You mean like this?

The 32nd amendment to the american constitution

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

[edit]

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

truly disturbing --keep up the excellent work scoob!
....by law

Heres two examples of land of the free...

Cleveland Women Put In Gulag And Held For Psyh Eval For Trying To Put Up Anti-Bush Poster

Carol Fisher is being held indefinitely in a surprise May 9 court hearing, becoming another political prisoner held illegally for speaking out against Bush.

13 May 2006
By Greg Szymanski
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/13-May-2006.html


A Cleveland woman, manhandled by police and charged with two felonies for trying to display anti-Bush posters, was jailed in a Cuyahoga County psych unit last week in what her attorney called a "highly unusual and outrageous" decision.

Carol Fisher, 53, was ordered by state court Judge Timothy McGinty to undergo a psychological examination as a part of her pre-sentencing investigation in the anti-Bush poster incident.

From the onset of the case, Judge McGinty openly claimed Fisher suffered from "mental problems" for resisting a brutal encounter on Jan. 28 when Cleveland Heights police manhandled and arrested her even after complying with orders to not display the anti-Bush posters on a downtown Cleveland Heights street.

And during a last minute May 9 hearing, Judge McGinty said Fischer's opposition to the Bush administration makes her "delusional."

In response, Terry Gilbert, one of Fisher's attorney, said in more than 30 years of practicing law, he has never seen "anything remotely like this," adding legal challenges are ongoing, including a writ of habeas corpus.

"This is gulag stuff," said Gilbert. "Is this the kind of country you want to live in when dissidents are determined to be crazy?"

In a phone call after being put in the psych ward, Fisher said her eyeglasses were taken, she was put on suicide watch and if she doesn't comply with the psych examination, she will be sent to the North Coast Mental Institute for a 20 day evaluation.

During the hearing, Judge McGinty made other strange requests baffling attorneys, asking defense counsel to openly read a lengthy message on Fisher's t-shirt, saying:

"Wanted for Illegally Crossing Borders: The Bush Regime. If you are going to insist that crossing borders illegally is a crime which cannot be tolerated, how about George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice (and yes, Colin Powell) and the rest of that gang, with their highly illegal, and violent, 'crossing of the border'-into Iraq, among other places?!"

Judge McGinty then said this was proof of her delusional state, adding that "Carol wants to go to jail and that she has a martyr complex." Fisher had initially refused to taking a state ordered psych _eval, saying there was no reason for it due to the fact American citizens have the right to express political opinions in an open and honest fashion.

However, Judge McGinty's response to Fisher's refusal and statements was simply that "I don't negotiate with felons."

"I'd be crazy to go along with the psych test," said Fisher, adding she feared being railroaded by crooked state psychiatrists based on her opposition to the Bush administration. "That which you will resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn or be forced to accept."

And looking back on the entire Fisher story, starting with the Jan. 28 police brutality incident involving the anti-Bush posters, her case is a stark example of the fascist climate existing in America, an unsettling climate were dissidents are punished and authority figures are allowed to trample on civil rights.

As reported in the Arctic Beacon as well as being a guest on Greg Szymanski's radio show the Investigative Journal, Fisher said she was brutalized by Cleveland Heights police, charged with two counts of felony assault and held incommunicado under police custody in the hospital even after complying with orders not to post the anti- Bush signs.

"The facts show that I was willing to take the posters down as the officer requested. But I was arrested anyway. Yet the prosecution intends to distort the facts and police still promote the lie that I was arrested because I refused to comply, and attacked them," said Fisher.

"The real point here is, there need to be more posters all over the place demanding an end to the Bush Regime! The facts clear and simple: I was wrongly arrested and assaulted for putting up anti-Bush posters. I was further punished for defying them.

"What about my injuries, trauma, intimidation, a threat on my life, being labeled a crazy wildcat, held incommunicado for six hours, forced to undress in front of four male policemen, and now the loss of my job? And most of all, what about the fact that all this happened because I put up a poster calling for active opposition to the Bush Regime!"

And Fisher's run-in with authorities and subsequent illegal incarceration is just another example of the long line of cases piling up across America showing the "real live day to day" lock down on freedom of speech and the use of police as the Gestapo arm of the fascist Bush administration.

"I had set out from my house with a full agenda, to contact lots of people and get out materials about our upcoming Cleveland event to Drown Out the State of the Union address, and the call to march around the White House on Feb. 4th. My first stop was the an area known for its community of artists and progressives, where I stapled up posters for blocks and was greeted warmly by those who saw and appreciated what World Cant Wait is doing. I talked to an artist, and a Palestinian store owner who took fliers to distribute to customers.

"Next stop, to the east side. I drove down a street in Cleveland Heights, another area known for its diversity and progressive history. This street was badly in need of postering too and though i was in a big hurry, I couldn't drive on without getting up a few signs. Before long a cop called from across the street: "Ma'am! Hundred dollar fine for doing that!" Oh really, since when? Another way of keeping us from getting the word out, eh?

"But not wanting to get arrested, I said ok and put up my staple gun and walked away. But that wasn't the end of it. "Ma'am! Hundred dollar fine unless you take those posters down." He is pursuing me across the street. Damn! OK fine, I say, I will take them down (not wanting to get into a confrontation, because I have lots to do today!) But this too is not enough for the cop. He wants my ID. I say I don't have my ID. He grabs my arm. I say let go of me, I am not doing anything wrong, I will take the posters down. People are watching to see what happens, are outraged but very afraid. The cop won't let go, he clearly wants more grief from me, and he is in the spotlight. He wants people to be scared. He pushes me against a store window and next thing I know I am face down on the sidewalk with two cops on top of me, one with his knee in my back. I am trying to call out to people, to tell them what the posters are about.

