Jump to content

Ok, This Is Too Much


Recommended Posts

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98080,00.html

This shocked me. Granted people may say they couldn't get their voices heard, but it's up to the Secret Service to protect the President and make a judgement call.

Sorry to have posisbly infringed on your right to havea temper tantrum. God forbid we keep our President alive and prevent a national security disaster all so you can have your protest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

his shocked me. Granted people may say they couldn't get their voices heard, but it's up to the Secret Service to protect the President and make a judgement call.

Sorry to have posisbly infringed on your right to havea temper tantrum. God forbid we keep our President alive and prevent a national security disaster all so you can have your protest! 

The right of peaceful assembly (sans caveat) is one of the fundamental pillars of a democracy. Unless the Secret Service can demonstrate that protesters somehow pose a legitimate threat to the president's person (and not just because they might hurt his widdle feelings) this lawsuit should triumph.

Of course, given thet the U.S. is inching towards the status of the Police States of America, the measure staken by the S.S. don't really surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am unable to resist making a quick comment on this.

Does anyone believe that the Secret Service holds the President "Captive" - that by restricting immediate access to the area around the President they are supressing dissent? Hiding dissenting views from the President? Let's be real!

The complaint states that by establishing "Protest Zones" the Secret Service accomplishes two goals: 1) The Protestors can not be seen by the President. The unspoken companion to this is that no one in the Zone can see or TARGET the President. 2) The Media covering the President can not easily also feature the Protestors. The Poor Media - forced to make a few extra steps to display the Protestors. It warms my heart to see the compassion among these groups for the overworked Media.

There is also a complaint that those friendly to the President are not placed in the Protest Zone. Duh! They are not protesting, why should they be there? What is unsaid is a fact of life it you are going to be near the President. You must be vetted - your identity is verified and you do not go "TILT" on any nut list. Those who are allowed near the President have provided identity information in advance to the satisfaction of the Secret Service and are not considered a potential threat. Experience has shown that those who are suing are not willing to cooperate with the Secret Service to the necessary extent.

Consider Abortion Clinic cases, Freedom of Speech does not allow someone to directly accost those who wish to visit such places. There are safety and security limits on the exercise of free speech and correctly so.

Protection of our Constitutional Officers is a function of the Executive Branch of Government; absent clear and comprehensive abuse of constitutional freedoms, the Courts have no business interjecting themselves into an area which they have neither the knowledge or experience to judge. This is a "Political" Suit and the Court should approach it with a ten foot pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Secret Service has the right to do this. Remember what happened to Reagan? This is a frivilous lawsuit at its best.

Maybe they should just stick Dubya in a giant bullet proof hamster ball. Not only would it ensure his safety, but it would keep the lil' fella entertained for hours on end. :P

Becoming president means you are a target. Kennedy Lincoln, Garfield, Carter(?) and Regan are proof of that. However, I still think legitimate, unfettered protest is a perfectly healthy byproduct of democracy. Given this administrations record on such matters, it seems clear theis is more about sheilding the president from views that conflict with his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for Peaceful Assembly and protesting, but if the Secret Service says do not cross this line, you better not. They put that line there for a reason and it's to protect this country's leader. Like him or not, his life is important. Those people crossed the line. And many of them were all but peaceful protests. I always found it ironic how there would be fights at a lot of the 'anti-war' protests.....kinda ironic....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadian Prime Minister has a hands-on approach to protestors.

The US President has to hide behind a bunch of thugs.

The President of the United States is more important than the Prime minister of canada. You don't have terrorists saying "Death to Canada" do you? You don't have numerous death threats every day, do you?

Also, don't insult the United states secret service by calling them thugs. They are one of the elite groups of any armed services in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have terrorists saying "Death to Canada" do you? You don't have numerous death threats every day, do you?

Aint Canada great?

Also, don't insult the United states secret service by calling them thugs.

