Slashdot Mirror


In MN, Massive Police Raids On Suspected Protestors

X0563511 alerts us to events in Minneapolis and St. Paul in advance of the Republican convention (which has been put on hold because of Hurricane Gustav). Local police backed by the FBI raided a number of homes and public buildings and confiscated computers and other material. From Salon.com: "Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff's department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than 'fire code violations,' and early this morning, the Sheriff's department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying. Jane Hamsher and I were at two of those homes this morning — one which had just been raided and one which was in the process of being raided." Here is local reporting from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Aided by informants planted in protest groups, authorities raided at least six buildings across St. Paul and Minneapolis to stop an 'anarchist' plan to disrupt this week's Republican National Convention. From Friday night through Saturday afternoon, officers surrounded houses, broke down doors, handcuffed scores of people and confiscated suspected tools of civil disobedience ... A St. Paul City Council member described it as excessive, while activists, many of whom were detained and then released without charges, called it intimidation designed to quash free speech."

961 comments

  1. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FUCK THE POLICE!

    1. Re:Oblig. by nizo · · Score: 5, Informative

      If only it were the police; it looks like the FBI may be involved as well http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/31/raids/index.html

      For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this. This is utterly unacceptable.

    2. Re:Oblig. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this

      If you think that will actually happen, can I have some of what you are smoking?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Oblig. by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We've almost hit rock bottom. It feels like the last 8 years were just a litmus test to see how much corruption we as a nation would turn our heads to. The answer appears to be all of it.

    4. Re:Oblig. by techsoldaten · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No joke. When did South Central police tactics become apros po for college kids and uppity hippies pushing 60? Easy must be having a laugh right now.

      Something important to remember here is that the some of the groups being raided are the same ones who, in 2006, helped overturn over 400 bogus arrests where video directly conradicted sworn police testimony.

      It's the cameras, and the citizen journalists, and the people on the Internet who the police are afraid of. I don't presume to judge every John Law out there but this is really bad what they are doing in MN.

      Of course the networks pay it no heed :)

      M

    5. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DENVER DID THE SAME THING!!!

    6. Re:Oblig. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      No, fuck the taxi drivers of MN who choose not to give rides if there's booze in the car. Oh, wait: McCain's crew, like the aforementioned crew, wants to chose what you shoud be allowed to think. I think there's a pattern there.

    7. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's especially bad when you realize that this story is just more Republican bashing. Why? Because this is Standard Operating Procedure for police.

      Boston police arrest dozens before annual festival - in an effort to prevent disorder before some local festival, the Boston police arrested dozens of suspected trouble makers for the explicit purpose of keeping them in jail for the duration of the festival.

      Needless to say, the same type of thing happened before the DNC, too.

      So this is just more Republican bashing, in that the only reason it's news isn't that it happens, because it's routine, it's because it's happening for a Republican event.

      Note I'm not saying that it's OK because Democrats do it too - I'm saying that this type of thing happens all the time and almost no one bothers reporting it. It's wrong, no matter who does it, Republican or Democrat.

    8. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it didn't.

    9. Re:Oblig. by Bevilr · · Score: 1

      FUCK THE POLICE!

      Comin straight from the blue states

      Young libral got it bad cuz I'm politcal

      And not another sheep so police think

      They have the authority to arrest a (dissident but vocal) minority

    10. Re:Oblig. by Score+Whore · · Score: 0, Troll

      For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this. This is utterly unacceptable.

      Yeah! Who the fuck do the RNC think they are? Fucking think that the first amendment applies to them? Worthless losers. I mean for fuck sake! Thinking that they can get together and talk about politics and the upcoming presidential campaign. God damned turds! Stinking pigs! Interfering with out fucking right to go out and trash neighborhoods and businesses because they happen to be in the area where other people want to assemble and talk. The only people who deserve first amendment protection are us! We hang out in our communal houses and live the free life. The fucking proles who go to work everyday and try and build a life are just slaves. They have no right to talk. Their voices aren't entitled to protection. Just ours! And fuck the losers who think that they have the right to earn a living. They should have fucking thought harder before they signed those leases five years ago. They should have known the Republicans would eventually come along and hold a convention in this city and they should have chosen to go live somewhere else. This is our place. We are the only ones who have a right to speak. Do they think that they somehow are entitled to property? They should know that living a hard working life puts them below us. We are the only fucking ones who matter and everybody else, those people who act civilly, who work for the common good, who pay their taxes that build our infrastructure and provide society with good roads, electricity, clean water and the rule of law... those losers should just accept that they don't matter. That they don't count. That their desire to live a happy life isn't fucking relevant. The only opinions that matter are ours! The only lifestyle acceptable is our smash and grab, live in squalor, parasitic way of living.

