[dhfenton]

It's exactly these concerns that have me seriously thinking about using an anonymous browsing service through overseas proxy servers. I never thought I'd seriously consider using one; but, now I am. What is the most bizarre is that if I were a terrorist that is how I'd access the web and communicate with others, and they probably do; and now I'm considering doing it as a last fingerhold on my privacy from the prying eyes of our own "security service".

These guys are employing techniques the Soviet KGB would have been proud of. Makes me wonder where we're headed. That retirement overseas I've thought about in the past is looking pretty good right about now. A nice warm tropical country maybe. Screw PO.

[highlander]

Last year the supreme court handed down it's eminent domain decision, rendering the concept of private property null and void. Now they maintain that government whistleblowers have no first amendment rights. When a citizen can no longer have an advocate in the legal system, where can he turn?

here is the link: Link

[SoothSayer]

The powers that be are always self serving.

In the UK in the late 70s we had a law being introduced to freeze salaries in order to slow down rampant inflation at the time.

For some reason it couldn't be completed by the lawyers involved .... until a special clause excluding lawyers was added to the new law.

More recently the huge salary and pension increases voted to themselves by our UK politicians show more of the same thinking.

And to think we voted these slimeballs into power!

Bah!

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('highlander', 'L')ast year the supreme court handed down it's eminent domain decision, rendering the concept of private property null and void. Now they maintain that government whistleblowers have no first amendment rights. When a citizen can no longer have an advocate in the legal system, where can he turn?

here is the link

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/30/scotu ... index.html

[Grimnir]

If this is peak corruption, does that mean it will be falling off at 5%/year from now on?

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('max_power29', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('highlander', 'L')ast year the supreme court handed down it's eminent domain decision, rendering the concept of private property null and void. Now they maintain that government whistleblowers have no first amendment rights. When a citizen can no longer have an advocate in the legal system, where can he turn?

here is the link

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/30/scotu ... index.html

[JoeCoal]

There is no such thing as Peak Corruption. It is limitless.

Money:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1010099392
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8524208549
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1923167501

9/11:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4339766288
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9657809939
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8695002691
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9024486145
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8400743688

[NEOPO]

Alex Jones was said to be a nutcase by most peakers when I first settled in here and I sort of avoided him because of that yet over time I have learned that he is not a nutcase at all.

I feel he has Peak oil wrong yet that is about all I can say negative about the man.

DoJ Takes The Military Commissions Act Out For a Spin

while we are at it:

Armed Men Terrorize School

jones report - 5th grader disciplined

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') 'Terroristic Threat' is defined in the Leadner I.S.D. Elementary Handbook as:

Threats to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to: (1) cause a reaction by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies; (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious
bodily injury; (3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance, or other public place; (4) cause
impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service; (5) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or (6) influence the conduct or
activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state (including the District).

[NEOPO]

yes and they covered pretty much every base.
the "place in fear" part caught my eye:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '5')) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury;

[magician]

sounds like the "terrrists have wun". "they hate our freedoms" so, "there ought to be limits to freedom" and "this would be a heck of a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long as im the dictator". all of this in light of our constitution being "just a goddammed piece of paper" anyway. i mean common people the whole country knows we are being fucked but people are already frightened to speak in public about this fony war on terror or the loss of our rights, let alone the intentional destruction of our economy and intentional dissolution of our soveriegnty. everyone knows that this is not so incremental tyrany but most think that they are alone because the tv they watch for news is designed to alienate them. divide them. the only thing seperating this country from open rebellion is two concepts. the information gap, and the confidence to call a tyrant a tyrant and be dammed whos listening. hell the only ones i even see sporting the flag lapel buttons ect anymore are people in banking and the media. clutching. eyes wide shut (racist jingoism, common man everyones doing it and i need that raise and those benefits)

--fr coyote

[OneLoneClone]

peacefull protests...what a joke.

The notion of "protest" in this country has devolved to "follow the police along a prescribed route chanting in unison while being simultaneously spied on by feds and ignored by the media"

What a great pressure release valve modern "protests" are, almost as good a pressure release system as the 2 party democracy.

peacefull protest! Feh! Grow some balls!

The Boston Tea Party wasn't a "peacefull protest" there was plenty of property damage.

There is a place in the world for symbolic violence against property.

[gg3]

I'll agree with Gideon that this is more aimed at violent actions and threats thereof, than at legitimate protest.

However if you think that grassroots action is dead, look back at the election a couple of weeks ago. That was proof that we can in fact throw out the one-party state and bring back some checks & balances. As a result of which, the prognosis for political and civil life in America has improved considerably.

One other side effect of that law: now they can't use the phrase "anti-abortion violence" when someone blows up a womens' clinic, they have to call it by the T-word.

--

As for protest per se, yes, the "free speech zones" have got to go. Everywhere you are is a free-speech zone. The right inheres in the person, not conditionally upon a place. Traditionally, "time/place/manner restrictions" were used to designate specific areas where unlimited exercise of free speech was prohibited, for example in the wee hours of the morning in residential districts. Now instead of having freedom except for limited restrictions, the "free speech zones" concept provides restrictions except for limited freedom.

The way to handle that is as follows:

Assume some instance where a protest is warranted, e.g. a public speech by a candidate who you want to oppose.

First, inform all relevant law enforcement agencies of exactly what is planned.

Then:

Organize a protest consisting of a fairly large group of people who are as disciplined as Marines.

Each will be wearing a T-shirt with appropriate messages in G-rated language, and each will be carrying a cardboard sign no larger than 1 foot x 2 feet bearing a message printed in large letters, and held directly in the hands rather than being attached to a stick.

