Return of the McCarthy Era?

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/

August 21, 2004 11:49 AM from

Homeland Security Department issued a terrorist advisory for local law enforcement agencies to watch for home landers who have “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the US government.”

At a Labor Day 2002 Pittsburgh picnic for Bush’s photo-op with work-people, a 65 year old retired steel worker was denied access for wearing a sign “The Bush Family surely love the poor, they make many of us,” though he was engulfed by other sign carriers in favor of Bush. The police arrested him for disorderly conduct. At his trial a detective testified that the local police was instructed by the Secret Service to confine people making statements against the administration. The judge threw out the case.

In St. Louis Bush appeared in 2003; sign protestors were shuttled off to a zone out of sight of the street where the President would be, and worse, the media could not cover the zone. The President visited Columbia, So. Carolina last year. Amid a sea of admirers some 200 yards away from the Bush, stood a brave soul, perhaps indiscreet, with a sign “No War for Oil.” He was escorted to a fenced in zone a half mile away because of the “content of the sign.”

Crawford Texas police believes that without a protest permit wearing a “peace” button would be considered violating city ordinance.

[Taken from The Nation reprint of Jim Hightower’s book, Let’s Stop Beating Around the Bush]

politics

17,160 views 53 replies

Reply #1 August 21, 2004 12:10 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Fear not...McCarthy was burried in the back pages of American history books....so will Bush....SOON!

Reply #2 August 21, 2004 12:20 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

No citations for any of the events, no names, no way to look into the circumstances. Only a one sided interpertation of the situation.

The first reminds me of the recent "Oath to Bush" garbage. People think that you have the right to protest anywhere, anytime in the US. That's not true. If you are having a picnic in teh park, I simply cannot come and stand at the edge of your beach blanket , wave a sign, and chant at you. Aren't you glad?

You anti-Bush drones do yourself a huge disservice barking up this tree. It makes it readily apparant that there isn't much to laud Kerry for, and 90% of the time you end up defending poeple that end up being in the wrong, or worse, actually guilty of what they are accused. Surely you can see how knee-jerk and how "Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb" it is. Get enough people to stand around and act concerned and maybe it will damage Bush.

Hightower is another professional radio pundit, endorsed Nadar in the 2000 election, and is of the "I'm from Texas and I hate Bush" crowd. This is Bizzaro-Limbaugh style activism, in keeping with the "All eyes on Bush" attitude of the election. How utterly virtue-less must Kerry be...

Reply #3 August 21, 2004 12:35 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

BakerStreet,

They have been doing it. I read an interesting article in the Village Voice the other day (yeah it's a liberal mag...Too liberal for me sometimes) But It does offer some info on exactly what Ashcroft's guys are doing right now.

Bizarro-Limbaugh? that one cracked me up!

Link

Reply #4 August 21, 2004 12:48 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

No citations for any of the events, no names, no way to look into the circumstances. Only a one sided interpretation of the situation.

You're right. And just as Limbaugh freaks care not for detail, I too reserve the right--else I'd be accused of nuances.

To be fair, the Democrats do virtually the same by relegating protestors to "safe zones" under the guise of homeland security. If we had a better structure where the free flow of ideas were paramount through many, many town meetings and non-partisan talk shows and got rid of the ideological rifts that divide this nation, then protestors--hopefully the nut cases, including Hightower and Hannity, as well--would be dark history.

Reply #5 August 21, 2004 2:08 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Both sides are using the zones. But I have yet to read anywhere that any of Kerry's people have chased off people due to t-shirts. There were protests at the Democratic Convention, but I'll bet, if we get to hear much about them, that the protests at the Republican Convention breaks records. There are too many people that are of sick of the return ofs due to Bush.

And congratulations on becoming elite Richard!!!

Reply #6 August 22, 2004 9:31 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

No citations for any of the events, no names, no way to look into the circumstances. Only a one sided interpretation of the situation.

heres a link to what seems to be a very well-researched article that includes coverage of the incident reported in mr d's post. it appeared in the online edition of 'the american conservative' (12/15/03) and is entitled 'free-speech zone: the administration quarantines dissent' Link

Reply #7 August 22, 2004 10:07 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Actually I am allowed to protest wherever I want.

Reply #8 August 22, 2004 10:51 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

" Actually I am allowed to protest wherever I want. "

Actually, no, you aren't. Try it. Don't call me to bail you out, though.

Re: "Return of the McCarthy Era?" I don't think you have made your point. It is an inflammatory title for a very subjective factoid. Again, the link kingbee provides gets their information from Salon.com, and only cites the parts of the testimony that would be damning to the President. We have no way to know if this guy refused to stand where he was supposed to, how he behaved, etc.