    11. Re:Oblig. by mazarin5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't give him any, he's a mole!

      --
      Fnord.
    12. Re:Oblig. by blankinthefill · · Score: 1, Troll

      True story. I was felt better after the DNC (I live in Denver) when there were no major altercations. As a matter of fact, Obama staffers stopped an impending one between some vets and the police. Now we look at the Republican side and... not so good. I'm not saying that its the Republicans fault, but they shouldn't have let it happen, and they should be trying to stop it now if they didn't know (I would bet money they knew). Well, I was thinking I would be voting Obama, and McCain's VP choice further solidified that... and now, its pretty much 100%.

    13. Re:Oblig. by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      You are obviously a terrorist, you are going to be imprisoned without being charged and without access to a lawyer.

      Welcome to new America!

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    14. Re:Oblig. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is the best part of the Greenwald story:

      Here is the extraordinary blog item I linked to yesterday from Eileen Clancy, one of the founders of I-Witness Video -- a NYC-based video collective which is in St. Paul to document the policing of the protests around this week's Republican National Convention, just as they did at the 2004 GOP Convention in New York. Clancy wrote this as a plea for help, as the Police surrounded her house and (before they had a search warrant) told everyone inside that they'd be arrested if they exited the home:

      This is Eileen Clancy . . . The house where I-Witness Video is staying in St. Paul has been surrounded by police. We have locked all the doors. We have been told that if we leave we will be detained. One of our people who was caught outside is being detained in handcuffs in front of the house. The police say that they are waiting to get a search warrant. More than a dozen police are wielding firearms, including one St. Paul officer with a long gun, which someone told me is an M-16.
              We are suffering a preemptive video arrest. For those that don't know, I-Witness Video was remarkably successful in exposing police misconduct and outright perjury by police during the 2004 RNC. Out of 1800 arrests, at least 400 were overturned based solely on video evidence which contradicted sworn statements which were fabricated by police officers. It seems that the house arrest we are now under and the possible threat of the seizure of our computers and video cameras is a result of the 2004 success.
              We are asking the public to contact the office of St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman at 651-266-8510 to stop this house arrest, this gross intimidation by police officers, and the detention of media activists and reporters.

      That sounds like what it was: a cry for help from a hostage. Hours later, the Police finally obtained a search warrant -- for the wrong house, one adjacent to the house where they were being detained -- and nonetheless broke in, pointing guns, forced them to lay on the floor and handcuffed everyone inside (and handcuffed a National Lawyers Guild attorney outside). They searched the house, arrested nobody, and then left.

      Once Gustav gets here, I'm sure all of this will blow over.

    15. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that they don't want to give rides to people with dogs, even if the dogs are helper dogs.

    16. Re:Oblig. by mi · · Score: 0

      Oh, if only you, assholes, would restrict yourself to "free speech". But speech is not enough for you, attention-deprived cretins.

      You must also break glass, spray-paint other people's property, disrupt traffic and other aspects of life.

      Your pitiful causes would've been a joke to anyone familiar with what real oppression is, if it was not for your sociopathic behavior.

      Go ahead, type "FUCK POLICE" 1000 times, as if ordered by the school principal. Just don't put any graffiti on my wall, and you will not be "oppressed".

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    17. Re:Oblig. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't confuse a good rant with facts. No one wants to hear them anyway.

    18. Re:Oblig. by HUADPE · · Score: 1

      The FBI is a police organization. So, yeah, fuck them and whoever put them up to it.

      --
      This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    19. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a matter of fact, Obama staffers stopped an impending one between some vets and the police.

      [Citation Needed]

      Not saying it didn't happen, but I also don't like FUD when i see it.

    20. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is not new. Its not even just post 9/11. This is identical to how they handled the ISAG protests in 2000, right down to the invasion of the homes of suspected protesters.

    21. Re:Oblig. by liquidsin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      this is scarier because of your reaction. if there had been any physical altercation, we'd be hearing about police brutality and terrorism, and we'd be hearing it a lot. but because people (like yourself) are willing to let it get swept under the rug when it's "dirty hippies" getting their voices silenced, the fascists will just continue to erode your rights. not oppression indeed...

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    22. Re:Oblig. by conlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is utterly unacceptable.

      I agree and I've written to Obama/Biden headquarters (again) to let them know that we citizens are expecting them to give us back the Bill of Rights. Writing here http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/ to express our concerns should be more effective than all of us bemoaning the situation on /.

      If anyone knows of a site where the GOP candidates are also asking for comments (and having someone read them), please post it also.

    23. Re:Oblig. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's interesting... in an earlier post of yours you talk about how it's perfectly legal for people to take photos in a public place where there's no expectation of privacy.

