I thought that the military was protecting our freedoms

[Taomon]

Police Arrest 80 Guantanamo Protesters at Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — Eighty people were arrested at the Supreme Court Friday in a protest calling for the shutdown of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Demonstrators wearing orange jump suits intended to simulate prison garb were arrested inside and outside the building in the early afternoon. "Shut it down," protesters chanted as others kneeled on the plaza in front of the court.

They were charged with violating an ordinance that prohibits demonstrations of any kind on court grounds. Those arrested inside the building also were charged under a provision that makes it a crime to give "a harangue or oration" in the Supreme Court building.

The maximum penalty is 60 days in jail, a fine or both.

The court is considering whether prisoners still detained at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their confinement in U.S. courts.

Officials briefly closed the court building during the protest. It reopened around 2 p.m. EST.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322226,00.html

So, another demonstration of our liberty has been marginalized. It is against the law to harangue or orate in the court house. The Supreme Court is not allowed to be questioned by the people. We cannot protest, we cannot speak out, we are impotent to the Supreme Court and Capital Hill.

Please explain how this makes us safer. Please explain how this makes us free?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your a retard. But thanks for playing, ohh and explain how this article has ANYTHING to do with the military?

 

[Taomon]

Your a retard. But thanks for playing, ohh and explain how this article has ANYTHING to do with the military?

Our freedoms are jeopardized by agencies like the Supreme Court who take away Constitutional rights like the first amendment's right to peacably assemble.

If we engage in war and our soldiers are killing to defend our freedoms as is the contention of some on this board, and if theaters like Vietnam and Iraq are necessary for us to remain a free society...then why is the Supreme Court allowed to take away the first amendment?

If our military was truly defending our freedom, the Bush administration and all of their appointees would be rounded up and detained in Gitmo.

Do you understand now? Or do you need to revert back to second grade taunts again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Our freedoms are jeopardized by agencies like the Supreme Court who take away Constitutional rights like the first amendment's right to peacably assemble.

If we engage in war and our soldiers are killing to defend our freedoms as is the contention of some on this board, and if theaters like Vietnam and Iraq are necessary for us to remain a free society...then why is the Supreme Court allowed to take away the first amendment?

If our military was truly defending our freedom, the Bush administration and all of their appointees would be rounded up and detained in Gitmo.

Do you understand now? Or do you need to revert back to second grade taunts again?

So you support a military coup when you do not like the ELECTED officials of our Government? This thread has nothing to do with the military. You keep making idiotic threads with titles that have no bearing on the content of your thread.

I guess if I had supported a military coup when Clinton was Prsident that would, according to you, make me a real patriot?

 

[Gunny]

Police Arrest 80 Guantanamo Protesters at Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — Eighty people were arrested at the Supreme Court Friday in a protest calling for the shutdown of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Demonstrators wearing orange jump suits intended to simulate prison garb were arrested inside and outside the building in the early afternoon. "Shut it down," protesters chanted as others kneeled on the plaza in front of the court.

They were charged with violating an ordinance that prohibits demonstrations of any kind on court grounds. Those arrested inside the building also were charged under a provision that makes it a crime to give "a harangue or oration" in the Supreme Court building.

The maximum penalty is 60 days in jail, a fine or both.

The court is considering whether prisoners still detained at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their confinement in U.S. courts.

Officials briefly closed the court building during the protest. It reopened around 2 p.m. EST.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322226,00.html

So, another demonstration of our liberty has been marginalized. It is against the law to harangue or orate in the court house. The Supreme Court is not allowed to be questioned by the people. We cannot protest, we cannot speak out, we are impotent to the Supreme Court and Capital Hill.

Please explain how this makes us safer. Please explain how this makes us free?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

This is too simple.

1. The military has absolutely NOTHING to do with this.

2.

They were charged with violating an ordinance that prohibits demonstrations of any kind on court grounds.

They violated the law, period. Being entitled to physically demonstrate -- which is in and of itself a stretch of "freedom of speech/expression -- does NOT mean it cannot be regulated to ensure that order and safety are maintained for the general public.

People protest all the time. Left-wing extremists for some reason believe they are above the very law they are such literalist sticklers on where conservatives are concerned when it comes to their self-righteous indignation.

 

[Taomon]

So you support a military coup when you do not like the ELECTED officials of our Government? This thread has nothing to do with the military. You keep making idiotic threads with titles that have no bearing on the content of your thread.