With their shirts on and signs in hand, they arrive at their destination.

The assemble in a line.

They walk in a line, calmly, at a walking pace. If the protest site is a public street, they spread out along the sidewalk in a manner that is clearly identifyable as a deliberate pattern but does not obstruct pedestrian or other traffic. If the protest is an open area such as a field, they spread out similarly around a perimeter or other area where their pattern is clearly observable to anyone present.

Then they

just

stand

there.

No shouting, no heckling of the candidate whose speech they are protesting, no other doing anything beyond standing there with sign and T-shirt on.

Now any reasonably astute law enforcement agency is going to allow this to continue without interference. But just in case...

Their backup plan is to do the following:

If ordered to leave, they politely decline. Each of them also says, in a calm voice to whatever police happen to be nearby, "if you have to arrest me, I'll go peacefully and cooperate."

So, if arrests happen, the protesters calmly walk out of their with their arresting officers, climb into the paddy wagons, and generally behave in a polite and well-mannered way regardless of whatever else happens.

When booked, they give their proper names and information, and then they post bail and presumably get released.

Now what you have is either

a) A successful protest action with no arrests, where you have managed to overcome the limits of "free speech zones," or you have

b) A few hundred people arrested for some minor charge such as trespassing, where the actual facts of the case show that there was no questionable behavior beyond simply standing there with sign and t-shirt bearing messages whose content is clearly protected speech.

If (b), you then take it to court. And you argue that, given the fact that you informed the law enforcement agencies in advance of your intent to remain peaceful, and did so throughout the action, the case boils down to a prima-facie First Amendment free speech case, and that you have an absolute right to engage in this specific type of behavior in public places such as streets, parks, and so on.

I'm no lawyer, but I can imagine that no prosecutor in his right mind would want to try to press those charges, or if he did, he'd find himself on the losing side of the case even if it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court. (And I'd like to see the Supremes try to justify any conclusion other than affirmation of the free speech rights in this instance, that would be funny...)

Once this method is established, it becomes usable in all types of venues. And once it achieves the successful objective of getting the message across and making mush out of a "free speech zone," I would say the gates are open for some very interesting and creative and thoroughly nondisruptive but effective types of expression. (Hint: clever positioning of protestors can make it very difficult for some blowhard badguy to find a location for the photo op! "Dammit there's another one of 'em in the background over here too!")

Oh, one more thing. If you really want to blow some minds along the way, do this: If the venue is a large outdoor area other than a street, and you manage to successfully stay there with signs and suchlike present, then at the end of the event, get together and pick up all the litter on the ground! This will require some logistic support in the form of someone arriving discretely after the event with brooms and shovels and perhaps large plastic bags (which should be clear plastic so there's no way anyone can suggest there are bombs or whatnot concealed in there). This is so far "outside the box" that the people whose event is being protested will do a double-take as they leave, and will have to give it at least a moment's thought. "What?! Those protestors are sweeping up the trash?!!? Huh?!!"

That's called being a threat to the paradigm, not to the people in it.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')As for protest per se, yes, the "free speech zones" have got to go.

[NEOPO]

Yes I understand.

IMO the #1 thing anyone can do is to drop out of it and strive for sustainability.

To say no to utility companies by creating your own power.
Say no to wally world by making as much of your own goods as possible.
Say no to the grocery store by growing as much of your own food as possible.

Say yes to freedom and independence.
____________________________________
Om off........

This is still some serious BS
Really starting to look like we can do little and say less and less.
What you are suggesting GG is that we can not only change our minds and the minds of the casual on looker but also the minds of the ones we are diametrically aligned against.
I wish I shared your optomism where these peoples minds were concerned.
I have hope for those who are now awakening yet I have all but lost hope for those who have awoken and then chosen to fall again into sleep.

Fall into Sleep

[ipWinston]

gg3 sounds like a noble idea...i know that there are "free speech" zones at my school.
They call the area outside our main building "freedom square." I beleive thats the "free speech" area.
There was a soldier that came back from Iraq to protest in our main building and he was escorted out and charged because of this free speech zone nonsense.
i just wish i could get enough people together that accually care, many college students nowadays are very apathetic

[NEOPO]

Then again maybe it is our own apathetic perception of apathy that prevents some of us from doing anything

[neocone]

I wonder this as the ass*** is about to announce more "sacrifice" is needed next week to send needlessly more troops to Death and a hopeless situation in Iraq.

1) In 2003 the war was started on lies and criminal conduct of perjury
2) Malicious intent to harm US citizens
3) Crime against humanity in the slaughter of Iraqi civilians

Those 3 cases can be made and if needed Bush could be put to trial after the end of his presidency.

#2 can be grounds for crime of high treason, where he could face the firing squad.

Most likely if the US starts to break down I expect whoever general will make a coup and seize power to come back to the Bush family... just like the Bush tribe went after Saddam.

[gg3]

The use of courts martial rather than impeachment is an interesting idea. Anyone here have enough knowledge of the UCMJ to know if it applies to the C-in-C, and how it would be used?

[NEOPO]

Either way......... can I be the one who pushes the button, pulls the trigger, drops the blade or otherwise??? please?

My inner Buddha tells me this would purely be an act of human mercy for the beheld and the beholder thus I would suffer no guilt or ill karma......

Let's see here - the PNAC membership list for starters and then we can move onto the other "problems" yet that alone would solve many

HR 6166 applies quite nicely - 911 tells us that they are "lawful enemy combatants".