      And now you post this. Do you realize that some of the people attacked (yes, attacked) by the authorities were NOT people planning protests, but rather people (and legal reps) planning merely to OBSERVE protests and videotape them to insure that people's rights are not violated? To make sure that the authorities don't commit crimes?

      But no, you applaud this, because you're an authoritarian fuckwit hypocrite who is happy to see the law violated and rights trammeled upon, as long as the victims are people you don't like.

      Actions like the police have done are eroding our civil rights - your civil rights. But you still have some. Stop now and think of those rights you still have. Now stop and realize, if you're capable of it, that the reason you HAVE those rights is because the people you detest - the liberals, the ACLU, the civil rights activists - fought for them. Fought for them in the streets and in the courts, against the attacks on them coming from people who think like you. People who are like you.

      The people you detest fight for your rights against the attacks of people like you.

      --
      This space available.
    24. Re:Oblig. by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      You can bet it was a higher-up in the GOP who bullied the sheriff and FBI into doing this. Looks like they never learned the lessons of the Vietnam War.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    25. Re:Oblig. by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      And yet there are still people willing to vote Republican. What the heck can they be thinking? Maybe civil rights violations can put these cops and officials under the jail!

    26. Re:Oblig. by CautionaryX · · Score: 1

      +1 to you good sir, I wish I had mods right now.

      Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. The problem comes in where protesters make a disruption at the event (usually during the middle of a speech). This seems to be an effort to stop that kind of activity.

    27. Re:Oblig. by EriDay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your citation does not mention the feds being involved.

      Denver police went to a house that had been rented by the protest group Unconventional Denver as a convergence center, and despite seeing no illegal activity, two protesters were arrested, with one reportedly slammed on his head during the arrest.

      Sorry no comparison.

    28. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we are at it. FUCK THE RIAA!

    29. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do red herrings taste good?

    30. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just because it's SOP that doesn't make it right.

    31. Re:Oblig. by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I really hate to break it to you but yes the state or your nation is generally bound to the competence or incompetence of your current administration. When crap like this occurs and they say nothing, then they are complicit. Of course not to throw all the blame upon the republican administration, although as the 'Administration' it is largely their responsibility but a share would also have to go to the US congress and Senate for failure to investigate these and similar abuses of justice.

      The catch with it all in the US system, is most of the egregious behaviour falls to the State Governor to ensure the principles of law and justice are adhered to within the state excluding of course the political involvement of the FBI which is of course a federal abuse.

      Of course your post has a clear political bias which manages to equate questionable arrests at public venues when people are attempting to express the political opinions, to pre-emptive raids in suburban neighbourhoods, complete with the blatant theft of computers and personal property (when the warrant is so clearly bull shit it is theft) added, to that the extreme danger of no knock, guns drawn warrants with trigger happy law enforcement with emphasis on force, represents to those communities and especially the victims of those raids (in this case they were definitely the victims and the police where clearly displaying criminal behaviour).

      So if Republican administrations says nothing about it and gives it the tacit approval, then, yes, they are quite content for the authorities to stomp all over the people's rights. By the same token if the Democrats say nothing or fail to initiate an investigation of these abusive in the proper venue, then they can be painted with the same brush and, to bring it all home, if the typical US citizens fails to do something about it, then you can bloody well expect at lot worse to happen, good luck.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    32. Re:Oblig. by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. Instead of blaming the Republicans, these widespread police state tactics should be blamed on whatever fuckwit party is currently running the oountry.

    33. Re:Oblig. by Miseph · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the first:

      "Officers from the gang and fugitive units, as well as several districts, hit three-deckers and apartment buildings all over the city, looking for people who had defaulted on warrants for crimes including shoplifting, rape of a child, and assault and battery with a deadly weapon."

      After a few years of violence marring what is otherwise a fun event, they decided to crack down on people who are committing actual crimes in order to lessen an annual spike in violent crime. That's nothing like arresting protesters in advance of a political event, not least because the people being arrested aren't protesters... and the event isn't at all political. While I appreciate your point, it isn't much helped by an example of police actually doing their jobs.

      Your second example was a bit better, but I think it's worth noting that the protesters in that story are all anti-war demonstrators and hardcore liberals. And it is difficult to begin a scathing report on police abuse with "To their credit, the Denver police showed restraint in managing some peaceful large-scale protests".

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    34. Re:Oblig. by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Remind me... Who was in office for the Branch Davidian thing? Don't blame the Republicans for being one-half of the bad effects of a root cause. You have to pull weeds up by the roots to save your garden.

    35. Re:Oblig. by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      FUCK that shit, cuz I ain't the one.
      Punk motherfucker with a badge and a gun.
      To be beaten, and thrown in jail.
      We can go toe-to-toe in the middle of a cell.