"They keep pushing my face into the sidewalk. I can't breathe. I have osteoradionecrosis in my jaw, resulting from radiation treatments for cancer. My jawbone is slowly deteriorating, is very fragile, and doesn't heal well. I am 53 years old, not exactly a spring chicken. A hand comes down again to push my chin against the concrete.

"By this time there are four cops on the scene. My hands are tightly cuffed behind my back. They lift me up and shove me onto a park bench and shackle my legs. I am still calling out, telling people what this is about. One of the cops says to me, "Shut up or I will kill you!", "I am sick of this anti-Bush sh**!" "You are definitely going to the psyche ward." Then somebody calls the EMS, and a fire squad shows up.

"The cop supervisor appears and puts his finger in my face: "I don't like it when people treat my men like this and if you don't obey the law you will suffer the consequences." I am lifted into the EMS truck, hands still cuffed behind my back. I ask to make a call and this is refused, but a fireman offers to make a quick call for me. If not for this, no one would have known where I was or what was happening, a fate shared by many immigrants in this country. At the hospital, I am treated as an arch-criminal. Escorted by four policemen, I shuffle into the emergency room, legs still shackled, covered with leaves and mud. I think to myself, if I was Black, I would not have made it this far. I would probably be dead by now."



Editor's Note: To see Fisher's original story go to http://www.arcticbeacon.com/1-Apr-2006.html. To hear her live radio interview with Greg Szymanski go to http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg06.html.


Couple Arrested For Asking For Directions

TheWBALChannel.com | May 18 2006
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/9229472/detail.html

WINDOWS MEDIA FORMAT VIDEO


BALTIMORE -- Baltimore City police arrested a Virginia couple over the weekend after they asked an officer for directions.

WBAL-TV 11 News I-Team reporter David Collins said Joshua Kelly and Llara Brook, of Chantilly, Va., got lost leaving an Orioles game on Saturday. Collins reported a city officer arrested them for trespassing on a public street while they were asking for directions .

"In jail for eight hours -- sleeping on a concrete floor next to a toilet," Kelly said.

"It was a nightmare," Brook said. "I was in there thinking I was just dreaming and waiting to wake up."

Collins reported it was a nightmare ending to a nearly perfect day. He said the couple went to a company picnic and watched the Orioles beat Kansas City. It was their first trip to Camden Yards and asked two people for directions to Interstate 95 South when they left.

Collins said somehow they ended up in the Cherry Hill section of south Baltimore. Hopelessly lost, relief melted away concerns after they spotted a police vehicle.

"I said, 'Thank goodness, could you please get us to 95?" Kelly said.

"The first thing that she said to us was no -- you just ran that stop sign, pull over," Brook said. "It wasn't a big deal. We'll pay the stop sign violation, but can we have directions?"

"What she said was 'You found your own way in here, you can find your own way out.'" Kelly said.

Collins said the couple spotted another police vehicle and flagged that officer down for directions. But Officer Natalie Preston, a six-year veteran of the force, intervened.

"That really threw us for a loop when she stepped in between our cars," Kelly said. "(She) said my partner is not going to step in front of me and tell you directions if I'm not."

Collins reported the circumstances got worse. Kelly pulled 40 feet forward parking next to a curb and put his flashers on while Brook was on the phone to her father hoping he could help her with directions. Both her parents are police officers in the Harrisburg, Pa., area.

"(Brook's father) was in the middle of giving us directions when the officer screeched up behind us and got out of the car and asked me to step out. I obeyed," Kelly said. "I obeyed everything -- stepped out of the car, put my hands behind my back, and the next thing I know, I was getting arrested for trespassing."

"By this time, I was completely in tears," Brook said. "I said, 'Ma'am, you know, we just need your help. We are not trying to cause you any trouble. I'm not leaving him here.' What she did was walk over to my side of the car and said, 'Ok, we are taking you downtown, too.'"

Collins said the couple was released from jail without being charged with anything. Brook is now concerned the arrest may complicate a criminal background check she's going through in her job as a child care worker.

Collins said police left Kelly's car unlocked and the windows down at the impound lot. He reported a cell phone charger, pair of sunglasses and 20 CDs were stolen.

Baltimore City police said they are looking into the incident.

It sounds like you are suggesting that China is not a dictatorship. If this is true, then Im sure you wouldn't know one if it smacked YOU in the rump. Great job on working your Pro-Bush mindset into your reply though.





The founding fathers and the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died fighting to preserve our freedoms, thats who.




You think you have all the privacy you need, but remember that the feds can now legally spy on you if they want, without warrant. They can raid your house without warrant, unannounced, and they don't have to tell you that they did. While this may be enough privacy for you, remember its not about you, its about preserving our way of life and our most basic freedoms.




well thats just fantastic, however you and everyone you know account for less than .01 percent of the American population. And its the fact that they do have the power to do it now. That is the point. They wouldn't give themselves the power to do it if they didn't plan on using it.




Again its great that you have not experienced these things yet, but that in no way means that you won't ever. And again thats not the point, the point is that they are doing these things and countless other things that violate the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution, which also states that any law passed that violates it is null and void and is to be ignored. You see the founding fathers were some pretty smart fellows. They had been through all this before, and knew that sooner or later, it was going to happen here. So they did all they could to try to prevent it. It was Ben Franklin (the founding father not the crafts store) that said "Those who exchange liberty for security will get neither liberty nor security."

As for the patriot act, It is way too long and filled with too much legal mumbo jumbo for me to know what half the crap that is written in it, but I do know some of the more important things that I believe everyone should know about it.

Nice going America!

I didn't know it was that bad and I was thinking of traveling to US, but not anymore.

Sounds to me that the Big Wheel have really turned and there is no turning back.

I wonder how is it for black/latino anti-bush-american....

Its not about whether or not China is a dictatorship, its about whether or not they lie and decieve the people in all matters.
People are happy in china thats all that matters


Died in vain I might add. Remember the founding fathers warned against what is happening today and said that you have the right to reject your government.


