Featured Post for 05/01-05/07
CommonDreams reports:
62 Americans, dressed in the orange jumpsuits and black hoods that have become the symbol of Guantanamo detainees, were arrested in front of the White House in a nonviolent demonstration this afternoon.
The First Amendment to the Constitution reads, “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.“
When we accept the government’s (Federal, State or Local) requirement as to time and place to protest or demonstrate; when we agree to demonstrate only far from where the demonstration needs to take place; when we agree to limit the scope of our grievances to avoid embarrassing the officials we are trying to wake up, then we are voluntarily giving up that First Amendment right.
What is not understood by most people is that the Bill of Rights does not give us permission to exercise the Rights of Man, it forbids the government from interfering! Read the Bill of Rights, read the Constitution. Then look at what the government has usurped with its misnamed PATRIOT ACT and the other acts of similar ilk that illegally cancel out the Constitution and its first ten amendments.
When We the People cannot stand in front of the White House and make our grievances known, we might as well be demonstrating in front of the Reichstag in 1930’s Germany. The results will ultimately be the same.
The “100 Days Campaign” has an excellent on-the-scene report. Watch it.
29 comments ↓
Steve, this is a really important point – one that is rarely discussed. Freedom to do something isn’t the ability to request permission. Freedom to speak is freedom to speak. Period. When you ask permission to do something it’s no longer a right, it’s a priviledge.
When it’s the latter, you’ll find that politicians have plenty of reasons to restrict it too.
As I understand it, there were about 150 people in orange jumpsuits with hoods that marched to the White House to protest the delay at closing Guantanamo and releasing the prisoners who had already been ordered released, some of them years ago.
Sixty-two of them walked across the street to stand on the curb outside the fence that fronts the White House. That is apparently a no demonstration zone and so they were arrested, cuffed, put aboard a bus and removed from the scene.
Can anybody give me a rational reason why the concerns of the people are not allowed to be expressed in front of the house of our government’s alleged leader?
Many expected positive change in the Obamanation, but it seems that it will be just the same old, same old, accompanied by peanuts for the serfs rather than horse turds. So sad.
Meanwhile the wars go on. What will happen to those who demonstrate against the wars in front of the White House? Or anywhere else, for that matter, as HS gears up and the Combat Brigades continue training on suppressing civil disobedience?
I’ve got the reason, whether it’s rational or not. People are not allowed to protest because the government is not really “ours” It’s “theirs” and “they” don’t really like resistance.
The division of Berlin began with a painted line. When a politician asked what was next, a wall, she was only joking. Are curbs being painted to identify no protest zones? Will there be barricades erected over the painted curbs? Will we have a separate Constitution, oh wait, how could I have forgotten, we have the patriot act.
To open an old festering wound, does anybody here have or know of any imagery from that day in September that shows any evidence of aircraft debris? A large twin engine transport should leave a massive debris field. Just curious.
I read in a newspaper a few years back, where a man from Cuba made this statement,” I love my country, but I hate my Government.” I am seeing a lot of that here in our country. Who is the government, that they can separate themselves from the people? It is no wonder that other countries call America, “The Great Satan.”
Dave, I’ve been unfortunate enough to have been at the site of several large aircraft crashes. In addition to the point of impact, there are normally recognizable wing sections and the jet engines in the debris field and usually a tail section.
The Pentagon was clean. No engines, no wings. A spokesman said that was because the wings and engines folded back into the fuselage and went into the little hole. Fat chance, the wings and engines should have been plastered against the wall, or on the grass.
In the photos released of the Pennsylvania crash, again there is just a hole, no engines and wing sections in the almost nonexistent debris field.
As to the Pentagon, we’ll never know because every film in the area, security cameras, etc., were confiscated by the government almost immediately and, because of “National Security,” none have been released except that little set of a few frames that the government said shows it was an airliner. (if you have a good imagination. I watched it a number of times and couldn’t identify anything that looks like an airliner.) Of course, now, with the magic of PhotoShop et al., I am sure that someday we will have clear, sharp photos and film clips coming out our ears, courtesy of HS’s photo and propaganda labs.
For the pentagon crash site, someone produced a compressor stage that was way too small for the airliner that supposedly crashed there, but fit an earlier Ryan BQM-34 Firebee. It gets more depressing when I think of that, because I know the only people who have those. Whoever claimed the wings simply folded back into the fuselage didn’t understand aircraft structure, or was given bad information or simply an outright liar. The opening in the building wasn’t as wide as the fuselage and if it had done the way they claimed, the nose would have been in the interior plaza.
What’s more, jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to burn steel, especially in an open area. Are we a nation of sheeple, or what? If there are any aviation people who would like to join http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ , be you maintenance, an aviator, ATC or whatever, any objective input would be welcome.
As for loving your country and hating the government, that can be easy, especially when the heads of your government are a bunch of crooks.
[...] [Read more and comment on the blog] [...]
Steve. Absolutely needed commentary.
Are we free? Are we not free?
That is the question we must ask ourselves and while doing so, it would be prudent to begin building the alternative to the two headed monster we have occupying our land.
The Republican Party is already forming a new “New Republican Party” . Something tells me it will be the same ole same ole.
The next question is will we remain the same ole same ole?
You’re just now figuring out that free speech zones are unconstitutional? Or is this from a previous article? Thousands of people have been arrested for protesting “in the wrong place” for the last 8 years including the journalists and peaceful protesters during the RNC riots this past year.
So very sad how real freedoms have disappeared before our very eyes. While freedom of speech can be overdone and misused,not enough of it is far worse. We in Canada understand that this freedom can not and should not be at the expense of the rights of others to be treated in a fair and just manner regardless of their ethnicity or even sexual orientation. The key here is fair,just,and with due respect. Freedom of speech does not mean nor imply it to mean an anarchistic intolerance of others with differing views. Dignity must always be a prime consideration as is tolerance.
Just a…well, just a point here, Paul…Anarchism and restriction of free speech are mutually exclusive. Meaning, Anarchists allow others to speak freely, and are (usually) very tolerant of other views, with some fair and reasonable judgments upon some morally repugnant standpoints.
Anok, I’ve written many articles on this subject over the last eight years, and even before, during Vietnam protests.
What brought this to mind yesterday was the juxtaposition. We are now in the Obamanation, dedicated to change. We are still waiting for Gitmo to be closed and the prisoners released that were ordered to be so by judges long ago. This was a demonstration in front of the home of “Mr. Change.”
The protestors were arrested for demonstrating. Nothing has changed…
Thanks for clearing that up, Steve.
I would imagine that Gitmo has a lot to go through before being able to be shut down. Just as any military or prison type of place has much paperwork, legalities etc and so forth (particularly when it’s in a foreign country, technically) it’s going to take some time.
Transferring detainees and legally shutting the place down is a pretty big task.
As for “Free speech zones” I doubt that will change any time soon, although I have noticed some relaxation with regards to protests and how protesters are being treated, in a general sense when compared to the Bush administrati9on. Getting permits are easier, fewer riot cops, that sort of thing.
I can’t possibly imagine that the government will ever allow a protest too close to the white house, though. Not after 9/11, and certainly not while there have been so many threats against Obama, personally during the campaign and even now. it used to be that presidents could be directly accessed by the public, but after so many assassinations and attempts on their lives, they’ve really gotten strict. I can’t blame them for that.
Although I do feel that the protesters should not have been arrested, but rather asked to back away.
Hi Anok, thanks for your input. My feeling is that, as far as protests are concerned, the restriction is simply in regard to the symbolism. The White House has an iron fence around the perimeter and lord knows how many more booby traps, etc., on the grounds. Lots of SS men hidden around, no doubt. (Secret Service, of course)
Apparently, the demonstration could have been held across the street, for the protesters there were not bothered. I think the ban is strictly for propaganda purposes. A protest is visually much more effective if the White House is in the background, difficult to achieve if shooting a protest across the street where the background is a park, I believe.
They’re not afraid of bombs and such, they just don’t want anybody demonstrating in front of the boss’s house! Looks bad for the boss, and the company. When that happened to companies in the early twentieth century, the bosses called out the Pinkertons, who shot a bunch of them, who were then accused of rioting.
Just a difference of degree.
Steve, the answer to your question is simple. It’s explained quite succinctly in The Constitution. There can be no “no demonstration zone” in any public place anywhere. The People have the inalienable human right to peaceably assemble in any public place, anywhere, any time, and for any reason whatsoever. The Constitution does not say “peaceably to assemble so long as it is approved by someone.” The Constitution is clear as crystal in the Bill of Rights. We have the right to Peaceably assemble in any public place, including the sidewalk in front of the White House. Any law opposing such assembly, or requiring a permit thereof, is illegal, unconstitutional, and an immoral act of tyranny by a tyrannical government. End of Story. Period. There is no logical or legal rebuttal to that. Done.
I think you really nailed it Eric. The constitution wasn’t written to apply to you to me, or to any other person. It was written to restrain the federal government. There’s nothing that allows them to restrict speech on public property.
It would be great if the government understood or even cared about the Constitution as much as many of its citizens. Darn shame the first thing a government does after establishing itself, especially if it arose from a violent revolution such as ours, is to protect itself from its own citizens.
That wasn’t the first thing that was done. The founders were very leery of what had gone on when under the Rule of King George.
Jefferson said: A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
and: The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
and:“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
“The right of our fellow citizens to represent to the public functionaries their opinion on proceedings interesting to them is unquestionably a constitutional right, often useful, sometimes necessary, and will always be respectfully acknowledged by me.” –Thomas Jefferson to the New Haven Committee, 1801. ME 10:269
“The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecution, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for independence], a nation begins going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain [on them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. (*) ME 2:225
and: When government fears the people, there is freedom. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.
“It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses.” –Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112
I could go on for pages quoting Jefferson, Madison, Franklin. They were very aware of the cost of freedom, including eternal vigilance by the people, and action when necessary, to maintain the Constitution.
Thanks Steve. Our founding fathers were aware of the tyranny that Government could become. They had been living it under King George.
They established our Constitution as the replacement for King George with every bit as much power as the King Himself. King George used to make the laws, therefore the Constitution was established to be the immutable law so that there would never again be on these shores the need for a revolution against a Tyrant.
There was one caveat though. The Constitution placed to protect the people needed that the people be vigilant so that despots lurking in wait for weakness could not bypass those protections.
We have not been vigilant.
This was what those founding fathers are telling us.
“We established your freedom, it is up to you to keep it.”
And, unfortunately, we haven’t
Unfortunately when the vigilant few try pointing this out, they get shouted down and thrown in jail for disturbing the status quo.
Yeah, there was an article on Common Dreams this morning that Obama was considering reviving the Military Commissions to try the Gitmo inmates. The argument seems to be that if they were tried in a civil court, confessions obtained by torture and by hearsay evidence might not be allowed and therefore might not result in a conviction.
SInce that is all allowed in the Military tribunal, and the defendant or his attprneys are not allowed to question the accusers (National Security, of course) it should be a shoo in.
About the only substantive change we are seeing in the Obamanation administration is an occasional change of shorts when they get too brown.
Oh, by the way, the front page NYT lead article disappeared into the CD archives within about two hours.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/02-0
Yes Dave. And that’s a trait or Tyranny.
I feel violated by the recent arrests of demonstrators in Washington.
If the police felt there was a danger from the protestors they could have just surrounded them and even mixed in with them in force…being vigilant about concealed weaponry. (Hand held metal detectors? Except for the Glocks. Bomb sniffing dogs? Searching all who approached the protest gathering area.)
They could have set up a mike at a point nearest the White House and allowed one individual at a time to speak his, or her, heart and mind. This would have preserved Freedom of Speech on the Individual level and not prevented the Freedom of Speech of the collective level.
Yes, the authorities have a right to protect themselves from violent attack, but they handle these situations badly. They alienate themselves further from We The People with arrogance and un-necessary force. They are better ways to do things in which all concerns can be satisfied.
At least the feds didn’t handle this episode as well as they did the Bonus Army, he writes with vitriolic sarcasm. They could have done a lot better this time if they cared, but who says they are capable of that?
The rough treatment of protesters is meant to discourage the people from protesting, pure and simple.
I think Cliff’s point is quite an important one. They can’t lock us ALL up, right? So, they intimidate with some random arrests, random searches by the TSA, random stories about how people are being watched – and it scares the marginal protester off. Keeps his mouth shut out of fear.
[...] President Obama also supports this legislation. His support is surprising since before going into politics, he was a Constitutional scholar — but then again, he’s gotta protect the ones he serves instead of those who voted for him. So much for “change you can believe in.” He and the U.S. Congress need to read and understand the Constitution instead of constantly trying to illegally subvert it. More on the destruction of free speech and the unconstitutional ‘hate crime’ bill can be found from The CATO Institute, War On You and Populist America. [...]
Leave a Comment