I guess if I had supported a military coup when Clinton was Prsident that would, according to you, make me a real patriot?

No, I don't support a military coup. I support our Constitution. I support a mass impeachment.

I was making a point, and very good one. I am sorry if it is not simplistic enough for you. I will try and put pretty pictures in so you can maybe follow along.

The titles of my threads have everything top do with the content. It requires you to actually read it, understand it and contemplate it. You fail to do that. I think you just look for who the poster is and then attack if they are a liberal or a democrat.

I pity you because you do not understand and probably never will.

 

[doniston]

Police Arrest 80 Guantanamo Protesters at Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — Eighty people were arrested at the Supreme Court Friday in a protest calling for the shutdown of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Demonstrators wearing orange jump suits intended to simulate prison garb were arrested inside and outside the building in the early afternoon. "Shut it down," protesters chanted as others kneeled on the plaza in front of the court.

They were charged with violating an ordinance that prohibits demonstrations of any kind on court grounds. Those arrested inside the building also were charged under a provision that makes it a crime to give "a harangue or oration" in the Supreme Court building.

The maximum penalty is 60 days in jail, a fine or both.

The court is considering whether prisoners still detained at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their confinement in U.S. courts.

Officials briefly closed the court building during the protest. It reopened around 2 p.m. EST.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322226,00.html

So, another demonstration of our liberty has been marginalized. It is against the law to harangue or orate in the court house. The Supreme Court is not allowed to be questioned by the people. We cannot protest, we cannot speak out, we are impotent to the Supreme Court and Capital Hill.

Please explain how this makes us safer. Please explain how this makes us free?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

Sorry fella. they were arrested for violating an existing Law Had they stayed off the court grounds, they would have been OK. They went farther than legally allowed (tho I must admit, I would also question the law.) The court is OUR property.

 

[Taomon]

This is too simple.

The military has absolutely NOTHING to do with this.

Yes it does, if the military and soldier/veterans contend that they defend our freedoms. That is defend them from foreign and domestic threats. So far, you guys just haven't done that. You attack countries that are not a threat (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) or attack the wrong way like carpet bombing, or you cheer on administrations that weaken our constitution ( like what you are doing now).

They violated the law, period. Being entitled to physically demonstrate -- which is in and of itself a stretch of "freedom of speech/expression -- does NOT mean it cannot be regulated to ensure that order and safety are maintained for the general public.

People protest all the time. Left-wing extremists for some reason believe they are above the very law they are such literalist sticklers on where conservatives are concerned when it comes to their self-righteous indignation.

The Constitution is the law. To regulate it is to weaken it. To enforce free speech zones, protest permits, and restrictions on Government property is to take away the right to protest. The reason for a protest is so the voice of the people can be heard.

Would you rather there was no protests at all? Would you rather the people's voice is never heard?

 

[Taomon]

Sorry fella. they were arrested for violating an existing Law Had they stayed off the court grounds, they would have been OK. They went farther than legally allowed (tho I must admit, I would also question the law.) The court is OUR property.

If the court is our property then the law is wrong. If any law restricts or supercedes Constitutional law, it is wrong.

It is against the law for me to tell Dick Cheney that his policies are wrong. They consider it assualt. It is against the law for me to protest any place that Bush gives a public address because a free speech zone exists miles away and a permit must be purchased.

Do you guys not see how our open society is closing?

The military does not defend our freedoms.

 

[Gunny]

Yes it does, if the military and soldier/veterans contend that they defend our freedoms. That is defend them from foreign and domestic threats. So far, you guys just haven't done that. You attack countries that are not a threat (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) or attack the wrong way like carpet bombing, or you cheer on administrations that weaken our constitution ( like what you are doing now).

The military DOES indeed protect the freedoms and rights afforded you by the US Constitution. The military does NOT however protect the freedoms and rights of your personal interpretation of the US Consitution as it suits your political agenda.

The Constitution is the law. To regulate it is to weaken it. To enforce free speech zones, protest permits, and restrictions on Government property is to take away the right to protest. The reason for a protest is so the voice of the people can be heard.

Would you rather there was no protests at all? Would you rather the people's voice is never heard?

The need to maintain good order and discipline for the whole supercedes the desires of extremist minority.

The right to protest has not been taken away. The desire to protest in a manner that disrupts and infringes on the rights of others not to be bothered by such crap is regulated.

The reason for protests in the form of physical demonstration is to get attention to some extremist cause by whatever means necessary. As previously stated, those means almost always include infringing on the Rights of others and disrupting the general good order of society.

You rights end where mine begin.

I have not stated that I believe people should not be allowed to protest, and that is an extremist view that veers from the original topic. People have a right to protest/physically demonstrate in accordance with regulatory laws that ensure fairness to the extent possible for ALL, not just the protestors.

 

[Taomon]

The military DOES indeed protect the freedoms and rights afforded you by the US Constitution. The military does NOT however protect the freedoms and rights of your personal interpretation of the US Consitution as it suits your political agenda.



The need to maintain good order and discipline for the whole supercedes the desires of extremist minority.

The right to protest has not been taken away. The desire to protest in a manner that disrupts and infringes on the rights of others not to be bothered by such crap is regulated.

The reason for protests in the form of physical demonstration is to get attention to some extremist cause by whatever means necessary. As previously stated, those means almost always include infringing on the Rights of others and disrupting the general good order of society.

You rights end where mine begin.

I have not stated that I believe people should not be allowed to protest, and that is an extremist view that veers from the original topic. People have a right to protest/physically demonstrate in accordance with regulatory laws that ensure fairness to the extent possible for ALL, not just the protestors.

And those laws and regulations marginalize protest. You either don't get it or don't care. What if a president was elected who decided to disband the military, or to cut all funding to veteran programs? Would you protest?

Better yet, would you protest in accordance to State and Federal ordinances?
Do you understand what is at stake here? Even if American was turned into a fascist state, we would still be able to vote and protest. The acts would be meaningless or cause us to be renditioned, but they would still exist.

It is not enough that we can protest, it renders the Constitution meaningless when laws supercede it as they do. Our founding fathers did not write that amendment in order for future lawyers to create ways around it. They wrote it because it is a vital part of democracy, it is imperative to liberty.

Having law and order does not mean shutting all people out of government, taking away their voices and marginalizing what they say, how and where. That is not freedom. That is not American.

And you back that up, which I do not understand. I understand that people should not be allowed to stand up during court or Congressional sessions and begin shouting. But to not be allowed to orate at all? To not be allowed to show a physical display of political protest? That is too extreme.

Tell me, how did protesting in this fashion create a disturbance, other than to display what our detainees look like and go through?

 

[Gunny]

And those laws and regulations marginalize protest. You either don't get it or don't care. What if a president was elected who decided to disband the military, or to cut all funding to veteran programs? Would you protest?

Better yet, would you protest in accordance to State and Federal ordinances?
Do you understand what is at stake here? Even if American was turned into a fascist state, we would still be able to vote and protest. The acts would be meaningless or cause us to be renditioned, but they would still exist.

It is not enough that we can protest, it renders the Constitution meaningless when laws supercede it as they do. Our founding fathers did not write that amendment in order for future lawyers to create ways around it. They wrote it because it is a vital part of democracy, it is imperative to liberty.

Having law and order does not mean shutting all people out of government, taking away their voices and marginalizing what they say, how and where. That is not freedom. That is not American.

And you back that up, which I do not understand. I understand that people should not be allowed to stand up during court or Congressional sessions and begin shouting. But to not be allowed to orate at all? To not be allowed to show a physical display of political protest? That is too extreme.

Tell me, how did protesting in this fashion create a disturbance, other than to display what our detainees look like and go through?

You are making an extremist argument. Amending the Constitution to make it applicable to a far different society/nation than it was originally written for is plain common sense.

You need to re-read what I wrote. I did not say I felt people should not be allowed to protest/physcially demonstrate. I said I think it's stupid, IMO. People should be allowed to demonstrate in accordance with the law. That means in a proper forum.

Blocking a sidewalk/and or the means of entry to a public building or inconveniencing anyone in any way from having free and unfettered access to said building is creating a disturbance.

 

[Doug]

This is not much of an argument.

Taomon recognizes that it should be unlawful to stand up and shout during court or Congressional sessions. He also, so far as I can understand his position, supports bombing other countries under certain circumstances, so long as it is done in the right way.