I suggest refreshing yourself on history. Knee-jerk, anti-Bush rhetoric that uses *really* dangerous times like the McCarthy Era just waters down those times in the minds of the public. I think it is sad when people hate this administration so much that they would liken him to McCarthy or Hitler. I think it just shows how subjective and emotional these folks can be.

Reply #9 August 22, 2004 11:25 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

"I'm the commander, see. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
~Bush to Bob Woodward

"Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform bill, which severely restricts dissent. The law makes it a crime for non-profit advocacy groups simply to mutter the name of a national candidate within the last sixty days before a general election.
As a result of Bush’s policies, the government has even attacked freedom of assembly, creating "free speech zones" and keeping war protesters away when Bush appears on camera."
~Anthony Gregory

Published on Monday, April 7, 2003 by the Associated Press
Police Attack California Anti-War Protesters
by Martha Mendoza

OAKLAND, Calif. - Police open fired Monday morning with non-lethal bullets at an anti-war protest at the Port of Oakland, injuring several longshoremen standing nearby.

Police used non-lethal bullets, sandbags and concussion grenades to try to break up about 500 protesters, who split into groups in front of different terminals.

Reply #10 August 22, 2004 11:39 AM from

PolMach Forums Top

"If you are having a picnic in teh park, I simply cannot come and stand at the edge of your beach blanket , wave a sign, and chant at you. Aren't you glad?"
-People should definately have the right to protest whatever they want on public property. Its as much theirs as it is anyone elses. Its a completely different story if the picknic is in a private park... then the owner has the right to do whatever he/she wants.

I'm actually pretty interested to see what happens at the upcoming Republican National Convention. Besides that thousands of protesters are expected to come, there has been a lot of talk amongst the tech community that some serious cyber-activism is being planned, including an organized flooding of a couple republican websites, flooding of a list of republican phone and fax machine numbers, etc.

Whether this should be illegal I don't know... on the one hand they're not directly damaging anything, and they certainly have the right to go to any website, or call any phone number they wish as many times as they want... on the other hand they're doing this with the intent to harm the republican infrastructure.

Reply #11 August 22, 2004 11:46 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Hitler? Nah...McCarthy.....I dunno about that either. But restrictring people from protesting in this country is un-american. And it sets a dangerous precedent. If they take away my right to protest because they say i'm in some fringe element...whats next...take away my right to vote? how about take away my right to bear arms?

When you take away one right, it's that much easier to justify taking away another. That is UNAMERICAN!

Reply #12 August 22, 2004 12:14 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Gee, down in Crawford TX the dems who come to protest bring alot of cash to the local businesses,
I think they are welcome there. I just look at the plans some radical groups have for "Cyber Protest"
that will probably amount to Cyber terrorism through hacks and DOS attacks.
Peaceful protest is great, but let's look at the Seattle WTO protests as a good example of protest gone wrong.
"It's a lot easier to pick on rich women wearing a fur coat than a Biker wearing leather."

Reply #13 August 22, 2004 12:16 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

" But restrictring people from protesting in this country is un-american"

"Its a completely different story if the picknic is in a private park... then the owner has the right to do whatever he/she wants."

, people... again... protest in this counrty is ALREADY restricted, and it always has been. It never ceases to amaze me how little people know about their own country. Sandy, CWarsh, etc., please, look into it. Your opinion isn't law.

Reply #14 August 22, 2004 12:49 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

the link kingbee provides gets their information from Salon.com, and only cites the parts of the testimony that would be damning to the President. We have no way to know if this guy refused to stand where he was supposed to, how he behaved, etc

why didnt you say you needed a notarized police report with video backup? the article is copyrighted by american conservative and there is a one sentence (about 15 word) quote attributed to salon.com as 'fair usage' which is a hell of a lot different than 'gets their information from salon.com. the bottom line of that incident is also a quote..from the trial judge's ruling of dismissal.

Reply #15 August 22, 2004 1:05 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Legitimate, peaceful protest is alowed Baker.. By permit. and by the right of freedom of assembly. I think it's you that needs to do some checking here. The only place that freedom of assembly is restricted is on private property.

There was an issue here in SLC a while back about the City giving the Mormon Church a big chunk of downtown real estate so they could build a park, and connect their temple and their other properties, but the stipulation was that the city retained right of way over any thoroughfare between city streets. IE: the sidewalks that connected one city street to another thereby making the sidewalks public property and granting citizens the right to peaceful protest on the sidewalks. So naturally people started protesting there during the Church's general conference. Well the church didn't like it at all, they pushed it all the way to the 10th circuit court of appeals, who said unless they could get the city to waive the right of way, they could NOT restrict freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly. Eventually the city figured that it was better to let them have the sidewalks than keep wasting taxpayer dollars on the issue. And the church now restricts all forms of protest...pro-or anti Mormon.