What would you call those guys hired by Nixon to take out Ellsberg during one of those anti-Vietnam protests? They were hire to do bodily harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you call those guys hired by Nixon to take out Ellsberg during one of those anti-Vietnam protests? They were hire to do bodily harm.

Yea those guys are still on the Secret Service. Bush isnt nixon. That was 30 years ago. What does that have to do with the protestestors we are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you call those guys hired by Nixon to take out Ellsberg during one of those anti-Vietnam protests?  They were hire to do bodily harm.

Yea those guys are still on the Secret Service. Bush isnt nixon. That was 30 years ago. What does that have to do with the protestestors we are talking about.

Don't ya know that's how the libs argue? They bring up things that happened long ago as their fallback-we-are-defeated-but-won't-give-up plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read through this article and obtained different stories from other sources, such as CBS and ABC. I believe these protestors have a strong case. If the supporters were also not allowed near, then the case would be pointless. But I think this is a valid case that may become a landmark debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read through this article and obtained different stories from other sources, such as CBS and ABC. I believe these protestors have a strong case. If the supporters were also not allowed near, then the case would be pointless. But I think this is a valid case that may become a landmark debate.

Can u give some links for those sites?

They may have a case, but those who are calling the President names present more of a threat than those supporting him.....but it does prove a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no constraints imposed upon Protesters, they are free to express any opinion they wish. This is all about media exposure and time on National TV.

There are 'wing-nuts' and terrorists out there who would love to get close to our President to take him out. One of the primary missions of the US Secret Service is Presidential Protection and the elite of that agency serve that mission. Their last known failure was with President Reagan and but for the Grace of God, they would have lost him; a prime example of why access to the POTUS must be controlled.

There is an old "Truism" that you should never issue an order which you know will not be obeyed and that clearly is applicable in this matter. No one knows more about assassination than the Secret Service and no Judge has the experience to overrule them. No Judicial Order which they believe will lessen the protection necessary for the POTUS will be obeyed, nor should it be!

Bluntly, while there are a few Judges with delusions of grandeur (& not solely in the 9th Circuit) the Judicial system has sufficient wisdom to respect the separation of powers doctrine and after a quick examination of what is involved here will decline to be placed into the midst of decisions concerning Presidential security.

Were the Service interning people to silence them, without Court Orders, there would be a basis for complaint but no such thing is happening here. The legal recourses available to the Service are quite extensive but are exercised quietly in appropriate cases under Court supervision. Which is as it should be. This is a great deal of noise about a matter of little substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush isnt nixon. That was 30 years ago.

My dear children. Thirty years isn't that long ago. As any over-the-top patriotic American will do, he'll bring up how the Marshall plan saved Europe - and that's even further back than a measly 30yrs.

So you think that just because Nixon and his people have been exposed for what they are everything is ok now? That all government corruption is fixed? The names have changed but the kind of people running the show has always been the same since time immemorial.

How far back does you memory span take you? Can you think as far back as the beginning of the last invasion of Iraq? Those WMD don't exist and the administration is running circles pointing fingers. Whatever happened to real leadership - the kind that will go in front of the camera and say to the public "I will take full responsibility..."? The last time I remember a speech like that was from Jimmy Carter.

Going back to gov't corruption and their thugs - you really think their mandate is restricted to protecting the President? What do you think Tom Ridge's Home Land Security is really up to? There's a bunch of people detained in Guantanamo Bay, held without charge under neither international military law or civilian law.

When the United States took itself out of the International Crimes tribunal, you've got to be suspicious.

I have no doubt that web discussion forums like this one is being monitored, so it'll be people like me most at risk for speaking out in any manner not friendly towards the United States policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, I really love you - you are in more danger from an enraged elephant escaping from a visiting circus than from any instrument or agency of the American government. You are narrowly correct on one point - this thread will or has been reviewed because the terms "assassination" and "President" are present. Which is as it should be. Let me add to your paranoia, "Prime Minister" - now Canadian Intelligence will have a look as well.