So his differences with us are just tactical: (1) should we carpet bomb or use precision-guided bombs (note -- the military agree with you, Taomon: carpet bombing is ineffective compared to the precision bombing you endorse. It helped us beat the Nazis, but is not needed now); and (2) where and when should people who are standing up and shouting in a public builidng be arrested? We say "here", he says "over there".

Not really worth arguing about.


And for the record: Without even investigating this case, I would be willing to bet five dollars that at least some, if not all, of the orange-jumpsuit arrestees are against free speech for their opponents on principle, anywhere and at any time. Their stunt was designed to rope in a few useful idiots.

 

[Taomon]

You are making an extremist argument. Amending the Constitution to make it applicable to a far different society/nation than it was originally written for is plain common sense.

You need to re-read what I wrote. I did not say I felt people should not be allowed to protest/physcially demonstrate. I said I think it's stupid, IMO. People should be allowed to demonstrate in accordance with the law. That means in a proper forum.

Blocking a sidewalk/and or the means of entry to a public building or inconveniencing anyone in any way from having free and unfettered access to said building is creating a disturbance.

But they did not block the entrance nor did they block the sidewalk. Amending the Constitution may be common sense to you, but we have to consider the attitudes and motivation of the ones who seek to modify it.

And enhancing law & order may sound good, but what you consider order and what the guy next to you considers order are usually two different things.

Bush would just assume that people be allowed to protest in their homes and for those views to not be made public. Whereas the rest of us disagree. See my point?

 

[Taomon]

This is not much of an argument.

Taomon recognizes that it should be unlawful to stand up and shout during court or Congressional sessions. He also, so far as I can understand his position, supports bombing other countries under certain circumstances, so long as it is done in the right way.

So his differences with us are just tactical: (1) should we carpet bomb or use precision-guided bombs (note -- the military agree with you, Taomon: carpet bombing is ineffective compared to the precision bombing you endorse. It helped us beat the Nazis, but is not needed now); and (2) where and when should people who are standing up and shouting in a public builidng be arrested? We say "here", he says "over there".

Not really worth arguing about.


And for the record: Without even investigating this case, I would be willing to bet five dollars that at least some, if not all, of the orange-jumpsuit arrestees are against free speech for their opponents on principle, anywhere and at any time. Their stunt was designed to rope in a few useful idiots.

I am not for bombing at all. If we wanted to stop al Qaeda cold, we should have surrounded Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia before sending in military troops. This should have been done in Iraq too.

But the administration wants al Qaeda to be free because a shadowy villain is better for PR than a captured one.

And regarding protests, all protesters should be given a chance to address the person or agency that they are protesting. Give them the time and the mic. Let them make their statement and allow the addressed person or spokesperson respond. Allow for a retort from each.

That is how it should be done civilly.

 

[Gunny]

But they did not block the entrance nor did they block the sidewalk. Amending the Constitution may be common sense to you, but we have to consider the attitudes and motivation of the ones who seek to modify it.

They were levitating 10 feet above the ground? Of course they were blocking a sidewalk, the street or the courthouse steps. Only choices available.

I DO consider the attitudes and motivations of those who seek to amend the Constitution. The Constitution states:

"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."

It does not preclude regulating such freedom of speech to a proper forum that takes into consideration the rights of ALL, not just the protestors.

And enhancing law & order may sound good, but what you consider order and what the guy next to you considers order are usually two different things.

You are attempting to deflect with a relativist argument. A small minority extremist group disrupting free and unfettered access to a public facility is not in keeping with good order by its very nature. Without disruption of general order, there is no demonstration.

Bush would just assume that people be allowed to protest in their homes and for those views to not be made public. Whereas the rest of us disagree. See my point?

No. You make no point. President Bush is irrelevant to this incident. And no one has stated nor advocated people be allowed to protest only in their homes. You keep leaping from the actual event to an an extremist position with assume stances for others that have not been voiced.

 

[Taomon]

They were levitating 10 feet above the ground? Of course they were blocking a sidewalk, the street or the courthouse steps. Only choices available.

I DO consider the attitudes and motivations of those who seek to amend the Constitution. The Constitution states:

"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."

It does not preclude regulating such freedom of speech to a proper forum that takes into consideration the rights of ALL, not just the protestors.



You are attempting to deflect with a relativist argument. A small minority extremist group disrupting free and unfettered access to a public facility is not in keeping with good order by its very nature. Without disruption of general order, there is no demonstration.



