Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- Frontline Gets Its Man: Lanny Breuer Leaves DOJ After Exposé
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why We Were Falsely Arrested
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Government crackdowns on journalists are a true threat to democracy. As the Republican National Convention meets in St. Paul, Minn., this week, police are systematically targeting journalists. I was arrested with my two colleagues, "Democracy Now!" producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, while reporting on the first day of the RNC. I have been wrongly charged with a misdemeanor. My co-workers, who were simply reporting, may be charged with felony riot.
The Democratic and Republican national conventions have become very expensive and protracted acts of political theater, essentially four-day-long advertisements for the major presidential candidates. Outside the fences, they have become major gatherings for grass-roots movements - for people to come, amidst the banners, bunting, flags and confetti, to express the rights enumerated in the Constitution's First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest.
It was Labor Day, and there was an anti-war march, with a huge turnout, with local families, students, veterans and people from around the country gathered to oppose the war. The protesters greatly outnumbered the Republican delegates.
There was a positive, festive feeling, coupled with a growing anxiety about the course that Hurricane Gustav was taking, and whether New Orleans would be devastated anew. Later in the day, there was a splinter march. The police-clad in full body armor, with helmets, face shields, batons and canisters of pepper spray-charged. They forced marchers, onlookers and working journalists into a nearby parking lot, then surrounded the people and began handcuffing them.
Nicole was videotaping. Her tape of her own violent arrest is chilling. Police in riot gear charged her, yelling, "Get down on your face." You hear her voice, clearly and repeatedly announcing "Press! Press! Where are we supposed to go?" She was trapped between parked cars. The camera drops to the pavement amidst Nicole's screams of pain. Her face was smashed into the pavement, and she was bleeding from the nose, with the heavy officer with a boot or knee on her back. Another officer was pulling on her leg. Sharif was thrown up against the wall and kicked in the chest, and he was bleeding from his arm.
I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.
Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.
The attack on and arrest of me and the "Democracy Now!" producers was not an isolated event. A video group called I-Witness Video was raided two days earlier. Another video documentary group, the Glass Bead Collective, was detained, with its computers and video cameras confiscated. On Wednesday, I-Witness Video was again raided, forced out of its office location. When I asked St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington how reporters are to operate in this atmosphere, he suggested, "By embedding reporters in our mobile field force."
On Monday night, hours after we were arrested, after much public outcry, Nicole, Sharif and I were released. That was our Labor Day. It's all in a day's work.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
284 Comments so far
Show AllI am outraged but not surprised by the shock troops employed to undermine democracy. I'm afraid the US is growing closer to a civil war between the well funded, anti-democratic forces of corporate America and the rest of the population which yearns for a real voice in government.
Though the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) was neccessary for white colonialists to enforce slavery, it was also placed in there in case a government by the people & for the people was undermined by an anti-egalitarian special interests. Though the omnipotent predatory corporation hadn't been born yet in the 18th Century, big business, arrogant aristocrats and radical, fringe religious groups always posed a serious threat to democracy.
While the events in Minnessota this past week highlight how fragile the so-called 'left' really is, it also shows how frightened the Neo-Cons are of the possibility of an enlightened public somewhere in the future. I salute you Amy Goodman for trying to bring truth to the people in such violent and turbulent times.
Only a blind optimist will think that the Second Amendment will "rescue" them from a totalitarian state.
Even if all US militia were to unite under a single flag, and everyone armed with a M16, they would be quickly decimated by a far superior US military which has not only superior weapons, but also infinitely better communications, GPS and remote sensing systems.
The only way a US militia could make an impact is if significant numbers of that force were prepared to die for their cause. I've not seen that kind of courage from any card-carrying NRA member, though they will often repeat (without any meaning) Heston's mantra.
As much as I detest Rumsfeld, he was spot-on when he said: "You go to war with the army you have — not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
"Even if all US militia were to unite under a single flag, and everyone armed with a M16, they would be quickly decimated by a far superior US military which has not only superior weapons, but also infinitely better communications, GPS and remote sensing systems"
Eight years in Iraq and this "far superior" US military force is reduced to buying off segments of the militant opposition.