So you're going to try to tell us that the 10th circuit court doesn't know the law?

Reply #16 August 22, 2004 2:25 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

whats next...take away my right to vote? how about take away my right to bear arms?

When you take away one right, it's that much easier to justify taking away another. That is UNAMERICAN!

Bravo! One Guy. You're a brave soul to take on the NRA--that's a constitutionally sacred "zone."

Reply #17 August 22, 2004 2:42 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

I could have sworn Oneguys statement was straight from the NRA's speechbook.??
Sounds like something Wayne Lapierre would say. Or many of my friends.

Reply #18 August 22, 2004 2:53 PM from

PolMach Forums Top

If there's any argument to be made for a return to the McCarthy era it would be of Muslims or others in the United States being put under close scrutiny or discrimination since 9/11. That being said however, I don't think we can justifiably say that we have a return to the McCarthy era. It is true that Muslims have become more descriminated against in the United States sicne 9/11, but there is no evidence that there is a widespread or even governent supported movement to blacklist Muslims as potential terrorists.

However you are right to point out that people are being denied their right to protest. As long as you're not behaving in a violent manner or invading private property you should be allowed to protest wherever, whenever, and however you want. To set up "free speech zones" is essentially to designate everything outside of the free speech zone a a place where you better not step out of line by dissenting. The first ammendment right is the most important ammendment to the constitution (some may disagree) and any attempt to deny it to people should be decried loud and clear.

Reply #19 August 22, 2004 3:15 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Bakerstreet- On public property I have the right to peacefully protest. Only in extreme cases where it may compromise security can I be required to not protest at a certain time and at a certain place. I can not be required to protest in a specified area, as the constitution protects the freedom of speech in any public area. The police sometimes prevent you from doing so, but when arrested a court usually finds the protester not guilty. I think you need to go to the ACLU site and learn what your rights under the constitution are. Also, the ACLU filed a petition and I believe a lawsuit against the arangers of the Democratic Convention because they felt that requiring people to demonstrate in a free speach zone violated your constitutional right. I agree with them. Further, people being held in cuba without the right to legal representation, and being held against the geneva conventions, is another example of how this administration is not following the international laws and the constitituton (by requiring arabs to register and answer questions). Many of our rights have illegally been taken away. For example, the predetermined screening at airports based on how you purchased you tickets, how often you fly and your name and ethnicity is illegal and is discrimination. They recently ended this program under scrutiny from the legal community, the supreme court and the ACLU.

Reply #20 August 22, 2004 4:11 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Scary, paranoid folks.

If you protest on my sidewalk, you can be forced out for obstrucing it. If you raise your voice so that it can be heard inside, you are disturbing the peace. If you interrupt public political addresses, and on and on and on. Protest in most places is allowed by permit, which CAN BE DENIED, for many, many reasons. Once the protest starts, it can be shut down at any moment by law enforcement if they feel there is a need.

So,

" Actually I am allowed to protest wherever I want. "

Isn't true, not even on public property. As my example goes, if I am having a picnic in a public park and you stand at the edge of my beach blanket and chant at me, you will be asked to move along. Protest is fine, but it CANNOT interfere with what anyone else is doing, it can't harass people, it can't shush people making speeches, and it can't intimidate. Your local courthouse is public property, so are national parks and the white house lawn. Go knock yourself out.

Go to the ACLU yourself and look at how THEY deal with protest at abortion clinics. You'll flip-flop again on that too, I bet.

You guys function on pure ideology. You should slip into a bit of reality every now and then. "The right to protest" isn't nearly what you think it is. LIke I say, go try.

Reply #21 August 22, 2004 4:14 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

We have the right to protest. Our right is being denied. I have never protested, but the constitution is quite clear, as is the supreme court.

Reply #22 August 22, 2004 4:18 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

"We have the right to protest. Our right is being denied. I have never protested, but the constitution is quite clear, as is the supreme court. "

Ideology versus Reality. If your political meeting was being disrupted, or some kook was ruining your picnic, you'd come down to earth. If you had to tolerate protesters on your way to get an abortion, you'd have a more balanced perspective. Your rights end where mine begin, and people have the right to congregate for meetings and go about their buisiness without being harassed, endangered, and intimidated.

It is a fine line, sure, but the protesters are the regulated party, so your idea of "freedom" isn't based on reality. Protest has been and always will be highly regulated in the US. Believe what you like.

Reply #23 August 23, 2004 12:10 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Baker, you're belittling the right to protest with trivial examples; no one is suggesting that protestors have the right to interfere with the rights of others, they simply want the right to be heard. I suspect you would also be against the right of workers to picket.