No. You make no point. President Bush is irrelevant to this incident. And no one has stated nor advocated people be allowed to protest only in their homes. You keep leaping from the actual event to an an extremist position with assume stances for others that have not been voiced.

Oh okay gunny, law and order is above freedom and liberty, as you stated. The sidewalk of the Supreme Court is huge. There was no blocking of the sidewalk.

Revisionist stand point? That is your argument all together. You side with the law because you believe that the judges who made that law did not try to supercede the 1st Amendment. But that is what they did.

These are the same judges who decided that Abortion should be legal (which I agree with), that the state has the right to take your property to benefit developers (which I do not agree with) and that prayer should not be allowe in school (which I do agree with).

I cite these examples because it shows how people can agree or diagree with a law and should question the intentions of those who write them.

And I usually make a point to extrapolate because if we do not look ten steps ahead, we get broadsided by legislation that weakens our liberty and we will become powerless to them.

 

[pegwinn]

So, another demonstration of our liberty has been marginalized. It is against the law to harangue or orate in the court house. The Supreme Court is not allowed to be questioned by the people. We cannot protest, we cannot speak out, we are impotent to the Supreme Court and Capital Hill.

Please explain how this makes us safer. Please explain how this makes us free?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

Interesting how each side of a debate chooses to either interpret the constitution to mean what it wants or interpret it literally. Since the left mostly seems to use interpretation, is it a flip flop when it suits them to go with the literal wording?

EX: In this case the amendment states that "Congress shall make no law......right of the people peaceably to assemble....... petition....". The literal interpretation is that it is unconstitutional to limit protests or even to regulate them, unless the protest violated the "Peaceably" provision. I agree with that.

EX: But, the same first amendment also states that Congress shall make no law...... respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. A literalist understands that you can pray in schools since laws are made by Congress and Congress is specifically enjoined to NOT make any law on the subject. Yet, because it suits them, those on the left choose the interpretive style and decided that any religious expression on or by a .gov entitity be it person or property means they are an extension of "congress". I disagree with that.

So for Taomon, which is right for all the time?

 

[Gunny]

Oh okay gunny, law and order is above freedom and liberty, as you stated. The sidewalk of the Supreme Court is huge. There was no blocking of the sidewalk.

Revisionist stand point? That is your argument all together. You side with the law because you believe that the judges who made that law did not try to supercede the 1st Amendment. But that is what they did.

These are the same judges who decided that Abortion should be legal (which I agree with), that the state has the right to take your property to benefit developers (which I do not agree with) and that prayer should not be allowe in school (which I do agree with).

I cite these examples because it shows how people can agree or diagree with a law and should question the intentions of those who write them.

And I usually make a point to extrapolate because if we do not look ten steps ahead, we get broadsided by legislation that weakens our liberty and we will become powerless to them.

Where did I state law and order was above freedom? My overall argument is that you consider your freedom and the freedoms of those whose agendas you support are paramount to the freedoms of others; which, is onse-sides, extremist and infirnges on the rights of those who do not agree with your agenda.

How big you think the sidewalk is is irrelevant. The law does not supercede the First Amendment. It merely further defines it which is the right of the state to do as guaranteed by the verysame Constitution.

The fact you agree with or disagree with certain rulings does not make it Consitutional or unconstitutional as it suits your agenda.

Looking 10 steps ahead is fine until you start stating it as an absolute conclusion.

 

[Gunny]

Interesting how each side of a debate chooses to either interpret the constitution to mean what it wants or interpret it literally. Since the left mostly seems to use interpretation, is it a flip flop when it suits them to go with the literal wording?

EX: In this case the amendment states that "Congress shall make no law......right of the people peaceably to assemble....... petition....". The literal interpretation is that it is unconstitutional to limit protests or even to regulate them, unless the protest violated the "Peaceably" provision. I agree with that.

EX: But, the same first amendment also states that Congress shall make no law...... respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. A literalist understands that you can pray in schools since laws are made by Congress and Congress is specifically enjoined to NOT make any law on the subject. Yet, because it suits them, those on the left choose the interpretive style and decided that any religious expression on or by a .gov entitity be it person or property means they are an extension of "congress". I disagree with that.

So for Taomon, which is right for all the time?

IMO, "Congress shall make no laws .... " does not preclude the states from doing so.