Sunday, August 31, 2008

America: a police state


It's not Tiananmen Square, it's just a view of the state protecting political speech. Is it about keeping the peace or intimidating those seeking to exercise their right to free speech? You be the judge.

Now the state is preempting speech in St. Paul. The jackboots are out in force.

And we worry about terrorists taking away our freedoms.


Anonymous said...

This says it all: "The RNC Welcoming Committee, which describes itself as "anarchist/anti-authoritarian..."

Need I say more.

There will be thousands of protesters during the RNC, just as there were thousands of protesters at the DNC in Denver. Nobody cares about *protesters*--especially the police who don't have the bandwidth to harrass or detain peaceful protesters.

But since the 1999 WTO riots in Seattle, which ended in tens of millions of dollars in destruction to private property, urban police departments have taken a more proactive approach to identifying the anarchists (who want to create mayhem) from the *average* protesters who have no interest to riot.

As began in LA and Philadelphia immediately when those cities were chosen for the 2000 DNC and RNC, their police departments' intelligence divisions began to infiltrate groups gearing up to use the conventions as a platform from which to cause trouble. These groups were busted up while thousands protested peacefully without police interference. The same formula was emulated in Boston and NYC for the 2004 DNC and RNC, and once again in 2008 by the Denver and Minneapolis police departments. Silly anarchists: Too stoned to remember conventions past, I suppose.

People have a right to protest peacefully--that's not the issue here. If that was the case then the police would be raiding the offices of dozens of civic groups and the homes of thousands of citizens, and that's obviously not happening. It's those who want to use the occasion of the DNC and RNC to riot and loot who need to be cracked down upon, and, based on the description of the group (by its own members, no less), I have no problem with that.

The only abuse I've seen so far is the arrest of an ABC news producer as he and his camera crew were taking pictures of Democrat senators and major donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel in downtown Denver. The producer was on a public sidewalk and a cop grabbed him, pushed him into traffic and then handcuffed him for no reason other than he was catching those "new style of politics" Democrats grub for lobbyist and fat cat money in a secret meeting. Now THAT is something to get upset about, but busting anarchists before they start throwing rocks and molotov cocktails at police, and destroying businesses puts a smile on my face.

Jim Fedako said...


1. Prior restraint is an assault on basic freedoms. It is a thought crime.

2. One man's anarchist is another man's freedom lover. The establishment views all opposition as anarchist -- that is the reason third parties are all but barred from Ohio ballots.

The folks in the picture and the video are harmless. But the sight of armed police (soldiers) is a threat to anyone who wants to carry a protest sign.

It's getting worse. I went to see Bush speak in 2004 and protestors were allowed. They were correct at times, anoying at times, pathetic at times, but mostly funny and interesting. Regardless, they are the price of free speech. Remove them and free speech disappears.

Anonymous said...

Dude--they can take down the anarchists and the anti-authoritarians, but they'd better not touch the Anti-Positivist!

Jim Fedako said...

Good to see that everyone has a limit ;-)

Anonymous said...

True to prediction, the "RNC Welcome Committee" anarchists (you know--the innocents whose safehouses were raided last week) are now destroying property and physically assaulting, and throwing rocks and bottles at police and convention-goers.

Hold a sign, rant and chant--that's all fine; but masked hooligans trying to harm police and citizens is not fine.

Jim Fedako said...

9:15 --

The police are justified in protecting property. The issue is the prior restraint (threats) used on anyone (or group) that does not reflect the views of the ruling elite (both parties).