Marijuana.com

Mamabudz

The Patriot Act, which was argued before enactment as a measure to fight foreign terrorists, is being amended to make clear that it also applies to American citizens who have the audacity to disrupt President Bush wherever his bubble may travel.

George Bush would like to criminalize "disruptors" in a provision that would, if enacted into law, create a precedent upon which to expand the type of people who constitute disruptors and the type of activities that constitute disruptive activities.

And, then throw them all in jail.

So remeber folks --- Stay in your barricaded, fenced and wired Free Speech Zone ...for your own Good...as Americans... It's for Your safety after all.

As Activists of a sort -- Any comments? Discussions?

 

TheNewGuy

I'm all for providing for the means to gather intelligence on terrorists who may try to detonate dirty bombs in high-population areas. I'm not for creating a law against speaking out against the government. This whole patriot act thing is getting out of hand. If they want to spy on radical muslims, I invite them to. Creating a law which makes it a crime to do anything to "disrupt" the government is a little different. I used to roll my eyes whenever someone called dubya a dictator or something (mostly because the person who said it couldn't support thier argument), but the situation seems to be inching closer and closer in that general direction. What are the specifics of this though? What exactly would count as a "disruption"? Has that been said yet? And how could this be ruled constitutional, since the right to peacefully congregate would be called under question if it was deemed "disruptive"?

__________________
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~P.J. O'Rourke

Mamabudz

From the article on the issue LINK in part as follws:

People perceived as disruptors may be preemptively ejected from events before engaging in any disruptive conduct.

In the beginning of this War against disruptors, Americans were ejected from taxpayer funded events where Bush was speaking. At first the events were campaign rallies during the election, and then the disruptor ejectment policy was expanded to include Bush’s post election campaign-style events on public policy issues on his agenda, such as informing the public on medicare reform and the like. If people drove to the event in a car with a bumper sticker that criticized Bush’s policies or wore T-shirts with similar criticism, they were disruptors who could be ejected from the taxpayer event even before they engaged in any disruptive behavior. White House press secretary McClellan defended such ejectments as a proper preemptive strike against persons who may disrupt an event: "If we think people are coming to the event to disrupt it, obviously, they’re going to be asked to leave."

(2) Bush Team may check its vast array of databanks to cull out those persons who it deems having "disruptor" potential and then blacklist those persons from events.

The White House even has a list of persons it deems could be "disruptive" to an eventand then blacklists those persons from attending taxpayer funded events where Bush speaks. Sounds like Bush not only has the power to unilaterally designate people as "enemy combatants" in the global "War on terror," but to unilaterally designate Americans as "disruptive" in the domestic War against free speech.

(3) The use of surveillance, monitoring and legal actions against disruptors.

Bush’s War against disruptors was then elevated to surveillance, monitoring, and legal actions against disruptor organizations. The FBI conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence filed in its database on Bush administration critics , such as civil rights groups (e.g., ACLU), antiwar protest groups (e.g., United for Peace and Justice) and environmental groups (e.g., Greenpeace).

This surveillance of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights has been done under the pretext of counterterrorism activities surrounding protests of the Iraq War and the Republican National Convention. The FBI maintains it does not have the intent to monitor political activities and that its surveillance and intelligence gathering is "intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations, not to quell free speech."

Surveillance of potential disruptors then graduated to legal actions as a preemptive strike against potential disruptive behavior at public events. In addition to monitoring and surveillance of legal groups and legal activities, the FBI issued subpoenas for members to appear before grand juries based on the FBI’s "intent" to prevent "disruptive convention protests." The Justice Dept. opened a criminal investigation and subpoenaed records of Internet messages posted by Bush`s critics. And, the Justice Dept. even indicted Greenpeace for a protest that was so lame the federal judge threw out the case

TheNewGuy

If they are ejecting someone from an area for having an anti-bush bumper sticker, they are quelling free speech, regardless of the reason.

Yes, its only a matter of time before this country is taken over by Greenpeace I'm glad my leader is doing all he can to protect me from tree-hugging hippies.

Theodore Roosevelt, 1918:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

dedbr

that this is new or anything. This all occured with the Vietnam protest's and the government's response to it. Why, back when I was a kid, (here I go Mama) we watched Chicago cop's beat the sh*t out of demonstrator's with club's and slam them into the back's of van's for their ride to the pocky. I wonder if they would of called them "disruptor's"?

We're probably lucky that Dubya doesn't have synchronized fifties waiting for the first hippie, uh, citizen, to stick his head up. Hell, it's the American way.

What do I think? It's wrong and deplorable, but it really doesn't surprise me. I think the real problem is accesability. The President of today only hear's what he and his contributer's want to hear.Anything else is just chatter or bull to them.

Deddy

__________________
Sometimes you can cut your own throat with your tongue.....
So remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

 

Buzzby

The current regime would tell you that these people are still free to speak, as long as they do it somewhere else. It's like the Supreme Court decision (Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), that allowed "separate but equal" segregated schools for blacks and whites (until Brown v. Board of Education (1954)).

Don't give up hope! In 58 years or so we might recover our First Amendment rights.

__________________

killer12382

During recent Bush speeches, the cops set up "demonstration areas" for people who wished to protest issues involving the President. Usually the area was several blocks away from the press and the President. Free speech? Yes, kind of. Effective free speech? No.
Question: Who decides where you are allowed to demonstrate or exercise your free speech rights?

MrIMStoned

And if I were American I would say to them "is this still American soil?" ... "Then **** off."

Of course I would then be shipped off to cuba as a terrorist.

Question: Who decides where you are allowed to demonstrate or exercise your free speech rights?

I believe it was already decided 200 and some odd years ago by your founding fathers. Basically anywhere below Canada and above Mexico. Ya know, America.

__________________
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

killer12382

The answer you gave doesn't appear to completely correct during this administration. It used to be a black andwhite answer but now GW has made the answer somewhat elusive.

Mamabudz

At least we still have CS&N

"...10 soldiers and ......"

Anyone else listen to Gore's speech the other day?