Are war protesters terrorists?

[bmcd308 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030403/ts_nm/life_protests_dc_1

As "far rightie" I happen to like this little (and becoming smaller every day) document called the Constitution, which says that stuff like this is bullsh!t.

Most "moderate" righties will disagree with me on this one, as will most "moderate" lefties. But we'll see how moderate dz.commers are when we read the responses from all political fronts to this little gem (BTW, the "conservative" that they quote is obviously not a "conservative", but a "fascist", at least on this single issue):

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.


The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee (news - web sites), whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.


Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.


The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq (news - web sites) since last fall.


"We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill.


Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, adding that police and the court system could be trusted to see the difference.


"Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown and block a freeway," Larson said. "You need a tool to deal with that."


The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism.


Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition.


"Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU), which opposes the bill.


Police unions and minority groups also oppose the bill for fear it could have a chilling effect on relations between police and poor people, minorities, children and "vulnerable" populations.


Legislators say the bill stands little chance of passage.


"I just don't think this bill is ever going to get out of committee," said Democratic Senator Vicki Walker, one of four members on the six-person panel who have said they oppose the legislation.


Edited for spelling in rant.

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

[Guest]

Man, protestors are stupid, IMHO, but that bill is way beyond stupid.

It'll never happen in Oregon anyway.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[DYEVOUT 0]

Once again, I hear the distant jingle of love beads, and smell a faint aroma of incense.

I can almost see the Clinton bumper stickers now.

They're coming, I tell ya.

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

[bmcd308 0]

>>Once again, I hear the distant jingle of love beads,
That would be brass. I'm so far behind on my reloading that I'm having to buy factory.


>>and smell a faint aroma of incense.
That would be Hoppe's Number 9.

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

[Thanatos340 1]

It seem alot of people are forgetting what it means to be an American.
As an American you have the right to Disagree with Government Policies.
You have the right to gather peacefully and protest those policies.
You have the right to speak out against policies that you do not agree with.

What ever happend to the old American beleif:
Although I may not agree with what you have to say, I will defend your right right to say it with my life!

[vmsfreaky1 0]

As i do not live in the U.S and have no qualms with disrupting the every day run of things, (that is the idea of protesting right? make sure politician whatshisname cant get to the gym on time) I hope for the sake of others around the world "disrupting" things doesn't get them on the wrong side of the "right" side of politics.

Peace (i hope).

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I hope for the sake of others around the world "disrupting" things doesn't get them on the wrong side of the "right" side of politics.

Or under the wheels of my car while they are lieing in the middle of the intersection.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

As i do not live in the U.S and have no qualms with disrupting the every day run of things, (that is the idea of protesting right? make sure politician whatshisname cant get to the gym on time) I hope for the sake of others around the world "disrupting" things doesn't get them on the wrong side of the "right" side of politics.

And to what extent should they be allowed to disrupt? Should their right to protest infringe on my right to get to work on time? Should it infringe on the rights of my children to get to school safely and on time? Maybe it should infringe on the rights of a patient being transported in an ambulance; after all, being involved in the death of another is a great way to get some time in the press.

No sir, your right to protest does not give you the right to interrupt or interfere with my day.

That said, I should mention that I think the folks in Seattle are going a little overboard with this new law. Laws are already in place to deal with most of the problems these folks are causing. I say we enforce the laws we already have, there is no need to create more.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[billvon 3,116]

>And to what extent should they be allowed to disrupt? Should their
> right to protest infringe on my right to get to work on time?

Yes. There are about a million other people in San Diego who infringe on MY right to get to work on time; they drive their SUV's 40 miles to work and refuse to carpool. Public streets are just that - public. They may be used by cars, buses, bikes, pedestrians and protesters. (Limited access roads like highways excepted - if they're on highways, then remove them.)

>Should it infringe on the rights of my children to get to school safely
> and on time?

Safely - no; anyone who darts in front of a bus or tries to knock one over etc should get arrested. On time - there is no constitutional provision that students must get to school on time, and indeed weather, traffic, construction, and sometimes even protesters can prevent that from happening. None of them should be illegal.

>No sir, your right to protest does not give you the right to interrupt or
> interfere with my day.

If you remain on your own property you are correct. If you expect to be allowed to use a public resource (like a road) that protesters help pay for, expect them to use it too.

[Luna 0]

Quote

And to what extent should they be allowed to disrupt? Should their right to protest infringe on my right to get to work on time? Should it infringe on the rights of my children to get to school safely and on time? Maybe it should infringe on the rights of a patient being transported in an ambulance; after all, being involved in the death of another is a great way to get some time in the press.