Beginning in 1776 it was patriots with inferior weapons against the superpower of the age, with the mightiest war machine of the time...
So, yes, now the patriots could win again.
But the trouble with this alternative future is that the US could well end up a failed state, not unlike others where armed factions fight for primacy.
So now is the time to demand a halt to Gestapo-like tactics.
And to celebrate the courage of reporters willing to seek out and describe assaults on the First Amendment.
"Even if all US militia were to unite under a single flag, and everyone armed with a M16, they would be quickly decimated by a far superior US military which has not only superior weapons, but also infinitely better communications, GPS and remote sensing systems"
Eight years in Iraq and this "far superior" US military force is reduced to buying off segments of the militant opposition.
Beginning in 1776 it was patriots with inferior weapons against the superpower of the age, with the mightiest war machine of the time...
So, yes, now the patriots could win again.
But the trouble with this alternative future is that the US could well end up a failed state, not unlike others where armed factions fight for primacy.
So now is the time to demand a halt to Gestapo-like tactics.
And to celebrate the courage of reporters willing to seek out and describe assaults on the First Amendment.
fusion
My point is that Iraqis are willing to die to defend their country, culture and religion against the invaders.
I contend that today's Americans are not nearly as motivated. Should a fascist police state gain absolute control in the US, the country, culture and religion will be preserved (because these are the very elements being used to control the population), and so the majority of Americans would view restrictions placed on speech, public assembly as minor irritations.
How many here think that the boys and girls in OUR ARMED FORCES would gun down the people in their very own country?
Oops! They can always hire a “standing army” such a Black Water.
D’OH! …..I think Black Water may as well paint bulls-eyes on the back of their “black-shirts”.
As well, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, Canadian troops can and will be used to suppress domestic uprising in the US, and visa-versa. So it'll be Canadians shooting Americans and Americans shooting Canadians... fun fun.
Good point. That SPP agreement is piece of work. I can't see those colorless, gentle, reasonable Canadians (Eh?) coming down here to shoot us up. They were bullied into that agreement I'm sure, and with their aw shucks, eh? attitude, they likely thought our gov't was talking about shooting hockey pucks at us. (Even old women have a mean slapper up there.)
Canadians in a domestic uprising requiring US troops to go up there and shoot 'em up!? Never! Unless they cancel the hockey season again. That was a long winter for those guys and most of them were peed off, eh?
Yeah, except that the military spends more a year than would fit in the Grand Canyon. Where does it go? Vehicles in Iraq without the protection against the only thing insurgents could realistically use against our troops...!? What, they didn't send us a memo, CC to the UN, telling us what they intended to do??
I fully understand that you often have to go with what you have, and not dream about 'when I paint my masterpiece'. But all that loot and we weren't prepared to fight on a flat stretch of sand with 25 million subjugated people and an army that barely had old rifles that worked... I never understood that one.
I know it's off topic with your main point, but...
This saddens me that this type of injustice occurs in the 'land of the free'.
The current (and probably next) regime obviously has a plan for 'confrontation in the street'. We need a new plan which confronts them in their wallets, the only thing they seem to care about. Cameiros, I agree we need to inject a little fear of our own into the debate.
How about something simple, like closing bank accounts, and cashing paychecks instead of depositing them? That could inject a little fear if carried out on a large scale.
It doesn't sadden me. Now we see clearly what their philosophy is. We are indeed now in a police state. At least we see it clearly......................................................lizard
artemisjouney
Supposing that a journalist is a journalist embedded is like supposing that a jury can decide a case without hearing the facts.
Artemisjourney.....
I'm getting the feeling that our policemen have turned into corporate goons.
God Bless you Amy, good to see ya OK.
And since the NWO Neocon Fascists do come here and read. Bring it on! The American people need more brutality! I want America to see your hatred for the Constitution, and our LAWS. I want to see the Omega Point! And let me tell you freaks another thing, your USA Patriot Act is null and void, and that includes your freakin Homeland Stupidity Goon Squad.
Coffeelover,,,,,,
"Embedding" is now the operative word for gagging and blindfolding the press.
