moon

The biggest protest march in decades was planned for Feb. 15 in NYC. This was to be in conjunction with similar protests/marches around the world in 300 cities around the world, to show the overwhelming opposition to the upcoming "war" in Iraq. (It's not really a war--a war implies two sides meeting in battle, this will be a slaughter.)

However, in Manhattan yesterday, the Federal Second District Court of Appeals upheld a ban on the march in Manhattan on Saturday. They are allowing a protest, but not the planned march. The appeals court "reasoned" that greater restrictions are allowed in "times of war" [!]. They cited "security concerns," etc. (You can bet your ass these "security concerns" will not prevent the Republican National Convention from meeting in NYC next year.) Of particular note, the judge stated that she wouldn't second guess the New York City cops, who assured her that the restrictions are necessary. So now, apparently, the cops are making the rules. I.e., we are living in a police state.

I found out about this on Democracy Now!, and couldn't find a story on any of the main media outlets.

Malsi

This story was on 2 days ago on CNN; from what I gathered they did not want the parade near the UN building due to security concerns.

But if we are really a police state - watch out moon - you should definitely get picked up by the CIA any day now for your radical beliefs.

Maybe when that happens I'll put stock a post about the US being a police state.

moon I will make you a bet - I'll report you to the CIA/FBI/Mossad cabal that runs the world and the US police state - if they don't pick you up you must admit that you are wrong on the forum about the US being a police state,

if they do pick you up and you disappear; I'll just say you got banned again...

cjack

Moon,

Would you care to provide either a link to or the text of the court's decision?

That would help.


To set the record straight, I am against any unilateral US military action in Iraq.


While I agree that demonstrations against the "war" in Iraq need to happen on a large scale, I can certainly understand the NYPD's concern regarding large gatherings of people in Manhattan.


Can you say "target?"


I thought you could.


Keep in mind for a moment that the police, fire department, and NYC officials are responsible for the safety of every single person that would participate in this march.

I'm not saying that it was right for them to ban the march (you should provide more info, btw), but I can certainly understand their concern...if ANYTHING bad happens at this march, you can rest assured that the government/police/powers-that-be will be blamed for it, and probably sued.

If the demonstration gets out of hand, the police will be accused of employing "gestapo" tactics, regardless of the actions of the demonstrators.

If the demonstration is attacked by some wing-nut, the police will be accused of not providing enough security.



So how can the police balance the need for security with the right to peaceful assembly?

Malsi

This article from MSNBC is about the protests; there is a section about the NY protest being banned from approaching the UN building.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/872342.asp?0dm=-1APN

Zar

I think the U.S. is in danger of becoming a police state for sure. And you see many signs of this from the "protestor pens" to things like this that are at least questionable. It is true that the march is still on, just not on their planned route. But thus far, many protests have been thwarted in this way by re-routing or closing off the protestors, while flag-waving supporters have front-row seats. That isn't right no matter how you slice it, IMHO.

But does this mean the U.S. is a full-blown police state?

I say "not yet." When marches are outright banned, then we will know for sure, but of course, by then it will be harder to resist, which is why we would rather not let things go that far before raising complaints about it. The potential is surely there and we are teetering on the brink.

Malsi

There are all kinds of concerns with any march/demonstration- especially in a densely populated city like NY (where you also have a tremendous amount of pedestrian/auto traffic)

1. Crowd Safety (general issues like people getting trampled)
2. Disruption of Business and Residents near the protest
3. The crowd getting out of hand (remember Seattle) - even though many of the protesters may be peaceful you have all kinds of nuts who may come out of the woodwork to 'participate'.
4. Public Perception of the police if the crowd does get out of hand and the police have to control it (most of the time the protestors will turn around and blame the police for anything that goes wrong).
5. Concerns about security at 'target' buildings near the protest - (like the UN building). Someone could use the crowd as cover to pull some nutcase stunt like running onto the UN Bldg grounds and firing a pistol in the air (or detonating a bomb). Sure they could do it anytime; but how much more fun would it be to do it when you would cause a massive stampede of protestors?