No sir, your right to protest does not give you the right to interrupt or interfere with my day.

That said, I should mention that I think the folks in Seattle are going a little overboard with this new law. Laws are already in place to deal with most of the problems these folks are causing. I say we enforce the laws we already have, there is no need to create more.

-
Jim

I totally agree with Jim here. People need to get into their heads that there is a difference between freedom of speech and the disruption of business and daily life. Yes, we are free to speak our minds from any public place, and we are free to assemble peacefully in any public place. However, that does not mean that we have the right to block access to businesses, roads, schools, etc. Once you do that, you are impinging on my rights to move freely about my city, to get to my place of employment, or to conduct any other business that I have in the area. People always seem very concerned about their own rights, but not very concerned about whether they are infringing the rights of others.

Additionally, Jim is right in that this is already being addressed. The Supreme Court has ruled on the doctrine of "time, place and manner" when it comes to demonstrations. Basically, yes, you have the right to protest, but not whenever, wherever, or however you want to. You should be seeking approval, and most likely a permit, from local authorities in order to conduct your demonstration within the law. Lying in the streets and blocking public access would be considered a protest outside of the law. In other words, that is outside your constitutional rights. So, seems to me that this Supreme Court doctrine should be governing this, and Oregon should not be having to pass any further laws. Mandatory 25 years does sound extreme. Oh, and I'm not even going to get into the protestors who are trespassing, committing vandalism, or perpetrating assault. Those are obviously outside the realm of permissible.

I did not participate in the poll because, as usual in polls, the choices were totally skewed. I do not think that we should hang the protestors, and I'll be damned if I know what the hell this has to do with Bush not winning the popular vote (I'm going to not get into that one). I also won't choose the third option either. My position is as stated above.

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

[D22369 0]

-->As an American you have the right to Disagree with Government Policies.
You have the right to gather peacefully and protest those policies.
You have the right to speak out against policies that you do not agree with

-->> I agree with you whole heartedly......but when they start blocking Interstate 5, and streets in downtown portland, then something needs to be done........25 years seems ....a .....bit......excessive though....... public flogging would keep me happy ok, maybe not....

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[quade 4]

Quote

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, then the question becomes what constitutes a peaceable assemblage of people.

The way I see it, several thousand people sitting on the main street of town can block traffic during a protest as long as they're peaceable about it. Not throwing rocks at police, not looting stores, just sitting there, the government (and fellow citizens) have no right whatsoever to "break it up".

If it's within their Constitutionally guaranteed rights, then it's clearly NOT terrorism.

Again, this goes back to a theme that's been freeking me out over the last few months -- in the name of "Homeland Security" too many government officials and businesses are running roughshod over the Constitution and we're in a very dangerous situation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

The way I see it, several thousand people sitting on the main street of town can block traffic during a protest as long as they're peaceable about it. Not throwing rocks at police, not looting stores, just sitting there, the government (and fellow citizens) have no right whatsoever to "break it up".

I disagree. If they want to stage a large sit-in then they can do it in a park. They can not stage their sit-in in the middle of a public road. The road wasn't built for sitting, the park was. The way I see it, the government does have the authority to protect my ability to use my roads for their intended use.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[billvon 3,116]

>People need to get into their heads that there is a difference
> between freedom of speech and the disruption of business and daily
> life.

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.

>Basically, yes, you have the right to protest, but not whenever,
> wherever, or however you want to.

Well, you can protest however you want within the law. You do not need _permission_ to demonstrate; you just need to not break any laws. Lying down in the middle of a street would be breaking the law against jaywalking, but crossing at a crosswalk all day would not be - even if it messes up traffic.

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

I disagree. Permits for anti-war marches are now being denied for political reasons; the government must not interfere with the people's right to peacefully assemble for any reason whatsoever. It is one of the most basic rights of our constitution.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

If you remain on your own property you are correct. If you expect to be allowed to use a public resource (like a road) that protesters help pay for, expect them to use it too.

That is not correct. The public chooses a local government to determine proper use of funds, infrastructure, etc. Pedestrians have a right-of-way while crossing the street. That expectation was established by elected councilmen/women etc. That is why bicycles are not allowed on interstate highways.

Nice try though...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

Tell that to Gandhi.

As long as you keep the "civil" in civil disobedience, then I believe you can do quite a bit -- even break the piddling local jaywalking law -- and still have the blessings of Amendment 1.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,116]

>That is not correct. The public chooses a local government to
> determine proper use of funds, infrastructure, etc. Pedestrians have
> a right-of-way while crossing the street. That expectation was
> established by elected councilmen/women etc. That is why bicycles
> are not allowed on interstate highways.