How many of us radicals have been waiting to see when the State was going to start arresting us and charging us with terrorism for protest and mild resistance. Those days are certainly here folks. If nothing else, we should be honest with ourselves and one another when it comes to opposing the state. The game has changed. Had this been 68, who really thinks that many of those arrested wouldnt be going to prison for a good chunk of their adult lives? Remember, the police and the state view those who actively resist as terrorists. Good strategy starts away from the summits, in communities, simply by talking to nieghbors and others in your community. Let them know who you are and what you stand for, and perhaps they will stand up with you/for you when the armed wing of the state puts the gun to your head. And buy a good pair of running shoes. Remember, ineffective civil disobedience and rock throwing arent worth your life. Your more important to everyone on the outside than in the dungeon or the grave. Its clear we are going to seriously need to rethink strategy in order to win this fight. Fight Facism or Die!
"I asked St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington how reporters are to operate in this atmosphere, he suggested, 'By embedding reporters in our mobile field force.'"
We saw how well this tactic worked for the Administration's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Embedded reports would detail how peaceful and sensitive the riot-police operated, how "anarchists" are truly abhorrent and an even greater threat to US security than terrorists, and that arrested folk were treated with dignity and a free barb-b-que in the temporary holding pens before being released with minimal disruption and a pat on the back.
At the period in our history where the co-opted mainstream press offers little or no truth, it is paramount that those who are willing to resist the fascist demands to "embed" and instead strive for a degree of independence that insures a free press, should be seen in the heroic light that they deserve.
Those who would condemn the press for conscientiously doing their job are mere bootlickers kneeling on a shredded Constitution. We see you for who you are.
With you and your colleagues in spirit Amy.
I think Little Brother expressed my own feelings quite well. I too am perplexed at the degree to which so many have passively embraced the authoritarian mentality that condones police abuse of power. These folks were members of the press, reporting on events. They were clearly identified by their press credentials, which were prominently displayed. First amendment protection of the press is essential to a functioning democracy. That is why freedom of the press is specifically articulated in the First Amendment.
My own feeling is that Democracy Now, perhaps the most popular outlet for progressive thought on television, was deliberately targetted to serve as a warning to other members of the press who were there to film, act as witnesses, or monitor in any way, the protests and the actions of the police. Indeed, even more chilling than the abuse of demonstaters and protesters is the silencing of the press to cover that dissent. These arrests are warning to all of us that dissent will not be tolerated.
Our communities have been transformed into malls. Citizens molded into commodified consumers. Journalism is now commercialism. Much of what was police work is now para-military security for the endowed. Schools and public arenas are corporatized. Our "elected" officials are the hand-picked puppets of shadowed rulers and countless boards of directors. So much of what was public is being sold off at bargain rates and privatized. Free speech is now zoned. And our constitution is now regarded as a rapidly fading piece of old, obsolete paper. Now, why would "thinking" people or people who are truly "alive" be upset. We are living among the attack of the democracy snatchers.
After watching all the videos I still can't be sure. I certainly saw some provocation from both sides.
Amy did cross the barrier knowing she wasn't supposed to, but where was she going? Did she see something she wanted to cover? Something happening? Was the response by the police to her crossing the line too quick and too physical? I think it was from what I could see.
And as suggested above, she did want to be arrested, isn't it pure stupidity to give her what she wants?
I think that since I can't determine what happened from looking at the videos for myself, I'll go with Amys report of how things happened. Beides their release without charge tells me the police made a mistake.
I can't take a few incidents where police got out of hand or where some of the protestors went overboard smashing windows wiyhout provocation and conclude all dissent in America is quashed and the press is silenced. Amy seems to be doing a good job of being less than silent if you ask me.
Ok... For one, you can't think of those paramilitary goons as "police officers", they're not. They are enforcers for the state. They view ANY dissent as terrorism.
Secondly, there's a lot of talk about "if the protesters would just obey the law"... well, that's bullshit. The system is horribly corrupt and the first amendment rights of the citizens being drastically curbed. Sometimes, when the system no longer serves the people, the people have to operate outside the system.
Finally, you can't say that "Amy wanted to get arrested"... no, she wanted to get her colleagues out of police custody. There is NO excuse for the violence perpetrated on protesters by police. They're nothing more than thugs, and the sooner you realize that, the better. Things have changed Thomas. The rules have changed. The police are much more aggressive and hostile to LEGAL dissent.
