Freedom of Assembly Has Died

[Just_another_day_at_work]

BTW I don't know how the hell is Syria represent a threat for us, but Panetta says they will do anything to protect us from Syria including a probable preemptive attack.

 

[moreluck]

BTW I don't know how the hell is Syria represent a threat for us, but Panetta says they will do anything to protect us from Syria including a probable preemptive attack.

Panetta....isn't that some kind of Italian ham....I gotta go ask Giada.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Panetta....isn't that some kind of Italian ham....I gotta go ask Giada.

Thank you for staying on topic and adding to the thread.

 

[moreluck]

Panetta....isn't that some kind of Italian ham....I gotta go ask Giada.

It was a more polite way of saying Panetta is an inept jerk.........just a pile of meat with no brains!!
Freedom of having a thought has died too!!

 

[brett636]

All things are debatable. The effectuality of merely debating "legislative actions" based on false pretenses made by unaccountable individuals with contrary self-interests to your own is itself highly debatable.




So let's ad up the cost of policing, emergency services and publicly funded and completely overpriced cleanup. Then subtract the cost of policing, emergency services and publicly funded cleanup that would have been necessary regardless, for the mentally ill and chemically dependent homeless that gravitated to some of the camps. Then subtract the completely unnecessary police overtime and other ridiculous budget expenses justified by certain public officials. Then calculate what portion of that sum that will come from your personal taxes. That's the price for which you'll sell your constitutional rights. You're a pretty cheap date. Personally, I'm gonna hold out for a little more cash or maybe a shiny object or something.

I am not even talking total cost here, I am speaking on principle alone. I don't care if a locality had to spend one dollar more or $1 million more on the extra police protection. The fact of the matter is every town and city has only a certain number of police officers, and when you have a significant number of them assigned to be baby sitters to a bunch of societies biggest failures who are squatting on public land then you are doing a disservice to the tax paying members of that locality who are paying for that protection.

I am all for personal liberty and smaller government, but one of my key principles to that is the freedom or choices of one person cannot negatively affect another. Its not much of a stretch to say that the OWS protesters negatively affected the communities they coalesced in by denying the normal police protection those communities typically pay for.

 

[pickup]

US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law -- why no coverage?

Anyway, back to what was talked about in the first post. It looks like George Clooney is the first notable person to be affected by the law.

We know about his arrest while he was protesting at the Sudan Embassy . Was it just trespassing due to his crossing a police line? If so, why was he put in a van with the Secret Service Logo? As you might have seen in the link that Wkmac provided, the act that Congress passed(and geez, such agreement, only three nay sayers: all of which were Republicans including Ron Paul),deal with if the person , property or area is under Secret Service protection. If so, then this law can be used.

So did Clooney break this particular anti protest law or was he simply trespassing? The fact that he was put in a secret service van tells me that the former happened.

If you look at the pics in the link and scroll down , eventually you will was marched past regular city police vehicles and then put into a secret service van.

George Clooney arrested at Sudan protest: Actor released after being taken away in handcuffs | Mail Online

 

[wkmac]

‎"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he a establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine