>>...we are literally trying to fend off terrorist attacks at home.<<
Isn't this bit of an exaggeration.
This was, according to what i understand at the moment, a peaceful demonstration. One of the protestors stated that (quoted from Thap's original article), "The police gave an order to disperse, which is unusual, and then they didn't give people enough time to disperse. They fired rubber bullets, wooden bullets and beanbags right into the crowd."
Why does this remind me, in very general tones, of Kent State:~/
You should read a few reports that are more balanced and give both sides.
"Demonstrators were seeking to block access to American President Lines, a shipping company they claimed was profiting from the war in Iraq. Police at the scene said they used two types of rubber bullets to disperse about 750 protesters and that some arrests were made.
Oakland Police spokeswoman Danielle Ashford said police used “sting balls,” also known as rubber pellets, and bean-bags to disperse the crowd. “We gave our dispersal order, we gave them an order, we gave them ample time to disperse,” she said.
A group of about 150 protesters remained after the initial burst of rubber bullets dispersed the crowd and police continued to fire upon them, a Reuters photographer at the scene said."
Even if you choose to believe the protestor over the cop about whether ample time was initially given to disperse, the “independent” reporter from Reuters said 150 protestors chose to remain even AFTER the initial burst used to disburse the crowd.
I don’t know. There is no comparison and it trivializes the Kent State situation unjustifiably. There, we had a true non-violent protest in the middle of a college campus commons and the National Guard fired away with real bullets.
As a Kent State Alumni, I can also tell you that the protests were over a decade old conflict that has killed nearly 50,000 US men, showed no signs of ending, and where a crooked president was lying about involvement in other countries.
The National Guard at Kent went with loaded rifles with no intention of shooting bean bags.
Ultimately though MyVoice, the threat from terrorists is an acceptable risk. We simply have to learn to adapt. What we do not need is terrorists driving a wedge between Americans. The cops need to go gently, there is a whole new set of procedures that can be used to disburse crowds. The cops that are used to break up a crowd are unlikely to catch a terrorist in the time that they are not on patrol.
The protestors will defuse as the war winds down, and while I don't agree with them, protest is a very valuable part of this country. Your point is that a few anarchist nutcases who show up at every world economic summit are causing a lot of trouble. Fine. There are procedures to arrest them and jail them for a while. Let's avoid a fatality which would only serve to inflame passions more, and give rise to even more confrontation.
PS, I can't believe that you actually know what alert color we are at! I have been at a state of "You can't trust people as much anymore" for some time. And certainly at a time of war we need to be even more vigilant. At the same time we need to be sophisticated about this, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. As to Raymond, try TIVO!
Ohio Guy:
In general terms, I agree with much of what you have written. The problem with general rules is that there must be exceptions made for specific circumstances.
You state: “The cops that are used to break up a crowd are unlikely to catch a terrorist in the time that they are not on patrol.”
Now assume that you are a terrorist cell that would like to send a suicide bomber into the Federal Courthouse. Under orange alert, you see access to the Courthouse being blocked by barriers and cops all over the place. You need a diversion. 750 people “peacefully” marching through the barriers is probably all that is necessary to move several cops from one access point to confront the perceived threat from the crowd. One terrorist walks into the Courthouse and goes boom.
You perceive the problem as a few anarchists among the group. Unfortunately, it is the few who find the many to be useful idiots. When you and I protested in the 60’s, we did not have sleeper cells of Viet Cong ready to blow up things in our cities.
I repeat that I have no problem with the peaceful protest. Let 10,000 people run around nude and protest away in the park a mile away from the Courthouse and I’ve got no problem. Let every Peter Arnett, Dan Rather or Benedict Arnold buy some TV time and opinionate on anything he wants to.
But the right to protest does not extend to breaking the law. Because of our heritage of protesting, I think we as a country have become overly complacent about “little law violations” incidental to protests. Arrest them, finger print them, give them a ticket and let them go so tomorrow we can do the same thing to the same people.
At this point in our history I believe the danger is so high that we certainly MUST protect the right of peaceful assembly and protest BUT we must also insist that it occur in compliance with the law.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Now assume that you are a terrorist cell that would like to send a suicide bomber into the Federal Courthouse. Under orange alert, you see access to the Courthouse being blocked by barriers and cops all over the place. You need a diversion. 750 people “peacefully” marching through the barriers is probably all that is necessary to move several cops from one access point to confront the perceived threat from the crowd. One terrorist walks into the Courthouse and goes boom.
At this point in our history I believe the danger is so high etc etc etc
[/QUOTE]
myvoice.. aren't you being too melodramatic? It seems you really take all that Mr Ridge has to say, a bit too seriously. Yes, four planes fell off the sky, but that was in 2001. I don't recall any other Al-Kai-da terrorist activity here in the US, despite all the rainbow color coding doing a musical dance all around.
Terrorists blowing Federal Courthouse, taking advantage of protest on the street! I guess Mr Speilberg might be intereted to talk further with your agent. You do seem to have a good mind for fiction. Ever considered writing a novel?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
myvoice.. aren't you being too melodramatic?
[/QUOTE]
Maybe so. When I want a pizza, I get it delivered. I order my groceries online. I stopped hanging out with my jewish friends. I've got a fully loaded rifle with scope under my bed. My closet is filled with duct tape and plastic wrap. For my wife's birthday, I bought her a gas powered generator. And I drained my pool and turned it into a concrete bunker.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: * You do seem to have a good mind for fiction. Ever considered writing a novel?
[/QUOTE]
Funny you should ask. I was on final rewrite of Dinosauer Land when Michael Crichton published Jurassic Park. I was threee quarters done with Memphis Lawyer when John Grisham published The Firm. Since people keep stealing my fiction ideas, I thought I'd switch to non-fiction. My latest effort is to explore the role of government and communities in supporting families and children. My preliminary title is It Takes A Small Town to Raise A Child. What do you think?