Kakki wrote: > Thank you for the links, Randy. Everything I've read about the Patriot Act > does not concern me but I'll take another look at it. I'm still of the > belief that it is for going after dangerous terrorists in the U.S. who have > and have been planning to harm us for years and not for some whim of some > "aristocracy" to go after all Americans.
Not all Americans. Just the ones they feel politically threatened by or don't like. The Patriot Act is a very long, complicated document which many of our legislators did not read before voting on it. History shows that society tends to take repressive measures when motivated by fear. The internment of Japanese and German Americans during WWII, the McCarthy blacklists...and these measures are more to make us feel safe than to actually make us safe. > > > > More recently, LA cops shot rubber bullets and attacked with clubs > protesters at the > > Democratic convention last year, and arbitrarily arrested and detained > > 600 people, some just passersby. > > Where did you read this? I was RIGHT THERE almost the entire time and have > the photographs documenting most of it. The police for almost an HOUR > requested repeatedly that the crowd disperse before they went in. Most > people left the area as requested. I stayed until almost the last minute. > I did not see anywhere near 600 people still hanging around. The reports I > heard were that only around 10-25 people were shot with rubber bullets. The > last I saw them they were climbing over the protective fences to get onto > Staples Center property. By the way, these people were NOT Democratic party > supporters nor were they Republican protesters. They were rag-tag groups of > organizations I'd never heard of before, but they were all anti-Democrat and > protesting the Democrats convention. Maybe you would know better which > groups they were. They seemed to be some of those enviro-radical groups and > the "free Mumia" crowd. Would you rather they'd stormed the convention at > Staples Center while the Gores and Clintons were in the house? Oops- I have to apologize for this little piece of misinformation. I got two events confused-the Demo convention in LA and the inaugural protests and police brutality in D.C. Both have been cited as examples of inappropriate violence by the police. From The Boston Phoenix: on the LA events: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archives/2000/documents/00520485.htm An excerpt: Riot-gear-clad members of the Los Angeles Police Department shot rubber bullets into a crowd of protesters during the first night of the convention. They made liberal use of their batons to intimidate protesters throughout the week. And they randomly dispersed groups of activists under threat of arrest -- on the pretext that these groups constituted an unlawful assembly, though they were demonstrating peacefully. There is simply no way to justify the LAPD response -- which was to corner not just the troublemakers but all the protesters in the area, rush them with horses, strike them with batons, and fire rubber bullets straight in their direction. The article goes on to describe the protesters as: a diverse group that included anarchists, environmentalists, Green Party members, and animal-rights, gay-rights, and prison-reform activists, were in LA to publicize their myriad causes. Kakki, I was not there, but you were. I'm sure you know more about what went on then I do. But your description of the protesters as rag-tag...etc non-Democrats seems to imply that some people have the right to protest and some do not. Every American has the right to peaceful assembly! Whether you have heard of them or not! I am against using violence as a form of expression by protesters or police, and would not be comforted if they stormed Staples Center regardless of who was in the house. Police misconduct in DC during the inaugural protests is described in this article from In These Times. http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/13/allen2413a.html Excerpt: [Police] conducted a mass arrest of more than 600 nonviolent marchers and bystanders, mistreated people in custody, confiscated First Amendment-protected literature, violated a contract with protesters' lawyers, and used the fire department - thereby avoiding the need for a warrant - to search and then shut down the organizing headquarters. In violation of department policy, police frequently failed to wear identifying badges, refused to give shield numbers, arrested peaceful protesters without a warning or an order to disperse, and they may have interfered with the phone lines of lawyers handling arrests. [Kakki said]: > I frankly do not understand all the concern over the loss of reproductive > rights. They are protected by the highest law of the land and I cannot > conceive how any group can overturn that law. On the other hand, I believe > that people have a right to speak of their beliefs based on their religion. > Just because they speak up against it does not mean they can overturn the > law. It is certainly not only the Christian right who are pro-life. There > are a large number of Christian left who believe the same. Their religion > comes before their political party. There are also Jews and other religions > who believe abortion is taking a life. They don't like their tax dollars > going to fund abortions, particularly in other countries. I think they have > a right to their opinion. I personally think it is an individual decision > and that government should be out of it completely. Me, too. And certainly the Christian Right is not the only group that opposes abortion. But they are the group with financial ties to Bush. And as we all know, if you fund a politician, you expect, and often receive favored treatment. And just because something is law doesn't mean it can't be overturned by the Supreme Court. I really don't know whether abortion is taking a life or not. I much prefer contraception and family planning, programs that Bush's administration has wasted no time in gutting. Kakki wrote: > Randy, > > Are you referring to the airport security plan devised and instituted by FAA > Aviation Administrator Linda Daschle (wife of Tom) and Al Gore a few years > ago? > > Kakki > > > Re: the statement on my last post: > > Sidebar: I recently heard that the government >jettisoned a proposal (pre > Sept 11) to install >inpenetrable doors on commercial jets >because it > didn't want a "regulated airline >industry". > > I meant to say "inpenetrable cockpit doors", >which would have prevented > the Sept 11 >tragedy. I overheard this as part of a speech on the radio a couple of days ago. The guy seemed to know what he was talking about, but I did not catch his name, and he did not give details on this comment. RR