"They view ANY dissent as terrorism. "
You have know way of saying what their view is, all you can do is observe.
"Sometimes, when the system no longer serves the people, the people have to operate outside the system. "
The American Revolution comes to mind. Various individuals and groups acted outside the system, i.e., breaking English law. It is only by building political support that English law eventually gave way. Until then, some people paid a dear price for operating outside the system.
"Finally, you can't say that "Amy wanted to get arrested"... "
One certainly *can* say that, as a matter of expressing one's opinion. No one can say what was in her heart, one can only observe and judge.
"she wanted to get her colleagues out of police custody. "
That is your opinion. No one can say what was in her heart, one can only observe and judge.
"There is NO excuse for the violence perpetrated on protesters by police. "
That is, in part, a legal matter now.
"They're nothing more than thugs,"
One could say the same for those protesters observed breaking windows etc. That you are so willing to paint the cops with a broad brush as you do and apparently refuse to evaluate on a case by case basis speaks volumes.
You write an awful lot of rubbish! We understand your “opinions” but you can keep them under your little fascist peaked cap because they do not really contribute to furthering any understanding of why idiots like you “believe” in tyranny and force. Your arguments here and in previous posts on this subject centre on your “opinion”, which I don’t respect or have any time for. I for one will ignore your posts, treating you as a troll, and I sincerely suggest anyone who wants to discuss this subject seriously do the same.
Thank you for clarifying the spun up BS, blocking the discussion.
Yes, the one "good" thing about our pointy headed one, is that he's VERY prolific.
I can only guess that it must just be his pure GREED, as his paycheck is based upon word count, perhaps ?
Namaste
"...as his paycheck is based upon word count, perhaps ?"
You need to get out from under that.
No.
I'm open to considering that you get paid by the hour, or are salaried, or have an escalating rate based upon number of 'hits' on a particular thread that carries powerful truth to the people, that YOUR OWNERS cannot leave unassailed …
Namaste
"We understand your “opinions” but you can keep them under your little fascist peaked cap because they do not really contribute to furthering any understanding..."
Calling me a fascist while ignoring my arguments sure doesn't lead to understanding. Not up to it?
### _ I F _ ###
the _ o.n.l.y _ "understanding" that your carefully selective approach
___ leaves standing # # # _ is neoCON _ # # # ,
___ exactly how is that # # # _ u n d e r s t a n d i n g _ # # # ? ? ?
___ ( unless you of course want to stand under that fascist flag )
Namaste
jakenewton, your juvenile 2nd-year philosophy attempts at logical one-upmanship are cute, but not so good.
"They view ANY dissent as terrorism." It's totally obvious what 'elmysterio' meant here but I would say it differently. But your take on it is...what's the word...silly.
The Bush/Cheney crowd (no interest at all in 'terism' before 9/11) very obviously jumped on the panic, outrage, and vulnerability of the citizenry to launch 2 wars for geopolitical reasons centred around oil and gas, to make a huge power grab domestically, and to move towards a police state by circumventing, limiting, and out-and-out destroying parts of the Constitution. Habeas Corpus comes to mind...much more. (Do a bit of reading and thinking, I would suggest. You might want to Google PNAC)
All this done in the name of the supposedly terrible 'terror' boogeyman out there...hence the "war on terror". You, who pretend to be smart, must understand that terror is a crime, and a political tactic, and it's ridiculous that a country would send the troops against a criminal political tactic. Plus, you must know that Al-Qaida amounted to a few hundred criminals before the Bush/Cheney organizing drives for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that any given US resident has about as much chance of dying from a terrorist attack as from lightning. Intelligent people understand that...You?
So the Bush/Cheney bunch (and the Republican Party behind them) have used terrorism as the pretext to hugely expand the normal meaning of dissent, rioting, resisting arrest, interfering with a policemen in the line of duty, etc., etc.