Dont forget either that there are currently over 2 million americans in jail. Mostly for minor drug-related offences, remember mandatory minimum sentances are there for a reason.
As much as they complain about the growing numbers in prisons, that is actually the point.
To create an apparent need for strict policing - the infamous Police state.

I have to add here that censorship works very well also in China. I have heard that even now there are thousands of farmers etc rebelling against the goverment and we don't know about it.

Chinas condition is much more worse than most of us think and the land cannot hold that kind of exploitation.

Most of the laws passed deal with people who are here from foreign countries with visa's or recent citizenship, not natural born citizens. We complain that the Muslim countries dont police thier own crazies, then complain when laws are put into place to police or own and others from foreign countries. I could say more, but gotta get back to work. Later.

I suggest you go on with your plan and see for yourself how life is in America.
Trust me, if you never been here you will learn more a lot about the USA. Who knows, you might have a very different opinion about it after, can't really rely on this forum fully you know.

Things arent bad here Gsus. We work hard (most of us), its a big, beautiful country. Very diverse. You'll see different races, religions, and nationalities, good movies, good music, good night life, you name it, we got it. Well... if we dont have it, we probably know where to get it.HA!

We fight among ourselves sometimes, but in the end, I would sit down and and have a beer or twelve with any one of them.

No different. It's because when Bush makes public appearances, the protesters heckle him. So he makes them hold thier protest in an area called a designated free speech zone. This applies to all. White, black, yellow, latino, and anyone else I might have missed.

Man, my blood is boiling after reading about free speech zones. I thought it was totally impossible to believe at first, since I've never seen one, but the more I read up on them, the more I realized why: the media isn't allowed to broadcast any images of a FSZ. So, there's two of our basic freedoms taken away to cater to our "leaders" ego: Speech and the Press.

Thanks for the knowledge, Scoob. It's getting harder and harder to feel proud to be an American these days.

Lee Greenwood: "And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..."

Sorry, Lee, but that appears to be bullsh*t. But hey, at least you made an aircraft carrier-load of money because of all the politicians who wanted to continue to dupe us by using your song.

Keep waving that flag! Remember, you're free! Just keep repeating that and don't pay attention to what's actually going on!!!!

I agree TK. Its the first Ive heard of it to. A good campaign platform for the next President elect would be to undo the damage already done. It appears Bush is abusing his position of Presidency. Time for him to go. Thanks once again Scoob.

By all means, people who don't like the president should be allowed as close as they like. After all, it worked out so well for Lincoln, Garfield, and Mckinley.

Makes sense. I guess we can disband the Secret Service now, too.

Also, people die in auto crashes as well, so I expect the automobile to be illegalized any day now...

Now you realize why I'm always so pissed off on these forums. I spend a big part of my day researching this type of Un-American behavior from the Federal government. Like the article I posted said, the media can't talk to any of the protesters, or film them. The media is not allowed into the free speech zone. How fu*ked up is that. Only people who disagree with the president can be in the "free speech" zone. The media who is supposed to protect free speech, can't even have access to any dissenting viewpoints. No wonder everyone in America thinks this is the greatest country. No one who disagrees with the tyrannical dictatorship rising out of the ashes of 9/11 can get their point of view across to the masses of American people.

I don't know if you watched Alex Jones video of Martial Law 9/11 rise of the Police state, but he has a who section on the detention camps and free speech zones set up for the Republican and Democratic conventions. Here it it on google video to watch for free:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661

If you don't know about this, this will really piss you off. Basically the police with the orders of the secret service, used the orange construction fences to wrap up people at random, and cram them in police buses and ship them off to an old bus depot called "Pier 57" if you google it. It didn't matter if you were protesting or not, they just wanted to clear the streets. People who were walking out of their apartments to go their jobs, or people just walking the streets sight seeing on vacation were rounded up at random and held for sometimes more then 24 hours, in a detention camp.

Here's a picture from inside

Actually I feel that isnt the point. The point is, there is freedom of speech, and then there is abuse of freedom of speech. When a public figure such as the President is addressing the public, and is heckled by protesters to the point of being unable to deliver thier message, they are preventing the speaker from exercising thier right to freedom of speech. If you abuse the privalage, you loose the privelage.

Keeping protestors away from the president is done to ensure the security of the president. The people are not prevented from telling the world what they think. They are merely prevented from endangering the president's life (and mooching off his airtime).



I can't really see the connection here. Are you comparing the intentional assasination of a U.S. president with a random statistic occurance?

It's a comparison as useless as saying that lions kill anyone who doesn't accept the leader, therefore our president does the same. There is only the vauguest correlation at all if that.

Not everything is a conspiracy. Not everything is done in order to establish the NWO and to gag the common man. Some things are just common sense security measures.

Do you honestly think that a would-be assassin, prior to pulling the trigger, would be standing there with a protest sign?

Do you think that banning negative signs and anti-Bush people from getting within a half a mile of the president protects his life? What's to stop a madman from grabbing a pro-Bush sign and getting close enough to deliver the fatal shot? Did the all-powerful gubment not consider this little loophole?

And if Free Speech Zones are designed for the sole purpose of protecting the president's life, then why aren't they allowed to be photographed? What would that have to do with protecting the president's life?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? In your world, if I choose to voice my displeasure by scratching up a negative sign, I'm somehow a threat to the president's life and should be confined. That is completely ridiculous.

I'm of the opinion that FSZ's were created to keep the illusion of peace and to deliver a pro-president message to the people. The fact that they're not allowed to be photographed supports this theory.

Why wouldn't he (or she)? Garfield got killed by a guy who blamed him for rejecting his (the assassin's) request for ambassadorship to France. There are people out there who aren't quite balanced who would take a situation like a protest as an admission that their desire to kill is perfectly acceptable. Heck, even if it was a perfectly sane and logical person, hiding in a crowd of protestors isn't all that bad an idea.



