Yeah, the cops wanted to stop them before things got out of hand. They might have gone on to "If I Had A Hammer."

Looks like the coppers gassed them for singing so badly. But the protesters subtle attack worked, disorienting the police and causing them to fire a couple of canisters right into their own line.

I felt an inevitable "DON'T GAS ME, BRO!!" coming if the tape had lasted any longer.

I'm sure all the brass want are some legit bands to play, so let 'em heckle.

Nothing quite like retailiating against a peaceful protest to incite riot - wtf were the police thinking?!

George W Bushs' Idea of freedom of speech seems to be "You are free to protest, and we are free to stop you."

This really does need to stop

^but only in designated "free speech zones"...

http://www.dtman.com/images/dnc_fsz.jpg

Blah, blah, blah, Bush, blah, blah, blah, Freedom of Speech, blah blah blah. So what's the whole story behind this one?

"Peaceful" my ass. They don't bring out riot squads to quell peace.

1. Their faces are covered, they can be arrested under the law
2. They are blocking a road
3. The description says, "They have been clashing all day with police"
4. Did they have a permit to assemble?

""Peaceful" my ass. They don't bring out riot squads to quell peace."


^ Hey deadgoon, they sure as fuck do.

Yeah, deadgoon, their permit is called the constitution. I don't care if their faces are covered up. Blocking the road, what traffic is on that road that it matters that much?

I think this is the background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Tacoma_protests,_March_2007

Even in this Wiki article it says there were at least two people convicted of charges brought about by their arrests and it also states that people were carrying items in backpacks in a a "no backpack zone".

Correct me if I'm wrong but Constitutional rights only go so far. Where do you draw the line when people start breaking the law? The constitution only provides you with a fair trial by your peers. I don't see anything in the first amendment stating that it's ok to break the law as long as you're breaking the law or police orders because you're "upholding freedom of speech".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Militarization_Resistance

So there you have what appears to be an unbiased look at what actually happened.

Unfounded criticism over freedoms is a direct result of misinterpretation of those freedoms.

Its been my experience that its common practice these days to surround the tiniest most peaceful protest with riot police. Very wtf?

I'm not sure who police feel they work for.

Use of gas and firing stuff at people was totally out of order. But you give people stuff to use and they will use whenever they get the chance, goes for "special" laws too.

Deadgoon comment modded flame bait.

If the protest is more than 5 people and they fit the profile of threatening (in this case by numbers) they will send a QRT or QRF to the protest in order to have the threat of force applied to said protests. Even then 5 people is pushing the limits of unprotected officers.

It doesn't matter if it is peaceful or you have a permit or not. They will send police to keep you in line

That is how these powerful think, every thing can be resolved by throwing a large number of armored weapons at it.

Well, I guess eventually everyone will be breaking the law in some way.

No backpack zone? Give me a break.

Statistics are always a joke, but I heard one that said 1 in 4 Americans are in jail. True or not, it's disturbing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Basically what it comes down to is this; some people don't think that their actions dictate a certain consequence. Which is what is wrong with America today - no one fears consequence. Simple physics that can be applied to every day life; All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

What is the Law? It's set up for an individual's right and protection. You break the law, you void your rights and nullify that protection plain and simple. Action/Reaction. Simple.

Flame bait? It's cool. Whatever you young pups think. I'm just backing up opinion with hard facts. No one ever said you had to pay attention to it.

What happens with the rules aren't there?

The constitution limits what the government can do, not what rights we have.

Wow, two people out of how many were acting inappropriately, and over how many days? The other ones were SITTING DOWN and SINGING. The police's actions were completely unwarranted.

Hey deadgoonP , welcome to you, new troll.

Hippy Scum... I hope they cracked some skulls too. My brother is over there in Iraq, "eating dirt and shitting freedom". He and the rest of our fine men and women deserve better than the likes of this group of self-centered idiots interfering with military supplies.

Go Riot Police!!!!
Yaaayyyyy!