Which brings us to elmysterio's comment "They view ANY dissent as terrorism." I would say instead that any behavior that threatens them and that they want to discourage has been arbitrarily declared to be criminal, with anti-terrorism police work as the pretext. That anti-terrorism has been the pretext for a huge lurch to the right towards police-state control of dissent is more than obvious for anybody with the awareness and sufficient hard drive. If you don't get it, maybe you need more RAM. I also think your hard drive is about to seize; you might to back it up.
You said: "You have know way of saying what their view is, all you can do is observe". LOL. Work some extra shifts so you can sign up for more classes on Logic. Better still, get more RAM. (We'll ignore 'know' for 'no' and the general awkwardness of the statement.)
So...all we can do is observe, but we can't reach logical conclusions from our observations, and then act accordingly. Smoke is pouring out of your house and you can't reasonably reach the conclusion that you'd better call the fire dept. on the hoohaw...!? No? Ooookay.
You took exception with : "Finally, you can't say that "Amy wanted to get arrested..." If you were smart at all, and not just interested in pseudo-logical nit-picking, you'd know that meant that you have no evidence that leads logically to that conclusion. (You know, I'm getting sick and tired of having to teach you logic...!)
For people who follow Amy, she has no logical reason to get herself arrested. She's not a protester who can advance her cause by that kind of publicity. She's a journalist (very successful and high-profile with frankly much better things to do). Just think of the sequence of events. She got the call, and she left the inside of the hall to go outside to enquire into the arrests of her co-workers, people who work with her, if not for her. You and I would do the same thing, with adjustments for personal approach.
You wrote: "One certainly *can* say that, as a matter of expressing one's opinion. No one can say what was in her heart, one can only observe and judge." Now, buddy...that is sooo FIRST year philosophy, and beside the point. (You really want to drop the 'one': 'you' is so much less pompous and pretentious. I know... those profs who are stuck with 1st year philo seem to particularly like those sort of pseudo-Oxford affectations but it's so obviously an attempt to bolster a point that doesn't cut it...polishing a turd, really.)
In a debate, you shouldn't just veer off with your 'opinion'. There's plenty of evidence to work with here for a reasonable person to reach a logical conclusion. Again you should have understood (if you weren't so anal-literal with the language) that buddy meant that you don't have any evidence to reach that conclusion...and you know he's perfectly right. Hence the diversionary tactic of spewing your 'opinion' with much 'oneness'.
There is a wealth of information in the public sphere about Amy, and she details what happened (plenty of other articles also provide information, and there are those videos) so that a logical conclusion can be reached about her intentions. A convention like that is the high point of her year, and she had too much to do to just want to go to jail to make a point, bloodied at that. Not logical. Logical for 'protesters' to do that, but not her.
And you don't have to be a mind reader. I'm no mind reader, and neither are the millions of people who understood perfectly what Bush/Cheney intended in Iraq, regardless of what their lackeys and appologists (not you I hope!) might have said. It's totally ludicrous to try to claim that all we can do is observe, that we can't reach a logical conclusion. Remember the burning house example..? Mmm? The big 4 oil companies that Sadam kicked out are back in. Lots and lots of us had reached the logical conclusion that that was in fact the purpose of the invasion (other related issues also, but space limitations...)
The evidence was there (you need background, not just the latest from CNN) and millions reached the only possible logical conclusion and we were right. Too bad that you have no idea how good that feels because all you can do is observe. And opinionate. Must be lonely in there.
"(We'll ignore 'know' for 'no' and the general awkwardness of the statement.)"
This was by far the most awesome point made in your very long post. Brilliant.
"we can't reach logical conclusions from our observations, and then act accordingly."
You can about some things, but not about what is in someone's heart.
"Finally, you can't say that "Amy wanted to get arrested..." If you were smart at all, and not just interested in pseudo-logical nit-picking, you'd know that meant that you have no evidence that leads logically to that conclusion."
I *know* that. I was expressing an opinion, and I even declared I could be wrong.
"(You know, I'm getting sick and tired of having to teach you logic...!)"
You should confine your "lessons" to where logic would actually apply. You might also consider that in a discussion *specifically* about Goodman's arrest, you might not want to wander off into discussions about Bush or the so called war on terror, etc.
"In a debate, you shouldn't just veer off with your 'opinion'."
