Peaceful demonstrators shot and beaten. Students expelled for wearing T-shirts opposing the president. A Girl Scout threatened with arrest for silently protesting the war on a street corner. Protesters plucked from the sidewalk ahead of a presidential motorcade and forced into a “protest pit” a third of a mile away. A teacher fired for posting student art a principal deemed… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (9)Page 1 of 1 pagesI love how you use the ACLU to amplify your point. The ACLU! The ACLU is helping out a group called NAMBLA. NAMBLA stands for the North American Man-Boy Love Association. They are for legalized sex between men and boys who are age 8. They were found to advocate and help those committ a crime (apparently they send letters to their members about how to lure boys). The ACLU is helping them.
The kid who wore that shirt deserved to be kicked out of school. Its an offensive t-shirt and should not be worn on school property. Its because people like this there is a proposal for uniforms in public schools.
The author of this article lied about the incident in an Oakland port. The protestors were asked to move multiple times because they were blocking the port. When they wouldn’t move and one protestor assaulted a worker, they were fired upon and rightly so.
Posted by Brad on Jun 2, 2003 at 1:41 PM Whether or not that t-shirt is offensive depends on your point of view. It makes a political statement, it doesnt advocate violence or depict vulgar material. It is total bullshit that they kicked the kid out of school. And about the incident at the Oakland port, there are conflicting reports. The protesters and workers said that it was a peaceful protest, and the cops said someone threw a rock. Even if the cops are being truthful, someone throwing a rock doesn’t justify sending 50 or so people to the hospital, some with fairly serious injuries.
Posted by Justin Wilson on Jun 2, 2003 at 7:23 PM “… they were fired upon and rightly so.”
Can you imagine? Lord have mercy on this nation of ours.
Posted by B.J. on Jun 2, 2003 at 7:36 PM ok BJ, what do you propose those policeman do for the union workers, the protestors were interfering with their jobs and in some cases assaulting them. I put it to you to say what they shoudl have done. I don’t know where he got 50 people in the hospital because it was less.
You can assemble and yell and do what you want but no where does it say can you interfere with others trying to do their job and then disregard the police.
Posted by Brad on Jun 3, 2003 at 1:24 PM I am appalled at what is happening in this country right now. As Gore Vidal called us, the U.S. of Amnesia, we’d better WAKE UP.
Posted by denisedecarlo on Jun 3, 2003 at 2:35 PM On the issue of the patriot act, the reason for all these un-neccessary laws and actions by the gov. is a vain attempt to cover their butts for the inability to properly analyze and collect info on terrorist organizations. The fact that the 9/11 investigation has been with-held from public scrutiny (for national security reasons, ya) illustrates the lengths to which governments will go to hide their shortcomings. Rather than spying on and restricting the rights of it’s own people, proper methods need to be employed to allow for sharing of intel between all agencies (C.I.A., F.B.I. etc.). When did this country turn into a hysterical mass of pansies so afraid of a few nut cases overseas that giving up personal freedom and privacy became expendable? Rather than toss personal freedom and allow gov. spying on it’s own constituents there should be outcry for the truth in what was or wasn’t done to prevent a 9/11 from happening. Countless sums of money are spent to aquire and analyze intel on organizations who actively work against this country, yet the inability of the forementioned agencies to share and work together is the greater threat to this country, posing a much greater risk than that of it’s citizens. I close with the observation that since 9/11 no intel agency head has been reprimanded for the poor job done prior to 9/11 for being asleep at the switch at a time when their country needed them most. What we got instead were a multitude of excuses and a demonstration in passing the buck.
Posted by eric sorensen on Jun 4, 2003 at 9:21 AM I have a membership withe ACLU and subcribe to ITT also. This brings to mind the movie, with Michael Douglas, MR. PRESIDENT, and his speech near the end of the movie in which he says, and I may not be quoting this right, but he says “I am a card carrying member of the ACLU! Why aren’t you? He added something about defending the Bill of Rights and asked what is wrong with defending the Constitutiion? It is well-known and proven that the “bush” administration has misled and lied to the public to gets its agenda accepted by many. To equate security with the need to lesson Civil Liberties is the worse kind of lying and criminal in intent. A good article, this deserves wider circulation. I wish I had the t-shirt, form 15 year old so I could wear it.
Posted by Fred Jakobcic on Jun 4, 2003 at 5:23 PM “You can assemble and yell and do what you want but no where does it say can you interfere with others trying to do their job and then disregard the police.”
Unless you are protesting in front of a planned parenthood office then it’s OK to interfere, right?
Posted by Gordon on Jun 6, 2003 at 10:24 AM How many of you have been in actual protests? Engaged in civil disobedience?
Those who have should understand that when you engage in civil disobedience, by definition you are breaking the law. You should expect to be arrested. When you engage in physical resistance, you should expect to be met with physical resistance. When you engage the police in battle, you should expect that not only the police, but some of your fellow demonstrators should be injured.
When someone says “Go.” and you say “Hell no, we won’t go” what do you think should happen?
Re: the t-shirt. I am sure the youth would have been much happier had he been allowed to wear the shirt. Would you have been happier reading a story that he was beaten up by his peers or by strangers for wearing it? Ever been beaten up by scholar/athletes for wearing a peace-sign? Was it the fault of the state?
I have been in “peaceful protests”. Some did not stretch the definition of peaceful, they ignored it.
A “The cops pushed us - we pushed back”
B The crowd threw rocks & bottles. Police responded with rubber bullets.
If you see any difference between A & B please explain.
Posted by Nus on Jun 6, 2003 at 12:49 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Dave Lindorff
- Radioactive Wounds of War
Tests on returning troops suggest serious health consequences of depleted uranium use in Iraq - Before Sunset
A broad coalition is pushing Congress to rein in the Patriot Act - GMs Healthcare Double Standard
Bad ideology trumps good business - Beating the Boomers
Why Bush and Co. are racing to cut Social Security - A Milli Vanilli President
- Protesting Too Little?
Homeland Security wants to cage dissent at this summer’s political conventions
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