We Americans have two allowable methods of replacement of our President: one is called an election while the other is the term limits placed by our Constitution. No other method is allowed and we take rather violent exception to anyone who seeks a "third way"! As do, no doubt, the Canadian authorities where their Prime Minister is concerned.

National Intelligence agencies have learned the bitter lesson that the lunatic fringe must be monitored to identify the 'wing-nuts' among us who may loose whatever frail grasp they have on reality. Witness Sweden just recently, need I say more? The politics of hate is loose among us in America, has been growing for these last thirty years or so. Freedom of speech is alive and well in America; I can make jokes about "BJ" Clinton or Slick Willie while others can call President Bush a "liar" and neither of us expects our doors to be kicked in a three AM by a Gestapo. Nor should they be.

But Freedom of Speech is not without cost; just as you can not shout " Fire " in a crowded Theater, there are statements you may not make about our President - such as advocating a "third way" to remove him from office. Should you do so, in any way except in the privacy of your mind, you stand a chance of ending up on a 'nut' list and being subject to a "threat assessment" - an evaluation of the degree of threat you represent. Which is as it should be. I have little doubt that in the vast majority of such cases the end result is an assessment of "big-mouth", but on occasion the threat may be higher. Statutory authority exists to deal with higher threats up to and including involuntary commitment for mental heath treatment but note this is a Statutory authority under Court supervision . There are no "Disappeareds" in America. The Secret Service is neither the Gestapo or the KGB and their elite, the members of the Presidential Protection group stand ready, man and woman alike, to take a bullet to protect our President. I don't know if I would have the courage to do that job, do you?

You make two other uninformed statements to which I take exception; first:

There's a bunch of people detained in Guantanamo Bay, held without charge under neither international military law or civilian law.

Under the Laws of War, as modified by the Geneva Conventions, these "Detainee's" are being properly held until the resolution of the conflict. They do NOT meet the conditions under which they could be classified as "Prisoners of War" and thus are not entitled to treatment as such. We could elect to classify each of them as a "Spy" and execute them on the spot and such action would be in accord with the provisions of the Convention. Look it up.

Second, if you are " Suspicious " that America rejected the I.C.C., I suggest you read it. It is clearly in conflict with our Constitutional protections under our Bill of Rights. It really cracks me up to see you blathering about the supposed "Constitutional Rights" of the "Detainees" in one breath and then in the next, suggesting we should suspend those very same "Rights" for every one in America to comply with a Treaty which negates them!

Last, Daniel, you are free to speak against US Policy in an unfriendly manner as much as you want. If you truly understood the American concept of Freedom of Speech you would understand that it is exactly such "unfriendly" speech that the concept protects! Feel free to be paranoid about that circus elephant but don't loose any sleep about Homeland Security or the Secret Service or any other of the alphabet soup of American agencies. They have serious business to contend with, they have no time or interest in the back and forth of political debate. There are people out there that believe they have a license to kill Americans and our Government Agencies are quite serious about identifying them. They have no time to waste bothering those of us occupied in political discourse, no matter how loud or shrill!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only things that change are technology.  The people are the same even compared to a thousand years ago.

Thirty years isn't long at all.

Yes culture is the same, Dumbass?

I bet people in the middle ages, went up to their friends saying, yo yo homie g-dog. Hows it hanging.

They spoke different. Culture and people have changed a crap load.

Yea, tons of people were gay back then. There wasn't america. There wasn't canada. (Countries)

You know what, My mother 40 years ago, didn't have many of the same privilages/stuff i have now. Own car, going where i want, She had her own horse, I did not. People have changed don't try and argue with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetics has not changed that much in 100.000 years [DNA makeup]. Obviously everything else has. Change is constant, the human animal with its genetics is a physical and hard wired constant. This is a great paradox - more power, more technology, more intelligence, more opportunity - with the same DNA structure.

Think of the sermon on the mount - the highest form of ethical teaching - yet it contradicts the human DNA makeup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...