Where one opinion is based on facts and reasoning and another's is not?
"There's plenty of evidence to work with here for a reasonable person to reach a logical conclusion."
Agreed. The video evidence strongly supports that Goodman ignored repeated orders to move towards the sidewalk. After over 200 posts now, no one has even tried to contest this fact.
The police committing another crime
__ whilst in the commission of a first one ( 2nd 3rd … )
__ is interpreted rather poorly in the criminal justice system.
.
In fact, the crimes can be viewed as multiplicative, and proof of intention -- which
__ I suggest is reason enough for Amy to stand & confront implicitly for real justice
__ whilst courageously and endearingly of her responsibility their manager, too
__ and is quite predictive of the eventual unrelenting truthful result
Namaste
Duplicate
Oops! My bad, there was supposed to be a "if" before "Amy wanted to get arrested"
It was supposed to read " If Amy wanted to be arrested" The little "if" does make a difference doesn't it?
hahahahah----------------Lovely-----------DENIAL--------It's cute that you still believe----------hahahaha---------------------lizard
The police didn't make a mistake here. Don't get me wrong, anyone can be a cop and lots of yahoos are cops and security guards.
I do like law and order myself. Unfortunately, The police generally, are servants of power, not the people.
Regarding Amy's arrest, I haven't seen the videos. I've seen videos of the aftermath of police home invasions on kids who were going to peacefully protest. So I'll have to check for links. But it occurs to me that we aren't trying terribly hard to see this fully from all angles. If there was a rule that stated that requests for people like Amy to see the boss had to be met, you know very well that activists would take advantage of it. This may seem silly, but I paint the picture to make my point, rather than to suggest it could happen. Imagine a protest crowd much larger than the police line and you have such a rule in place. One activist after another says "Take me to your boss," whatever he or she's called. And the officer has to oblige. Then another protester arrives and makes the same request, pulling another officer/escort off the line. That continues until the line is gone.
I'm sure that the police have considered these things and have already considered such a comic scenario, but they would have looked at it much differently than we are. Is it possible for us to meet midway here? Can there not be some sort of orderly, reasonable way for the police in a such a situation to respond positively to the request for someone to see who's in charge?
If an Amy Goodman has to cross some line to get to the police to make that request, Perhaps the police, who, along with others, are always videotaping (What's the proper 'digital' term?) stuff can have a rule that allows that once provided that the crowd is in agreement with the choice of spokesperson? I don't know. What would they have to fear from that? There shouldn't be any good opportunities for abuse by any side in that. It just takes good intentions. It would be nice if the police were solely on the side of law and order, rather than the corporatocracy's law and order.
Thanks for your insightful post. Unfortunately, there are those here who refuse to consider the view of the police. The police are armed thugs, and that is that, end of discussion. The protesters are law abiding citizens, and that is that, end of discussion. Anyone even suggesting the possibilty of something else is a fascist, and that is that. Ironic, these tactics of attempting to squelch free speech and debate, coming from those who claim to be championing the same. Fortunately not everyone here is like that.
Insightful post? He just said "I haven't seen the videos."... Of course to you it is insightful, given your distain for logic and reason. Go read the Wall Street Journal. You clearly do not consider yourself a progressive or care about anything other than profit, greed, fetuses... or whatever else is on the 'conservative agenda'.
"He just said "I haven't seen the videos."... "
I wasn't refering to anything about the video. There was nothing in my comments to suggest that I was. There were other points made in his post if you had read past the first couple sentences.
"You clearly do not consider yourself a progressive "
That is quite true. I am a Liberal.
"care about anything other than profit, greed, fetuses... "
That was completely out of line, you haven't read anything by me on those topics.
I have great respect for Amy's courage and reporting but looking at this video objectively it's abundantly clear to me she was seeking to get arrested. Particularly at the point where the cop is saying move to the sidewalk, blah blah and she digs in her feet and tries to get around him, at that point he calls for arrest and they take her back. Again I admire what she does and glad she is okay but to say she was oblivious she would get arrested after pusing back against that cop underestimates her intelligence.