Correct, nor are pedestrians. However, any place that pedestrians _are_ allowed (i.e. most streets) then protesters cannot be prohibited.

[wmw999 2,588]

I would like to point out that this type of civil disobedience has been used in by more than just the Gulf War 2 protesters.

Consider the tractor march on Washington by farmers a few years ago. Consider marches on various cities during the MLK days. Consider both pro and anti-abortion marches, some of which definitely block traffic.

Civil disobedience is a powerful tool. It comes with the penalty of being physically removed by the police (as in picked up and moved over) if you're blocking traffic, or prevented from entering places. If you vandalize, it definitely comes with whatever penalties come with being caught vandalizing.

The fact that it's so powerful is part of what makes it unattractive to folks who disagree with what it says sometimes.

I'd have to say that if a protest is making you change your path to work, well, so could a traffic accident. If it prevents any (not just usual) access to a building or area, then it's time for the police to move in and remove people. But that's just me.

Freedom only works if it applies to the folks you disagree with as well as the ones you agree with.

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 3,116]

>The way I see it, the government does have the authority to protect
> my ability to use my roads for their intended use.

I'm going to remember that quote the next time someone claims the government has no right to regulate usage of firearms to protect other's safety.

[ERICCONNELLY 0]

How about this???

http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1049374817290280.xml

And the last time that my car was broken into in Portland, they couldn't even spare the time to fill out a police report for my insurance company.

I wonder how many tickets they gave out for honking at all the people waving signs during the last elections?? (answer - none)

[Jimbo 0]

Quade said:

Quote

As long as you keep the "civil" in civil disobedience, then I believe you can do quite a bit -- even break the piddling local jaywalking law -- and still have the blessings of Amendment 1.

I disagree. If you break the law you pay the penalty. You can't stage an act of civil disobedience (which by definition is unlawful) and expect that there won't be any consequences.

Then Bill V said:

Quote

Correct, nor are pedestrians. However, any place that pedestrians _are_ allowed (i.e. most streets) then protesters cannot be prohibited.

Pedestrians are allowed in the intersection during the period that it is safe for them to be there, in other words, during the 'walk' the light. When the signal changes to 'Don't Walk' the pedestrians need to leave.

And Wendy gave a brief history of civil disobedience, but more importantly said this:

Quote

Civil disobedience is a powerful tool. It comes with the penalty of being physically removed by the police (as in picked up and moved over) if you're blocking traffic, or prevented from entering places. If you vandalize, it definitely comes with whatever penalties come with being caught vandalizing.

Exactly. Civil disobedience is by definition unlawful and everyone involved in an act of civil disobedience needs to understand that there are consequences to their actions.

More stuff from Wendy:

Quote

The fact that it's so powerful is part of what makes it unattractive to folks who disagree with what it says sometimes.

I am in complete agreement with you. I have no problems with civil disobedience, but remember, there is a price to pay for breaking the law. If you're going to break the law then be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

Quote

I disagree. If you break the law you pay the penalty. You can't stage an act of civil disobedience (which by definition is unlawful) and expect that there won't be any consequences.

I didn't say that you wouldn't be charged with, for instance, jaywalking, but . . .

. . . since when is jaywalking TERRORISM?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,116]

>I am in complete agreement with you. I have no problems with civil
> disobedience, but remember, there is a price to pay for breaking
> the law. If you're going to break the law then be prepared to accept
> the consequences of your actions.

You have to be _prepared_ to pay that price, but often even local authorities realize that the first amendment trumps local jaywalking laws - and the protester is released almost immediately. This is in part a game, of course. Police do not want unruly protesters clogging the streets, 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.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

but often even local authorities realize that the first amendment trumps local jaywalking laws

No Bill, it doesn't. The authorities may choose to look the other way, but that is a move that is purely discretionary. If the crime is jaywalking then the punishment will fit the crime and the protester has nothing to worry about. A small fine, some community service and they're free to go and protest something else.

Quote

This is in part a game, of course.

No disagreement on this point. I'll remember this.

Quote

protesters clogging the streets, 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.

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

Quade: Reread my original post, I never expressed support for the idea of this silly terrorism law. You'll see in fact, that I am against it.
-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

Ahhh, well, then at least there is -some- sanity in the world.

BTW, I don't know if you've ever attended a "professional" protest, but it's usually a few designated organizers and volunteers that get arrested just for the photo op. For the most part the masses of protesters are left alone.

I was in Lafayette Square as a freelancer covering the war protests for the beginnings of the 1991 war. It quite the thing to see how "it's done" by both sides.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver