Bush administration arrests former human shields.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Edan


I think it's a lot bigger than an imaginary difference. Or do you think all the pro-life protesters are breaking a law? They aren't all abortion clinic bombers, you know.

Murdering unarmed abortion doctors is not a form of self-defense, nor is it part of what MLK Jr. believed to be civil disobedience.


Pro-life fanatics who bomb buildings, assault, or murder to make their statement, are not participating in legitimate civil disobedience.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Osweld


You realize that alot of the peaceful anti-war marchs in the USA where illegal, right? They forbid them from protesting and tear gased the people who showed up anyways.

I can't account for all the anti-war marchs, but the arrests that I heard about were of protesters chaining themselves up and blocking road access - a hazard to the community and something that is illegal regardless of who was protesting and what issue and side they were protesting for.

And, of course, most protests are going to have that handful of people who are there wanting to provoke and start a fight/riot rather than peacefully protest.

[Edan]

Originally posted by MrFun



Murdering unarmed abortion doctors is not a form of self-defense, nor is it part of what MLK Jr. believed to be civil disobedience.


Pro-life fanatics who bomb buildings, assault, or murder to make their statement, are not participating in legitimate civil disobedience.

Did you not read what I wrote?!

Most pro-life protests don't murder abortion doctors. Indeed, most pro-life protesters don't do anything illegal when protesting.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Edan
And most don't do anything illegal when protesting.

They block the entrance to the clinic. I thought you just said that was illegal.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Osweld


They block the entrance to the clinic. I thought you just said that was illegal.

Most of them don't do that (at least as far as I know, most of them protest from the legally specified distance).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Edan


Most of them don't do that.

That's the whole point of a picket line.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by skywalker
They don't differ, however, in that they both INTENTIONALLY HINDER US forces IN A WAR ZONE.

Do you specialise in repeating the same thing over and over again?



Duckspeaker...

[Edan]

Originally posted by Osweld


That's the whole point of a picket line.

Funny, and here I was thinking that the point was to express one's views and protest against something you don't agree with in a peaceful and frequently law-abiding manner.

Silly me.

[KrazyHorse]

The only hindrance they provide is a moral one. They didn't actually stop (nor could they have) anybody from doing their jobs by anything other than a simple argument: if you bomb X you kill us (or at least that's what they would have said if they hadn't pansied out).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Edan


Funny, and here I was thinking that the point was to express one's views and protest against something you don't agree with in a peaceful and frequently law-abiding manner.

Silly me.

Silly you indeed. Aside from showing passerbys that you're there (which sometimes isn't a point at all, since it's often done in rural or industrial sectors where there is virtually no traffic). It's to deter people from entering the building and to inconveniance anyone who does try to enter the building

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Edan


Did you not read what I wrote?!

Most pro-life protests don't murder abortion doctors. Indeed, most pro-life protesters don't do anything illegal when protesting.

I read what you wrote -- just making sure you weren't justifying the murders and bombings.



But yeah -- I think pro-lifers can picket an abortion clinic as long as they are not blocking the pathway/entrance to the clinic.

And, as long as the picketers are not threatening violence to people, or damage to property.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Edan


I can't account for all the anti-war marchs, but the arrests that I heard about were of protesters chaining themselves up and blocking road access - a hazard to the community and something that is illegal regardless of who was protesting and what issue and side they were protesting for.

And, of course, most protests are going to have that handful of people who are there wanting to provoke and start a fight/riot rather than peacefully protest.

This, by the way, doesn't really have anything to do with my point. Many of the people attending the marchs where breaking the law, regardless of what they did or if they where arrested, simply being because the cities refused to allow the protests.

[Oerdin]

Wow, I started this thread yesterday then went to sleep because no one was posting in it. I come back this morning and there's four pages to read.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Wow, I started this thread yesterday then went to sleep because no one was posting in it. I come back this morning and there's four pages to read.

You lazy SOB -- catch up with us.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
Funny. I thought MLK was in a democratic society.

Actually, he wasn't. He was in the South. Even when he went north, he went to the one-party city of Chicago. I'm not sure if MLK ever protested in a democratic society except during the March on Washington.

[Jack_www]

I wont shed a tear for these people. I think that they are arresting them for spending money in Iraq, not for traveling there and I dont think they will get max setence etheir. I also heard that many were sent warning letters to come clean or they would be charged and arrested.

[Ramo]

Haven't you ever heard of sanctions? If you violate sanctions then you are breaking the law.

It was against the law in the Soviet Union to leave without permission. Surly if our exercise in idiotic authoritarianism over the travel arrangements of citizens is just, theirs was as well.

[Ramo]

Funny, and here I was thinking that the point was to express one's views and protest against something you don't agree with in a peaceful and frequently law-abiding manner.

Gandhi was breaking the law when he protested. MLK was breaking the law when he protested. Does that mean they deserved to be imprisoned? Do you think any action of civil disobedience is wrong?

And I don't see how the actions of the "human shields" was anything but peaceful.

[Ramo]

Ashcroft is also trying to fine people who had the gall to try to save Iraqi kids' lives outside of the auspices of big brother.
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1038.shtml

[monkspider]

This is the most despicable news I have heard in quite a while. Anyone who supports such a supremely immoral act should be ashamed to their very core.
This is just further proof that America is destroying itself. The almighty American Empire some of you are so proud of. The mighty empire that wages war on the innocent, and enchains those who would attempt to bring peace. Your great empire is not long for this world.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ramo


Gandhi was breaking the law when he protested. MLK was breaking the law when he protested. Does that mean they deserved to be imprisoned?

I don't think they deserved to be imprisoned. But breaking the law and expecting not to go to prison is a very stupid thing to do.

I was just responding to the claim that everyone who protests is doing so illegaly - lots of people protest in the US without breaking any laws at all.

And I don't see how the actions of the "human shields" was anything but peaceful.

Shrug. I don't see how the actions of the "human shieds" was anything but stupid. *shrug*

[Jack_www]

These people were not arrested for going to Iraq, they were arrested for spending money in Iraq. Also many of these people where supported by Saddam, and gave them a place to stay. In way they were trying to help Saddam and when they got back well this happen. Did you see protestors here in the US arrested? No. Are they being charged with a federal crime? No again.

I find these people very stupid in the first place. But also you dont want US cizitens doing crazy stuff like this in the future. Traveling to war zones and willing be used as human shields for an army that the United States is fighting.

And they did break a law that goes back way before Gulf War II.

[Jack_www]

Also these people may not go to jail. Remember that. They might just face a fine, or probation.

[Ramo]

Shrug. I don't see how the actions of the "human shieds" was anything but stupid. *shrug*

And I have the same opinion of our so-called "justice" dept.

But breaking the law and expecting not to go to prison is a very stupid thing to do.

Before Ashcroft took over, I wouldn't have expected the our legal system to do something this totalitarian or idiotic.

I break laws all the time, and I don't expect to be charged. For instance, I jay-walked a couple times today. Or, I'm liable to go to prison under a criminal anarchy statute over here. Does that mean I'm stupid?

[Ramo]

I find these people very stupid in the first place. But also you dont want US cizitens doing crazy stuff like this in the future. Traveling to war zones and willing be used as human shields for an army that the United States is fighting.

Frankly, I find legalistic fanatics who want to throw people in prison for things like this stupid.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, he wasn't. He was in the South. Even when he went north, he went to the one-party city of Chicago. I'm not sure if MLK ever protested in a democratic society except during the March on Washington.

You're forgetting the protest MLK led against residential segregation -- I think that was in a suburb of Chicago??

not sure exactly where

[Chemical Ollie]

This thread raises a couple of thoughts:

1) The idiots who went to Iraq to help Saddam did not travel to a war zone. Most of them left Iraq even before the war started. It was not a war, it was still a diplomatic conflict. If any of the parts would respect UN, there would be no war. None of them did.

2) It takes guts to be a human shield. The guy in the picture had that. The guys who went to Iraq didn't (most of them).

3) My conclusion after reading the comments by Americans in this thread is that the guy on the picture would be a flat pool of red pulp if the tank was American. While that was the fate of many others that day, this guy survived. No guts, no glory

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jack_www
These people were not arrested for going to Iraq, they were arrested for spending money in Iraq. Also many of these people where supported by Saddam, and gave them a place to stay. In way they were trying to help Saddam and when they got back well this happen. Did you see protestors here in the US arrested? No. Are they being charged with a federal crime? No again.

I find these people very stupid in the first place. But also you dont want US cizitens doing crazy stuff like this in the future. Traveling to war zones and willing be used as human shields for an army that the United States is fighting.

And they did break a law that goes back way before Gulf War II.

Interesting. Can someone exercising their 1st Amendment rights still be prosecuted for accepting and spending money from a from a hostile foreign power? I think back to the days when the Communists were being prosecuted. Even though the Supremes said they could not be prosecute for simply arguing for an overthrow of the US gov't at some indefinite future, could they still have been prosecuted for receiving and spending money from Comitern (Sp?).

This is a close question, isn't it?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
Are you trying to hairsplit an imaginary difference in protesting a law without breaking it, from breaking the law?

Because if you protest against a law, you ARE breaking it -- which is what MLK Jr. and other civil rights leaders did, by violating segregation and disfranchisement laws.

You are not breaking a law by protesting against it! Where'd you get that idea?

You break a law by doing whatever it is the law says you can't do. For example, if abortions were illegal, and I got an abortion (unlikely, as I'm a guy, but you never know... ), that would be illegal. However, if I and a bunch of other people all held signs protesting for our right to an abortion, that would not be illegal, as I did not perform the prohibited action.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Osweld


You realize that alot of the peaceful anti-war marchs in the USA where illegal, right? They forbid them from protesting and tear gased the people who showed up anyways.

Tear gas is only used when protesters either a) aren't peaceful or b) are going over the bounds of public safety etc. Protests are only prohibited if they don't get a permit first or go into an area they can't. The only reason you need a permit and such is so that you don't screw up traffic etc.