out after the war versus the abolitionist memory. This is why some scholars hold the theory that even though the North defeated the South, the South won the war in the ideology that America held for a long time.

To get a good idea of how the war was remembered right after it was fought, watch "Birth of a Nation".

[quade 3]

Quote

This is why some scholars hold the theory that even though the North defeated the South, the South won the war in the ideology that America held for a long time.

Huh?

Could you explain that to a simple mind -- mine?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,463]

>The reason slavery isn't brought up more often is history classes and books . . .

??? When I went to school, the civil war was presented as 'a war to free the slaves.' It wasn't until I started studying the issue on my own that I found out that wasn't the primary issue.

[JayhawkJumper 0]

Basically that even though the North won the war and slavery was technically abolished, the South ideology lived on stronger than ever. For example, in the film Birth of a Nation, the KKK is seen as the savior of the United States by keeping all of the evil blacks in line. It shows all the black people living in the South taking over congress and making conditions so scary for whites that they were too scared to leave their homes and whites also weren't allowed to vote. Then along comes the KKK, lynching and killing the "evil" blacks and everything is wonderful again and they have a parade. What's wrong with this? EVERYTHING is wrong with it. It is exactly the opposite of how things really happened. It is also important to note that people in the North and South praised the film for its documentary and truthful account of the war. Even the president called it "History written in lightning". To get back to what I was saying, this type of attitude was common all over the US and the result was the death of a lot of black people and the segregationist, discriminitory ideology of the South winning out all over the US with Jim Crow laws.

Things have obviously changed since then, but this one widely held theory about the civil war. I can't disagree that there were several factors causing civil war and I can't honestly say I have a difinitive answer. No one does without having actually experienced the entire thing, and even then truth is very hard to find, as we are seeing in our current situation. Nobody can really say "X" is the cause of our current conflict, but this theory about the civil war is one of the many that exist.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

>The reason slavery isn't brought up more often is history classes and books . . .

??? When I went to school, the civil war was presented as 'a war to free the slaves.' It wasn't until I started studying the issue on my own that I found out that wasn't the primary issue.

Ditto....ask any high school graduate what the Civil War was about, and if they actually give you an answer that even remotely has anything to do with the question, it'll probably by slavery.

[PhillyKev 0]

I think you're relating the ideology of the South way too closely with the issue of slavery. The vast majority of southerners didn't own slaves and had no benefit from slavery. A minority of rich land owners did. The reason the majority of hicks from the sticks in the south picked up their rifles and went to war was because they were patriotic and defending the sovereignty of their state against the tyranny of federal imperialism. Hmmm...kinda sounds like a familiar argument regarding the policies of our federal government, eh?

Manifest destiny lives on, it's just that now it's called the New American Century.

[SpeedRacer 1]

not replying to phillykev, it was just the last post>>

A few points:

1) The poll above is totally stupid.

2) This issue over whether or not it is proper for us to invade Iraq and the other issue, over whether it is OK for protesters to block traffic, are two entirely different issues.

3) People who demonstrate for a cause simply by making a public nuisance of themselves any way they can are assholes and DO NOT understand how to effectively get their point across. A good protest should be intelligently directed. It should not be used simply as an excuse to act like an asshole. (example of assholism masquerading as a protest: People who smashed store windows to "protest the World Bank")

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[falxori 0]

Quote

if Sadam develops a nuke and decides Israel and Kuwait should be wiped out? It's a catch-22, and hopefully 20 years from now we will be able to look back and realize we did the right thing

just some food for thought...
20 years ago, when Israel has attacked the Iraqi nuclear plant, it was condemned by most of the world (even the US, who was upset they weren't in on the plan)
if that hadn't happened your scenario would have been the reality now.
chem/bio weapon are bad, but its nothing compared to nukes.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[shabakazaa 0]

Why debate this? That little thing called the Constitution will prevail. Tip your hat to Mother Liberty.

[12bhi 0]

Are people that post shit like this communist morons?????????????????????????Wake up and
smell freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tf15 0]

Quote

>The reason slavery isn't brought up more often is history classes and books . . .

??? When I went to school, the civil war was presented as 'a war to free the slaves.' It wasn't until I started studying the issue on my own that I found out that wasn't the primary issue.

What did they teach you about the War of 1812?

Three times is enemy action