Generally speaking, most gunmen don't consider too much of anything other than trying to get a shot off. They are hardly all-powerful, rather they are fairly desperate. They have deep-rooted issues against people in power and would never even consider pretending to be pro-anything they opposed, even if it did give them the opportunity they wished for. Remember, we aren't talking about the (largely fictional) professional million dollar hit-man here. This is just the average nutty Joe who bought a gun and believes he can impress a girl by killing the president.



Well, I have indeed heard this claim, but I haven't really seen any support for it. I've read accounts of protestors that get arrested for leaving the zone, but that is about it. Asides from claims, I haven't found credible sources concerning actual censorship. If you have some source to support this claim, I would appreciate it's posting, as I haven't found anything myself.



For starters, innocent till proven guilty mean what? It means that they have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers after having been arrested, charged with a specific crime, and been given access to legal recourse. How does that apply here?



Well, it isn't my world anymore, but I was in the military security field for the better part of eight years, so I feel comfortable talking about it. To confine someone for scratching up a sign would indeed be ridiculous. That is not what is happening here, though. Anyone in these zones is free to leave whenever they like. They are even free to go into the conference zone, if they like. What they are not allowed to do is go to the conference zone and begin creating a disruption. From a security point of view, anyone who goes out of their way to break public restrictions, decide they can make their own rules, and act as if they have the right to both attention and a captive audience, and then decide to get up close to your package, is most definitly a security threat. At that point, I know that this person isn't interested in rules, isn't interested in civil discourse, and is angry at the person who I am protecting. I hardly call that ridiculous. A little paranoid, perhaps, but it isn't as if there isn't a precedent.



Assuming that you are correct about the censorship. Personally, everytime I see the president going to a city, I see footage on the news with protestors talking about something or another. Your entire argument hinges on the FSZ's being a form of censorship, so perhaps you should support that claim a bit.

From wikipedia:



From scoob's article:



After that, I don't have the time right now to read every article on the subject in search of the mdia not being allowed to cover free speech zones. I'll have to dig deeper Monday.

Take your time. Like I said, I have often heard the claim. What I am looking for is something to verify that the claim of censorship is accurate.

Are you serious? Can't you see you are engaged in double think.

The very phrase "free speech zone" in United States is an oxymoron. If you have free speech zones, that means everywhere outside the free speech zone is a censorship zone. Free speech zones are as free as the Patriot Act is patriotic. They are tricking everyone, like when they change the title from the war department, to the defence department.

You seem to be looking for evidence in all the wrong places.

Here's some pictures of the "free speech zone" for the Democratic convention in 2004. Notice they trap everyone behind tall fences.:








Alex Jones covered it daily on his radio show.

Its scary what this country is turning into. Its even scarier how many people choose to ignore it!

Just do a google search for "free speech zone" and you will find all sorts of examples. In fact it's much worse then I thought.

At LSU on Friday, May 21st, "Free Speech," as designated by law, was only to be allowed for "anti-war" citizens that were willing to stand in a roped-off 35 foot square, 100 feet from the road. My sign said "Veterans For Peace, No WAR" on one side, and "The DUBYA--M-D's ARE IN THE WHITE HOUSE" on the other. Not exactly controversial. Not exactly threatening. It just said that I`m against this Iraq "war," and I don`t like this President. I have been against this war since way before it even started, and I will be that way until the last U.S. soldier is home from there.

We had a legal permit to demonstrate against this war and President Bush, a permit from the Secret Service, as enforced by the LSU police. When our group of demonstrators arrived on Dalrymple Drive that morning to protest this visit, an LSU policeman told us that we had to stand in a 35-foot fenced-in square, exactly 100` from Dalrymple Drive, for "security" reasons, under the threat of arrest if we didn't. We refused to stand in that thing, but we did not get arrested. (It would have been funny if all the protestors had stood in the little square and said "MOO" over and over, like cattle do.)

Directly across the street from the "free speech zone," about 25 "pro-Bush" citizens stood along the curb and waited for the President. I was selected as spokesman for our group, so I asked the LSU police Sarge, "Why can those people stand along the curb but we can`t?" The Sarge said, and I quote, "Because they are pro-Bush, and they don`t have signs".... damn, it was my sign's fault!

http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704FreeSpeechZones.shtml

No, I really can't. Perhaps you can show me. Doublethink refers to the holding of two directly contradictory beliefs without acknowledging any contradiction. How is it that I am engaged in doublethink?



Yes, well, that's what is called "spin" (or more often and incorrectly "propaganda"). They are called Free Speech Zones simply because it wouldn't have been too smart to call the dog cages (which is what we used to call the areas that where fenced off for crowd control). Pretending that the name has any sort of signifigance in regards to the legality of these zones is rather pointless, because these zones are not defined by their titles, but rather by what they do. A Free Speech Zone is not a zone that is isolated for the sole purpose of allowing free speech; it is a zone for isolating possible security threats. People who disagree with the president, but aren't aggresively trying to disrupt whatever process is occuring are not isolated to these areas.

Your arguments are somewhat simplistic. They are focusing solely on the name. Who cares about the name? Call it a Polly Wolly Doddle Zone, for all that it matters (meaning, I suppose, that all areas outside these zones are anti-polly wolly doodle zones). The only people who are tricked by the name are the people who think the name has any importance to it. What is important is what the zones represent, which is what the topic of this thread is.



Yes, I both see the fences, and see through the fences. I can't imagine how a camera would fail to (if anything, they seem to attract a great deal of attention). If a camera can see the protestors, and they can be heard, and they can enter and leave freely, how is this censorship?



I'm afraid that I have found too many discrepencies in Alex Jone's claims to think of him as a credible source. Perhaps you have a source from the media claiming that it was not allowed access to protestors?



