[Stryke 9]

You know, this isn't really news. They've been caging off the national convention for at least a century- doubly so ever since the police riot of '68. Man, we need to start that **** again. Quick, get me ten thousand hippies, some picket signs, and the most ****ed-up cops you can find!

[Rictor]

Hmmm, well, has it always been this blatant? I can't imagine how, though I'm reffering to the period since the end of the hippy movement.

What gets me is the submisiveness of the protestors. Even those who refuse to be caged will likely not make a stir. Wouldn't want to offend the police or even *gasp* the people they are protesting against. Yes, lets hold a silent protest, a block away, outside the line-of-sight of the convention. That will surely get the message acorss. Oh just wait until they see our signs, some of the things written on there are downright mean.

Lets see how far they can push this. Maybe next time, the "free speech zone" will be conveniently placed in the middle of the Nevada desert. You know, keep the unruly mob at bay and all that.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Is there any other kind of patriotism?

If you are so dense you can't see beyond that form of patriotism I suggest you refrain from involving yourself in any sort of political event.

Patriotism is the love for one's country. Not the need to defend one's government against everything and anything. Patriotism is the feeling one has to defend one's country from any threat, foreign and domestic. And one's own government can very well be a threat to the country itself and it's people.

Note how I stress 'country'.

Country != government.

 And blind patriotism doesn't make that distinction. That's also why it is just plain dangerous.

[Grey Wolf]

You know, it's rather funny about what caused the current political situation in the United States. The completely undemocratic state of affairs was caused by a reform that was designed to end a different undemocratic state of affairs. Specifically, the institutions of the Civil Service Exam. Deprived of the old way of getting elected (bribing your supporters with bureaucratic positions), now they were forced to go crawling to the special interests.

[Rictor]

Tiara, first of all, I agree that patriotism does not necessarily entail unconditional support for the government. For example, cheering for your country in football is benign patriotism. You get the idea.

But let me ask you this? If it comes down to a matter of welfare for your countrymen, though less deserving, or for foreigners, though more deserving, does patriotism come in the play there. For example, will you let 100 of "your people" die to save the lives of 1000 others. This is speaking purely hypothetically, since, unfortunately, most people don't even need to think twice in that situation.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm uncomfortable with the concept of loving a country, for the same reason that I'm uncomfortable with institutionalizing spirituality: It narrows perspective. I try to view all human beings in the same light, and from what I see, unflinching support for something as arbitrary as a country is contrary to that. A country is a social contract that we are entered into by birth; the need to take pride in something like that makes me uneasy.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Rictor
But let me ask you this? If it comes down to a matter of welfare for your countrymen, though less deserving, or for foreigners, though more deserving, does patriotism come in the play there. For example, will you let 100 of "your people" die to save the lives of 1000 others. This is speaking purely hypothetically, since, unfortunately, most people don't even need to think twice in that situation.

Saving other people != patriotism

[Rictor]

this keeps getting better and beter.

They took down an al-Jazeera banner (from a skybox paid by al-Jazeera, which had previously been approved), and replaced it with a sign saying "Strong for America". It is the only media banner that was taken down .
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FD55FF1-CD66-40BC-8453-C65D9CE709BE.htm

Looks like police are getting a bit nervous
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=CVN%20Security

Even an unattended baby stroller briefly became cause for alarm. Commuter rail service on the Framingham line was stopped for about an hour while hazardous materials teams boarded the train in Southboro, about 25 miles west of Boston, only to discover the stroller was empty.

[Ford Prefect]

Yeah people are a little uptight. I'm not sure what I think. I've seen much worse human rights violations on the part of the US government than this.

[ionia23]

Given the current state of affairs in the world today, I have no issues with the security measures taken for the DNC.

Besides, why protest it at all?

[Rictor]

Oh, and by this I take it that you think that the fencing off is for nothing but security purposes? C'mon, thats naive beyond belief. Its political, quite clearly. Or is it simply a coincidence that anyone who does not fully support Kerry and his policies gets to wait in the pen outside?

The event is little less than a photo-op. Clinton will be there, Gore too. Sharpton and Dean and Kerry and Edwards, all smiling under one roof, a happy family. Meanwhile, anyone who decides to hold the Dems accountable for what amounts to selling out their principals (or, at least what I quite foolishly and idealistically believe to have traditionally been their principals), well they're **** out of luck.

Don't even bring up security. You could make the case for any sizeable political event, at any time until the bogus War on Terror bull**** is over, which according to the government itself, could take a while, if it will ever be over.

So, essentially, that means no more protesting in any significant form, at any event worth protesting, ever. Its not up to you ionia, wise and all-knowing though you may be, to decide whether something is worth protesting. If I want to, I should be able to, simple as that.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
Oh, and by this I take it that you think that the fencing off is for nothing but security purposes? C'mon, thats naive beyond belief. Its political, quite clearly. Or is it simply a coincidence that anyone who does not fully support Kerry and his policies gets to wait in the pen outside?

People weren't prohibited from protesting, they were prohibited from grabbing Kerry's lapels and saying "What's wrong with you???".  These days, better safe than sorry.  Never underestimate mob mentality.  Just look at the WTO protests for example.  So yes, I do believe it's for no purpose other than security, otherwise they wouldn't have been permitted to protest at all.

I use the same argument for those who march outside of Planned Parenthood clinics.  Do you really think those people should have unlimited physical access to the people who are entering and exiting such facilities?  

So yes, I do believe it is for security, nothing more.

Originally posted by Rictor
The event is little less than a photo-op. Clinton will be there, Gore too. Sharpton and Dean and Kerry and Edwards, all smiling under one roof, a happy family. Meanwhile, anyone who decides to hold the Dems accountable for what amounts to selling out their principals (or, at least what I quite foolishly and idealistically believe to have traditionally been their principals), well they're **** out of luck.