The whole thing is very complicated and to just boil it down to NY becoming a police state without analyzing the situation......

How about joining the police force and having to handle security at one of these big marches?

When the US bans all protests/marches that disagree with US policy and 'political' prisoners (not ILLEGAL ALIENS) are detained for opposing US policy then you can say "Malsi, I told you so!"

Any march in NY is going to be able to get all of the media exposure it needs - it is not a huge deal to restrict the protestors from getting near the UN Building. They are not making them go to WoodStock for chistsakes!!

Buffman

(If this has been posted elsewhere, my apologies. This is the first PD topic I have read in quite some time.)


http://pbs.org/frontline/
(Available Thursday, February 20)

(Extract)
Frontline
"The War Behind Closed Doors"
Thursday, February 20, 2003
9 - 10:00 pm
Through interviews with well-placed sources in and outside of the administration, this program examines the hidden story of what is really driving the Bush administration to war with Iraq. The investigation asks whether the publicly reported reasons -- fear of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction or a desire to insure and protect America's access to oil -- are only masking the real reason for the war. (CC, Stereo)
(End extract)

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp

(Extract)
Commentary
Even in Wartime, Stealth and Democracy Do Not Mix
(WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2003) -- With troops amassing on the border of Iraq, we learn that for months the staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft has been secretly drafting the Domestic Security Act of 2003, another tectonic shift in the historic constitutional balance between security and liberty. Was the Bush Administration waiting for the bombs bursting in Baghdad to spring this latest, urgent, national security legislation on the American people and Congress, another drive-by mooting of our customary democratic discourse and deliberative processes? Given recent events, it is certainly not an unfair question to ask, writes Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity.>>
(End extract)

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtawe...L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

emphryio

NO, this is too much of a coincedence.

The lady from the FBI comes forward disclosing at the very least massive ineptness and "the administration" suddenly warns of an increased possibility of terrorism.

People start wondering if the "the administration" knew of the hijackings before hand and Rumsfield announces that through a joint FBI / CIA effort they caught Padilla in a plot to make a dirty bomb. They then declare him an enemy combatant so that he can't have a lawyer and can sit in a military prison till who knows when, so that people can't find out how trumped up the charges were.

The protests against this war before it even started are the most massive in history so a week before the greatest protests yet, the US once again suddenly discerns some increased possibility of terrorism. (Specific threats except in that they are completely generalized .) I strongly suspect protesters are going to have a very hard time tomorrow as a result.

It is obvious the government is lying. The "manufacturing of consent" is reaching unusually massive proportions.

Buffman

http://www.bushnews.com/

(Extract)
OFFICIALS ADMIT BUSH TERROR ALERT PARTLY BASED ON LIE "A key piece of the information leading to recent terror alerts was fabricated, according to two senior law enforcement officials in Washington and New York.The officials said that a claim made by a captured al Qaeda member that Washington, New York or Florida would be hit by a "dirty bomb" sometime this week had proven to be a product of his imagination....It was only after the threat level was elevated to orange � meaning high � last week, that the informant was subjected to a polygraph test by the FBI, officials told ABCNEWS. "This person did not pass," said Cannistraro. According to officials, the FBI and the CIA are pointing fingers at each other. An FBI spokesperson told ABCNEWS today he was "not familiar with the scenario," but did not think it was accurate." 02.14.03
abc |related stories
(End extract)

HaysooChreesto!

But if there's such a huge cover-up, wouldn't it be easier for the government to just have arrested some suspects and say they caught the guys who were planning this attack? It makes them look bad to have fallen for a lie and then stirred up everyone with warnings to buy duct tape and plastic.
No one likes to admit they've been duped, but the government admitted just that.

Do I trust the U.S. government 100%? Not even close, but most of this thread sounds like unreasoned paranoia.