Okay, I read the story. Where's the censorship? Were they arrested? Stifled? Was the media not allowed to photograph them? Where they made to throw away their signs and publicly swear loyalty to the president?

Yes, they were told to stay in one area for security purposes. How is that censorship? And please explain the doublethink comment.

You need to give me your definition of censorship, because I can't believe you can't see how this is not censorship. maybe you need more examples.

So you are saying it's not really a "free-speech zone" it's a fenced in area to keep those who disagree with the establishment, right? Is that what you are saying?

And without going off on a tangent, are you for or against, fencing in those who disagree with the leadership, in a democratic Republic?

If you believed they were actually "free speech" zones you would be engaging in double think, but since you admit, they are not really free speech zones, but designated areas of concentrating, and limiting dissenting viewpoints.

The reason these free speech zones are double think is because at least in the United States we are supposed to have the right to practise free speech. Suddenly on certain forms of speech are acceptable and they are actually limiting only certain speech of a specific dissenting viewpoint.

If you agree with the president, you can practice free speech outside the free speech zone, but if you disagree with the president, you can only practise your free speech in a specified zone, far away from any one's mind who may be influenced by your viewpoint.

Everyone who was detained at pier 57 during the Republican convention were victims of censorship, and had their free speech rights violated.

No Patriot Act Victims?
Tell It To Summer Starr!
The RNC's "Little Guantanamo"
mauinews.com
9-9-4

summary:
-----------------------------------------

[Visiting "U.S. Republican" policital party to NYC ran its own police detention area. Who can name a political party in Germany in the 1930s that ran its own police...]

I called my daughter's cell phone over and over ("it's mom, where ARE you, call me"). She didn't answer. Only hours before, she had been calling us with joy, telling us of the peaceful protests and beautiful march. But now, nothing. I had nightmarish visions of a fire sweeping over the combustible floor with hundreds -- nearly a thousand -- trapped in the chainlink pens, razor wire on the top of the pens making escape impossible.

My husband called the NYPD to ask who had issued a Certificate of Occupancy or Fire Safety Inspection Certificate and who wasmanaging Pier 57. He was given the number for the Republican National Committee. Yes. My husband and I looked at each other in silent, cold horror. In America?

My husband slowly dialed that number, got the RNC, and the Republican rep who answered the phone said, in answer to my husbands' inquiries about safety: "those protesters don't deserve a Holiday Inn, and they're all criminals anyway!"

I called Hawaii's Republican Party Headquarters, and asked them to report it to Hawaii's Governor Linda Lingle, who was at the convention in NYC and could intervene for my daughter and other UH students incarcerated illegally by her party. The Republican rep woman who answered the phone told me "Linda knows, and you're blowing it all out of proportion."

I recall that when the Democrats held their convention to nominate Senator John Kerry as their candidate for President, there were only 6 people arrested, if I remember correctly. At the Republican National Convention to elect Bush as their candidate, there were thousands arrested. ... This group-roundup tactic is called by the Republican party "preventative detention" (like the "pre-emptive war" in Iraq). It is used to terrorize those who might protest Bush's agenda when he is in town. America, wake up. Hitler told the German people that they would have to "give up a few of your rights ...temporarily...so that we can fight the enemy." That's what Ashcroft said, about the misnamed PATRIOT ACT. Wake up, America. The American flag that proudly waves by MY front gate and is on the back window of MY car...doesn't seem to be the same American flag that the Republican Party is waving. [The Republican party it turning itself into the American Fascist Party, cutting loose from conservatives entirely.]

A young girl visiting NYC during the time of the Republican National Convention, NOT a protester, gets thrown into a makeshift GITMO!

read full letter:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297083.shtml

My definition of censorship (in the context of free speech) is the suppresion or elimination of information or viewpoints opposing or detrimental to the official stance.

When one cannot voice an opposing viewpoint due to threats of retaliation, that is censorship. When a person who advocates communism is suddenly snatched off the street and never heard from again, that is censorship. When dissenters are beaten and shot at, that is censorship.

What do you consider censorship? Having to stand over there instead of over here?



No. It is an area to contain people engaged in active protests (as opposed to passive protests, such as sit-ins, and simple differing viewpoints, who are generally not barred). The reason for this is because the aggression inherent in active protests has many precedents in which they turn violent, at which point it becomes a security risk no just to their target (in this case, the president), but also to whatever bystanders may be present.



That is a leading question. The fencing in does not have anything to do with those who disagree. You can walk right up to the president and tell him you disagree to his face (security precautions being assumed). People are not being fenced in because they disagree, and asking a question that insunuates they are is less than honest. I am for the fencing in of possible security risks as demonstrated by their actions. What they happen to believe is no concern of mine.



No one is limiting anything that these people want to say. They can talk about anything they like. Where did you get that they could only talk about certain things?



You can disagree with the president all you like. The only time you are going to be kept far away is when you might be a danger.

You keep coming back to these zones being hidden away somewhere. They are out in the public arena, they are covered by the news cameras, the only thing they are not is within danger range of the president. We have already established that you do not get put in there because of what you think, and we have established that being put in there does not keep your message from getting out. Where is the censorship?

I would like to think that I have explained my point of view. Please explain yours with something a bit more substantial than "I can't believe you can't see how this is not censorship". You incredulity simply isn't enough of an argument.

The only thing I have established is that you need to do more research into this subject, and stop assuming you already have it all figured it out. Everything you said is wrong. I really don't have time to spell everything out for you? There are countless examples of individual stories of people being forcibly censored with threats of arrest or fine. I would have to go and search for them.