>> ^deadgoon:
...Unfounded criticism over freedoms is a direct result of misinterpretation of those freedoms.

It seems that "freedom" is far too open to interpretation, and please don't go interpreting them for me, Deadgoon. I sure as hell don't want you to interpret them with the constructs of physics for God's sake. And don't call me a pup. I'm a damn kitty cat.

I'm not saying that the cops are universally out of hand in these matters, but often they are. Provocation by unarmed protesters is enough to make them feel 'unsafe', and that's all the reason these guys need. I personally think those protesters sounded like a bunch of twats. Shoulda rushed the line and really made their opinions understood.

It's called civil disobedience. It's as American and as patriotic as voting. And we don't need a f'ing permit to do it.

And they should have been picketing for more armor on those vehicles, rather than the against militarization of the ports, but that's just me.

In reply to this comment by deadgoon:
What is the Law? It's set up for an individual's right and protection.

And by calling us 'pups' you're meaning to imply that WE are naive?

During the civil rights movement, when people engaged in civil disobedience they fully expected to be arrested. They knew they were breaking the law and were trying to prove a point with their arrest. People here seem to be genuinely shocked by their arrests despite the fact that they were breaking laws. What did they really think would happen to them if they went and sat down in the middle of a street that had been designated a no-protest zone? Did they think the Constitution itself would burst forth from the National Archives to protect them?

They should be proud of their arrests. Do what the civil rights people did and publicize the arrests, generate national sympathy, and get the message out. Whining about how unfair the arrests are is unlikely to help the cause.

with permission from schmawy:

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Man, this should be in-thread, you are most certainly not a troll! I'd be happy if you copy-pasted this whole thing back into the discussion. I totally agree that this is what America gets when they vote a Neo-con into office, and allow the administration to run rough-shod over their rights. I don't think we are even arguing? Like I said, I think those protesters lacked heart.

And didn't the itnertoobs come originally from the academic / scientific sphere? At least that's what I remember from being there. It was co-opted and propagated by the DOD to use toward their own nefarious ends.

In reply to this comment by deadgoon:
From my standpoint (and after reading all the info neatly referenced in the wiki article I posted) neither the protesters nor the police had any more right than the other. A majority of the protesters were breaking laws and orders set up for their safety as well as the safety of the police and other personnel. This didn't happen over one day. It was a few years of protest at this particular site and the worst of it culminated in the video that was posted.

I argue, like in the previous reply, it is the fault of the people electing who we do into office that makes this a tragedy. We believe that they are doing everything for "the good of America" or to "create a change" in America. When in fact, every law they create or every bill they design not only helps the lobbyist and stockholder but it also helps to further the separation, and segregation, of Americans by race, creed, color, sexual orientation and income. This isn't limited to one party.

BTW - without the military industrial complex you and I would not be using this medium to interact. The entire world has benefited greatly due to technological breakthrough because of war and conflict. Unfortunate? Yes and no.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Very true, and ages on the Sift vary greatly. You probably know that the Law affords "individual rights" to corporations as well. I take umbrage with that, as do many of the protesters. Military industrial complex makes Ike cry.

In reply to this comment by deadgoon:
In reply to this comment by schmawy:
In reply to this comment by deadgoon:
What is the Law? It's set up for an individual's right and protection.

And by calling us 'pups' you're meaning to imply that WE are naive?


Not so much "naive" as unwilling to believe that this isn't the fault of one man. If we are all over 18 on this thread, we all had a hand in electing the people making and breaking law in Washington, D. C.

Ok, so you had something to say, deadgoon, I will apologize for calling you a troll. I felt completely baited, and referring to me as a 'young pup', well, that has been done before to a pathetic affect. I consider that a personal attack. All the trigger words were there, the biggest give was 'knowing what is wrong with America today', as if that's something that fits in a nutshell.

I thought it was a pathetic protest, I want our soldiers as completely armored as my tax dollars can make them. Surprise. But I am horrified at this adminstration's machinations to squelch dissent.