Seems kind of a silly place to bring up accountability, the Convention that is.  Yelling and screaming about this and that to a group of persons who aren't there to listen to anyone but each other.  Protest, fine, but it will amount to nothing.  That's reality.

Originally posted by Rictor
Don't even bring up security. You could make the case for any sizeable political event, at any time until the bogus War on Terror bull**** is over, which according to the government itself, could take a while, if it will ever be over.

I already did earlier up.  The war on terror will never end, that's what war is.

Originally posted by Rictor
So, essentially, that means no more protesting in any significant form, at any event worth protesting, ever. Its not up to you ionia, wise and all-knowing though you may be, to decide whether something is worth protesting. If I want to, I should be able to, simple as that.

The right to protest isn't in any danger.  As previously stated, they could protest still.  and in response to this little nugget:

Originally posted by Rictor
Its not up to you ionia, wise and all-knowing though you may be, to decide whether something is worth protesting.

I quote myself as originally stated:

Originally posted by Ionia23
But, why protest it at all?

[/B]

I believe that is a question, not a condemnation.

[Ford Prefect]

Just look at the WTO protests for example.

The WTO protests teach us more about trigger-happiness than the mob mentality. The police fired randomly at protesters using rubber bullets, totally without provocation, and several people were damn near killed.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

The WTO protests teach us more about trigger-happiness than the mob mentality. The police fired randomly at protesters using rubber bullets, totally without provocation, and several people were damn near killed.

'tis true.  The mob mentality applies to the police too.  Same thing happened down here a few years back when the local college basketball team won the Final Four.  First major riot seen here since Vietnam.  Some kid down on the street got hit in the face by a beanbag bullet.  

Mobs don't always get violent, but when they do it's bad.

[vyper]

Look, freedom is something you cannot risk letting your grip of slip even for a second. Just now, they're fenced in and kept far away, how long before you can't report on them in the press because of the "disorder" it could cause. How long before you can't protest in public crowds of that size because it's "disorder". How long before you can't question the government in public because it's unpatriotic (almost there anyway)?

Read the orange text in my sig for the best warning ever written.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Rictor
Meanwhile, anyone who decides to hold the Dems accountable for what amounts to selling out their principals (or, at least what I quite foolishly and idealistically believe to have traditionally been their principals), well they're **** out of luck.

You expect them to have principles? Political parties in the United States have never had principles. Whenever one party ends up on top for a long period, they become conservative. Then, the other party becomes liberal in response, trying to steal voters. And by liberal, I do not mean the common definition of liberal, but rather the willingness to break the status quo with new ideas. By this definition, neither of the mainstream parties in the United States is anything other than die-hard conservative.

[Flipside]

Freedom isn't taken, it's handed back, one piece at a time.

To freely give up freedom is a strange thing to do, I must admit

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/free_speech_denied_protest_pens.html

Obviously biased, but a pretty good account nonetheless

Edit : Look at it this way, the only way on Earth you can have 'Free Speech Zones' is if they are in a non Free-Speech country, else without the polarity, they simply could not exist.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by vyper
Look, freedom is something you cannot risk letting your grip of slip even for a second. Just now, they're fenced in and kept far away, how long before you can't report on them in the press because of the "disorder" it could cause. How long before you can't protest in public crowds of that size because it's "disorder". How long before you can't question the government in public because it's unpatriotic (almost there anyway)?

Read the orange text in my sig for the best warning ever written.

A valid point, of course.  One that really can't be argued with.

Unfortunately, the same "not one shred" mentality is currently being used to justify the war on terror.

[Rictor]

first of all, the WTO protests (I'm assuming you mean Seattle) were for the most part non-violent. Out of the 40,000+ protestors who were there, less than 50 caused the actual damage, and from what I know it was largely property damage and not directed against people.

Secondly, this is not a case of preventing people from physically mauling Kerry. Look, the first thing you need to realize is that this is America. People, unfortunately, don't do that ****. They hold a banner and sign a petition which in the end amount to **** all.

Secondly, there is a difference between protecting Kerry and the other atendees, and isolating the protestors like this. They're out of view of the Fleet, with a construction yard between them, under a bridge, surrounded by razor wire, conrete, mesh fencing and armed National Guardsmen. Why would the simple "police line seperating protestors" not suffice? The point here is not that they far away to protect Kerry, they are out of sight, and out of mind. Simply don't ackowledge that any dissent exists, and for all intent (read: national media) it doesn't.

I agree with you, protesting doesn't accomplish ****. 10 million people marching last February couldn't stop the war, so whats a few  pissed Dems going to do? But the right to protest is essential to a democratic system. If you've got several thousand, or even several million, people who want your head on a platter, maybe that indicates that you're doing something wrong, no?

So, let me say it again. For as long as the War on Terrorism continues, which is for years and years, any effective (and note the word effective) demostrations can be killed off simply by crying "security", as if a politician's photo-op is suddenly more important than freedom os speech and assembly. So, wherever a politician of any importance goes, or whenever an event of any importance is held, security will be the first priority, which means that protestors can just piss right off, is that it?

The reason Kerry didn't ban the protests altogether is a) becuase he can't b) because it would send a very bad image, even more so than now and c) its unneccesary.

Thankfuilly, most people seem to be ignoring the free speech zone (how Orwellian), other than a group of Palestinian protesors who think the image of them as seen through the fence of razor wire is especially appropriate.

[Grey Wolf]

Rictor, you realize that Kerry wasn't the one who set up the convention, don't you? The ones setting up the convention, IIRC, would be Terry McAucliffe and the governor of New Mexico.