You don't know about pier 57, used by the RNC to detain protestors until the convention was over? Here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0902-09.htm


the free speech zones are hidden hundreds of feet away from the actual event they are protesting. The media do not film, and then report on it over and over in the mainstream news. Some dissenting viewpoint zones are worse then others. Pier 57 leased by the RNC for 2004 was the worst, as they bussed people miles away to a detention center, away from the TV cameras. If you are holding a sign that's anti bush you have to be in the designated zone. (because the sign could be used as a weapon)

Does this only happen on one side?

The free speech zone was created and implemented during the Clinton administration. Due to Bush's growing unpopularity, the current administration has used it to a greater degree.

Here's the bottom line Scoob, protesters heckle and interupt government officials during public speeches. Remember when your parents taught you it's rude to interupt someone when they are speaking? If people havent been taught this by thier parents, or have and choose not to abide by it, then society is forced to correct them.

Wow. How humbling. Everything I said is wrong? I didn't get a single thing right in my entire post, despite my eight years of experience in security and my explanations for the claims I made?

Too bad you don't have time to spell things out for me. You certainly feel free to demand details and explanations from me, but when I ask the same for you, you just don't have time? It almost sounds like you want me to blindly believe everything you say without questioning.



Well, when you have the time, feel free to search for them and post them. That way, you will be doing something more than simply saying "YOU"RE WRONG!", and then running away without explaining a thing.



Yes, I did run across it during my look into these claims. As far as I could tell, the entire article was putting the blame square in the field of the Republican party. Are they the whole of the government now? Well, okay then, if you like, I'll look into it a little more. I'm looking for a source from a non "progressive" article, or something that wouldn't be considered a biased source. At first glance, There didn't see to be anything too out of the ordinary beyond the actual scale of the operation. Honestly, I can see 500 protestors, by all accounts, beginning to get rowdy, and therefore having the police officers begin a mass arrest. I know you will call it being blind, but having been in the middle of protests before, I have to say that it is remarkably difficult to tell the peaceful protestors from the angry ones in the middle of a mob. Generally, you wade in, grab someone, and pull them out. Innocent people, who somehow happen to in the 500 strong crowd of aggresive protestors without noticing, will sometimes get grabbed as well. It's a matter of numbers. There simply aren't enough cops to afford people individual time to plead their case on the street when a mob situation is growing.

Generally speaking, yes. There are the people considered an acceptable security risk, and there are people considered a non-acceptable security risk. People who agree with the president, who don't agree, but aren't aggresively protesting or heckling, or who are neutral on the subject can go into the danger zone. People who are aggresively protesting, who will hinder the process through heckling or chanting, or who will require a higher output of resources to control should they get out of hand, are not allowed into the danger zone.

The thing to realize is that, even with higher security risks removed from the equation, security personalle next to the president are still extremely busy, keeping an eye open for threats that might have snuck in through their net. Zones are only one part of a complex web designed to keep the president safe.

People in the zone are not placed there because of their political views, but rather because the manner in which they are expressing themselves indicate that they will require more resources to control than are available in the immideate vicinity of the president.

So you can clap, but not boo. Dissent is treason. Licking boots is freedom.

Basically you can only speak out, if it is in supporting the leader.

I guess my grandma was right, when she said, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.

I see nothing wrong with interrupting corrupt public servants from speaking lies. If this was a working democratic republic, I would say, sure, this is not the right atmosphere, and instead vote to try and change the leadership. The voting is rigged. It's not a fair election. We are moving towards dictatorship. I feel like I'm traveling down the river, headed for a waterfall, in a boat with the rest of the population. I try to argue with people with worse eyesight, and some can't even see the water fall. Other can see it, but don't think it will threaten our safety. The guy who's steering it is aiming right for the waterfall, because, he wants to create a new order out of the chaos from falling over the waterfall. Maybe people need to make their own mistakes so they can learn from them, unfortunatly, I will suffer along with them, from their learning curve.

Maybe, this is just all part of humanities destiny. Maybe it's Gods way of correcting humanity.

Are you familiar with this bible verse Romans 13? Bascially it says, obey your leaders because they were put into positions of power over us, by the will of God. Would this rule apply to Hitler, or the Anti-christ? Would it apply to Bush? Only if the new world order is in humanities best interest.

1
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5
Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6
This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7
Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
8
2 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9
The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10
Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.
11
3 And do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed;
12
the night is advanced, the day is at hand. Let us then throw off the works of darkness (and) put on the armor of light;
13
let us conduct ourselves properly as in the day, 4 not in orgies and drunkenness, not in promiscuity and licentiousness, not in rivalry and jealousy.
14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the desires of the flesh.

I pulled George Bush's di*k out of my @$$ a long time ago, and I'm not going to sit back and keep my mouth shut. I have a lot to say, and as long as the bill of rights are still valid, I'm going to take advantage of those rights. The government likes to think of rights as privleges that they allow us to practise at thier discretion.

You can boo, as long as you don't do it while speakers are talking, and you don't chant regularly through the entire conference. Treason and licking boots? Man, drama queen much?



You can speak out all you like. Heck, you can even protest. Just keep it civil. Avaoid the things that make you look like a mob. Actions speak louder than words, and if your actions say one thing, your words are going to be ignored.



She was a wise person. Bet your grandma got listened to a lot, didn't she?



You seem to be under the impression that, along with the right to free speech, the Bill of Rights also guarantees you the right to a captive audience. No such thing. You can feel free to say anything that you like, but there is absolutely no reason anyone is required to listen. If you can't get people interested in what you are saying, then the problem may be in the speaker, not the audience.

Yes what you said is wrong. It's like you are trying to explain what the purpose is, in a perfect world. This is not a perfect world, and so far, you are assuming these free speech zones are working perfectly. I'm giving you exceptions to the rule, because this is not a perfect world, and "certain" people's rights are being trampled on. Everyone (but I'm using you as a prime example) constructs thier view of reality with a sum of all their experiances. You have not seen or heard any stories of peacefull protestors being censored, and you automatically assume, the free speech zones are only for unruly dissenting protestors. You have not seen evidence so you make me present it to you. You are making a big assumption that no ones rights are being abused. Your deffinition of censorship was perfect:



I'm telling you there are countless examples of people who suffered exactly what you described in your description of censorship.