What an ignoramus. Goodman wasn't "trying to get arrested" and to assert as much totally misunderstands her motives in approaching these armed thugs. She had a right to demand of them why her colleagues were arrested and beaten. To ignore this is to have no screaming idea what a free press might even mean. Cjlov seems to think Amy was staging the whole thing just so she'd get attention, an expected perception from some stooge of the far right.
"Goodman wasn't "trying to get arrested" and to assert as much totally misunderstands her motives"
Not one of us can understand Goodman's motive at the time, that is in her own heart. All we can do is observe her actions and *guess* about her motivation.
"She had a right to demand of them why her colleagues were arrested and beaten."
That's correct. She had a right to demand why. But those particular cops were under no obligation to to indulge that demands at that particular moment. Goodman knows that I am sure, as an experienced journalist.
So what you're saying here Jake is that the police don't serve the people, they serve the state. So you're one who thinks that we shouldn't question authority? Or is it that we should question authority but if we do, we deserve police violence in return?
"So you're one who thinks that we shouldn't question authority?"
Funny you should think this, after reading that I affirmed Gooman's right to demand answers regarding her colleagues.
"Or is it that we should question authority but if we do, we deserve police violence in return?"
I'll repeat what I said since your reading comprehension is evidently poor: The particular cops she questioned were under no obligation to indulge Goodman's demands at that particular time and place. As for violence, I saw none in the video. In fact, it was Goodman who appeared beligerent, first refusing to go to the sidewalk and then seemingly trying to push her way past the cops.
what a creep, condoning & defending ILLEGAL police violence while attacking and arresting ( very public ) members of the press
… why bother talking with someone like this ?
Namaste
Because this is the essence of America. You have to talk to "them", they are America and it is America that has to change--------------lizard
I do talk with people interested in discussion, ( but very likely ) propaganda PSYOPS shills have no opinions of their own.
He has _ N O T H I N G _ really to offer to any us that we NEED to hear or read about, nor that I've any interest in reading -- in fact the subtle brainwashing is well avoided for those wanting to keep an open mind. If you ( or anyone else ) do have a need for someone to pick apart your progressive ideas -- please do go ahead and engage him.
He's just like a selective tool that sharpens neoCONs and dulls progressives
You might consider his long easily viewed record of having no opinions at all -- but always supporting the neoCON fascists implicitly -- by the progressive acid wash of his targeted responses ( a carefully constructed figure / ground reversal ).
Most on this forum avoid jousting with him, but his duplicity raises my antipathy. Many have gauged the 'angle of his dangle', and decided to no longer engage him -- once they've seen him w/o his fig leaf.
He's beyond a contrarian, as SIOUXROSE refers to him -- because he _v.e.r.y_ selectively argues only those positions that undercut progressive ideas -- and people supporting those ideas -- to raise self doubt and question known true facts.
What I mean is he has no egalitarian pursuit of truth, and cares only to dissolve those arguing progressively -- while avoiding any discussion of anything that would disfavor neoCONs or attacking equally flawed reasoning in the same thread that buttresses neoCONers.
I do not agree to an _ u s / t h e m _ dichotomy -- as even the worse people are still human -- and may actually think that they're doing the right thing.
Jake has tipped his hat often enough to me -- so that I do know the
____ dishonor of his metal, and the
____ lack of character in his caricature.
And no, one doesn't have to talk with anyone -- even the police during interrogation. You may feel that he has something to say, and I wouldn't wish to preclude that self discovery -- I'm just sharing what I've learned.
I've carefully observed and argued his "points & reasoning" in great detail -- perhaps a 500 times over a year ( and read many others ) -- and I seen only a mere glimpse of human concern perhaps 2 or 3 times.
The only plausible explanation is that
____ if he acts like a troll,
____ we might as well treat him like a troll.
Until we know how much he cares -- why should we care about him ?
Namaste
"He has _ N O T H I N G _ really to offer to any us that we NEED to hear or read about,"
Just one thing you NEED to hear about, is that the headline of this article is *wrong* given the facts of the incident that are supported by Goodman's video. That so many of you simply can't consider this point indicates so much more that you NEED to hear about.
Ya got nothing that I need,
___ not even schneeds ( Lorax ? )
Ya got everything wrong
__ about "this article is *wrong* "
Namaste