I would have to go back and look for all the examples. Most were in 2004, two years ago, and not exactly crystal clear in my memory.

You are probably still looking for Fox news or MSNBC news coverage of people being censored, but you will not find it, because they censor those stories.

One example I remember is the secret service came around to buisness along the parade route of George Bush for the 2004 election. The buisness owner was told he was not allowed to put up any anti-bush signs in his window. The man said he planned on voting for Bush, but now that he was told he had to censor himself in America the land of the free, he was now questioning his loyalty to Bush. He decided even though he supported Bush, he was going to exercise his right to free speech. So he put up a sign that said, I was told by secret service I was not allowed to put up an anti-bush sign. He was then harrased by authorities. I forget exactly what happened, but they tried to get him to take the sign down, I don't know if he was arrested or fined or what. Again I would have to go look for the story.

Only the progressive news services cover stories like this, because why would news like Fox news advertise the fact they are only for free speech of those who agree with them.

Alex Jones and people like him are the only ones who have covered these stories. Maybe that's why you think these instances never happened, because you have put your faith into the wrong source.

I'm busy at work right now, posting in between customers.

It's not my fault people blindly trust the news, who they assume have their best interests in mind. I'm outnumbered. Why are free speech zones not big news. They are not even covered on the news, that most people don't even know what I'm talking about. Like most of the subject in the conspiracy section. I've seen what you have not, so it's up to me to present the evidence. It's easy for you because all you have to say is that I've watched the news, and have not seen evidence of that so it must not be true. Don't tell me not to be arrogant, and then you be arrogant yourself, and assume you already know for a fact there are no exceptions for the rules the authorities are supposed to follow.

Didn't you hear about the women, who was told to leave Bush's speech because she had a "peace" T-shirt on. She was just sitting quietly, but was told to leave. Or what about the people who had anti-bush bumper stickers who were not allowed to enter a Bush speaking event. Or what about the guy with an anti-bush bumper sticker who was refused health care at a hospital because the nurse was pro bush, and didn't like anyone who was different.

Free speech is supposed to be for everyone, not just for those people who are like-minded republicans.

I have a question, for you Aquatus. Are you an American Citizen?

I understand that. My question was to people who are seeming to imply that this 'censorship' is only perpetrated by the right. Stardrive pointed out that these zones were started by the Clinton admin.

I haven't the faintest idea how you came to that conclusion. The purpose of the zones that I explained is not about a perfect world; far from it, in a perfect world, such security measures would not be needed. You say that I assume that these zones are working perfectly, but what does that mean? I said that they keep away the higher security risks from the president. Are you saying that they do not?



Ah, good, then you are admitting that this isn't some sort of coordinated government effort to stamp out the constitutional right to free speech to the entire country in general.



Who's assuming what here? I told you outright that I had heard (and read) many claims and stories. I told you what the purpose of the zones was based on my eight years in security in which setting up safe zones was part of it. Now, I say that I haven't seen what I consider unbiased evidence of censorship out there, and you say you have, so what exactly is so odd about my asking you to show it? I made claims and supported them. You made claims, so I am asking you to support them. I have yet to 'assume' anything.



And here I thought I got "everything" wrong!



Yes, as I said, I have read and heard countless claims and stories. What I need now is some evidence that things actually occured as they are claimed. People tend to construct their own view of reality based on their experience, so I prefer not to rely exclusively on a single source when I investigate a matter.



I am indeed. First generation, with parents from Chile and Peru. I have seen censorship in action. I have family members who will never be seen again. To be blunt, when one has experienced the real thing, it gets a bit cloying to have someone complain because they can only protest "over there", and not "over here".

So, to be clear here, you do not believe the zones have anything to do with physical security?

No, they use the excuse of security to censor certain viewpoints.

"Those who give up some of their liberty in order to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin





What do you not understand about this:

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGPQ40MB81.DTL

You seem to say it's justified in that the only security threat would be someone who dislikes the president. I agree only partly. You don't know what makes a good criminal, deception. If an assassin was going to try to get as close to Bush as possible, would he be dressed as an anarchist or Republican.


If you can't see how they are stifling dissent, I can't help you.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams

They do a terrible job of it. The viewpoints they are supposed to be censoring are all over the internet and the news everytime the president goes anywhere.



So, again, I ask: What liberty is being given up? The news covers their viewpoint (granted, they don't get as much coverage as the president, but then, they aren't as interesting as he is to the general public). What safety is being offered? You have a tendency to post all these wonderfully patriotic posts, but man, you have yet to post one that actually applies to the context we are in.



Like I said before, this isn't about the (largely fictional) professional assassin. This is a measure to stop the regular nutjob with a gun, who isn't going to be thinking through the entire process. What you refer to as the most hideous and repressive of all censorships, is barely the first step in a security net to the secret service.



Too bad. I'll just have to keep looking for evidence myself, since you can't seem to come up with any.



Yes, yes, very patriotic. Meaningless here, but very patriotic.

All those quotes apply in this context. Remember all the major terrorist attacks in America have been government sponsored. The only real threat is our own government.

I know where you are going with this. You are saying what's the big deal if we limit how close some people with certain viewpoints can get to the president. who cares if you can't protest next to the president, when you can protest in your designated zone surrounded by tall fences, for your protection. Why didn't they think of that before? You would think it would be logical. You could treat him like a king, in a democracy. You fail to see the slippery slope here. This also goes along the lines of saying those with dissenting viewpoints are dangerous. Once the precedent has been set, and overall people accept "free speech zones"/security zones, what will be the next step to improve on that security. There are people who want to set up a dictatorship to protect the people who rule over us.

How is it not censorship when you allow one person to hold a sign praising Bush, but you don't allow another person with a sign opposing Bush? Why not make everyone go into the free speech zone, and keep all threats/people away from the president? We need to get rid of free speech zones, and go back to all of America being a free speech zone.

You are saying it's not censorship because they can still hold their anti-Bush sign, they just have to be in a secure zone far away from the president, and news cameras.

What was wrong with the article I posted from the San Francisco chronicle. Isn't that mainstream enough for you. That's evidence, in red!

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGPQ40MB81.DTL

So you say. But every time I ask you to provide a solid example, all you can give is a claim.



No, I am not. You need to read a little more carefully instead of assuming you know what I am saying.

I said the purpose of the zones was to keep people deemed higher security risks farther away from the president. I said the protection was for the president, not for the protestors (I really can't see how you missed that). I said that calling it censorship was extreme, considering all they had to do was stand elsewhere, as opposed to being snatched off the street, or being publicly beaten.



Again, flowery imagery, but little of substance. Is the president being treated like a kind (in a democracy)? Of course he is! Similarly, most kings are treated like the president of the United States. Why? Because the principles of security are pretty much universal. It doesn't matter if you are a king or a pauper; if you are going to be kept at a given level of security, pretty much the same steps are going to be taken.



You can call it a slippery slope all you want, but that will never be more than speculation. People who actually do more than complain about things have already taken steps. Protestors are controlled, not banned. Disruptors are arrested, not beaten. These things are all done in moderation, not because their is some insidious plot to set up some sort of dictatorship, but simply becuase security measures only go to the level of security which is required. If you do not need to do away with protestors altogether, you do not. If you do not need to arrest protestors, you do not (which is why you always see cops creating a barricade as protestor throw things at them, but not really going out an beating people with their sticks). You say I fail to see the slippery slope, but I say you fail to see the moderation inherent in the system that prevents the slippery slope from occuring.



It is not censorship becuase the person still has the right to publicly proclaim his opinion without fear of arrest or personal harm. Simply because he isn't being allowed to mooch off the airtime that the president paid for isn't grounds to scream censorship.



That is correct. It would only be censorship if these zones did not exist at all, and the protestors were simply hauled off to jail as soon as they arrived. At that point, their message would be forcibly prevented from being seen by the general public. That would be censorship.



Actually, I didn't read it because I was posting at the time, but I just went back to read it, and, just to be fair, I will read it a bit more throughly later on (I'm going out in a bit). So, let's look at the paragraph you posted here (I'm assuming you posted it because you feel it is rather damning evidence). The president is about to drive through. Security personal have gone through and removed all fixed obstacles that might pose a security risk. Obstacles, such as pro-Bush supporters, could not be removed, but one is hoping they would have the good sense to move out of the way if they see a presidential automobile headed in their general direction after shots are fired (then again, they are supporting Bush, so they can't be all that bright...). Now, after these security precautions are put in place, you have this guy who refuses to go into the designated areas, who is showing a clear dislike for the president, and who believes himself to be above the rules that everyone else there is being required to follow.

That makes him a security risk. It is these kind of people, who realy more on actions than words, who are a risk, because they tend to believe in things like killing the president as a viable solution. Ironically, if he had been a little smarter, he would have left the sign at home, slipped into the pro-Bush crown, and as the president came by and the camera panned to him, pulled out a paper sign from his jacket and had all the media coverage he wanted. Security personell would not have done a thing (the president's media advisor would have ordered the camera man to pan away, but, assuming he would have been listened to, the damage would have already been done).

I know that you are fixated on making these zones a clear sign of the impending apocalypse, but no matter how many different ways you present it, it is still nothing more than standard crowd control, which is nothing more than a function of security.

I just dropped in on this conversation, and it's gone way off topic. I agree that the government is the entity that is orchestrating a lot of things, and they put up patsies to blame it on so we can start a war with them, but there's a lot more to it than that. If you have about an hour and 40 minutes to spare, watch Who Killed John O'Neil? That breaks down the entire situation from 1979 when the US funded Islamic Fundamentalism and basically trained them to be terrorists, to today.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...d+John+O%27Neil

Honestly it's kind of hard to know what you are saying, as your post are unnecessarily long, with only your own personal opinion. I'm the only one who has posted any examples at all. Your argument is that you have not seen them, so it must not exist.

You have hijacked this thread far enough, and it's tiresome reading through your opinions.

I think if they kidnapped protesters, and beat them, it would be way past the definition of censorship. I consider it censorship if they make people, who they think are a threat, go to a certain zone to practise their free speech, while those who are not considered a threat to Bush are allowed to stay very close to him. I can't understand why you don't think so. Is anyone else reading this?

You may not be saying that anyone who disagrees with president Bush is a threat to him, but that's what's happening. Anyone who disagrees with Bush, and openly expresses that dissent, will be told to remove themselves to the fenced in area, or they will be arrested. Like you said, if they threaten someone with arrest, and don't allow them to express their dissatisfaction with the current democratic leader, that would be censorship. If they hauled them away and beat them, it would be a dictatorship.

I guess I just expect more from this country, then you do.

Yes, that happens when one tries to support their claims. I'll keep it simple for you.



No.



I'm not the one that started this tangent.



Too bad you don't understand. Being able to would make you a much more credible person. I don't really care if you agree with me, as long as you understand where I am coming from. Unfortunately, I can't get you to understand, because if I try to explain myself, you complain about the length of my posts.



Okay then, to take the example you posted, a person was told to remove themselves to the fenced in area, was threatened with arrest, was not arrested, and proceeded to express his dissatisfaction. No censorship then? Good, we are in agreement.



True. You don't know how good you got it. What were you saying earlier, about perfect worlds, and this not being one of them?