      Fuckin wit me cuz I'm a teenagah,
      With just a bita truth and an effigy.
      Searchin mah car, lookin fer da product.
      Thinkin every hippy is takin narcotucs!

    36. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the raids and property confiscation that bother me most. Of course, this pre-crime BS for protesting doesn't make me too proud either.

    37. Re:Oblig. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Your citation does not mention the feds being involved. Denver police went to a house that had been rented by the protest group Unconventional Denver as a convergence center, and despite seeing no illegal activity, two protesters were arrested, with one reportedly slammed on his head during the arrest. Sorry no comparison.

      The comparison is quite valid. If you check out the videos on Salon.com, you'll see that the groups involved were the Minneapolis police (in a supervisory role, it seems), and the County police.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    38. Re:Oblig. by moortak · · Score: 1

      so it is okay for you to protest what you see as injustice but not others?

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    39. Re:Oblig. by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First off people that pull of the gloves or at least threaten to should always be delt with in a manner that involves a punch in the teeth. That is what these groups do, and they got what they asked for.

      Where's your proof any of the protesters threatened anyone with violence?

      So what we had here was a bunch of people planning on making an ass of themselves by engaging in criminal/border line criminal behavior

      Where's your evidence?

      I grow weary of children who cry about how "bad" it's getting when they don't even know how bad it really was before they even came along.

      I lived through the '60s and '70s, through COINTELPRO, and through Wstergate. Did you or were you too young, not born yet?

      Falcon

    40. Re:Oblig. by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also belive that anyone willing to take away the rights of others, should be delt with harshly, whether they be the police or in this case protesters seeking to disrupt someone else's assembly.

      I've asked before but I'll ask again, where's your proof the protesters threatened anyone?

      Falcon

    41. Re:Oblig. by artson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the hell is a hard core liberal? Is it like being a hard core free trader? A hard core choco-holic?

      --
      In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    42. Re:Oblig. by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Informative

      For the record, when I submitted this I hadn't gone more than a few paragraphs into the articles, and hadn't realized it was for a Republican event. This wasn't submitted for any sort of bashing, more of an "oh my god people need to know about this" submission.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    43. Re:Oblig. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

      There is no "may" on this. The FBI IS involved in this. They've already announced that they would be playing a key role in this.

      As somebody who was right in the middle of the 2004 RNC protests (one of my friends is still helping to process legal work from protesters who were unfairly arrested) I can guarantee that it will eventually come out that the Department of Homeland Security was coordinating this. Just from the reports that I've read so far, there were statements that officers in several kinds of uniform were involved. Eventually it will come out that at least one of those "officers" was actually a fed.
      Face it, folks. Under current circumstances, local police departments simply don't have a choice in cases like this. Just like routers at ISPs, local police departments are now required to cede authority to any number of federal authorities any time the feds say so. And just like ISPs, they're forbidden to tell us that they're acting under federal orders. Don't just get mad at Minneapolis-St. Paul police. Stay angry at the feds.
      On the other hand, the Minneapolis police have been using Safe Zone and related programs to suppress dissent for a long time now. I was hearing about the rampup when I was there in May and I've been hearing about more and more use of such programs to prevent free speech for a couple of months now.
      Minneapolis is under lockdown. If you walk into Arise! or Mayday, assume that you're being photographed, at the very least. This will still be true for a minimum of a few weeks after the RNC leaves town. And we have to assume that they will continue to declare any and everything weapons. Did you look at their pile of "evidence"? Except for the books and a few other things, all of that could be found in the average garage. And none of it is as dangerous as the contents of many a Republican pickup truck. How many "normal American" homes would be so empty of guns, right down to paintguns?

      This is what a police state looks like, folks. Chances are it'll get worse from here.

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    44. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say let's return to the good old days and beat them senseless...no sarcasm here. They deserve it.

    45. Re:Oblig. by philbophilbin · · Score: 1

      Let's see, didn't the Nazis do something like this to the Jews?

    46. Re:Oblig. by number11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These people were sick fucks. Their "tools of civil disobedience" were buckets of urine, flammable liquids, knives, etc. If you have any sympathy for them you are a sick fuck too.

      So can we assume that you yourself are not allowed to possess flammable liquids, knives, or urine?

      If you were allowed to light a BBQ that uses charcoal (not one of those yuppie gas grills), you'd know that it's mostly done with a flammable liquid.

      They had duct tape, too! Auto tires! Chicken wire! A slingshot! Maps! All seized by the vigilant Fearless Fosdicks. Sheer criminal masterminds, obviously. (Good thing it wasn't my house, because I've got all of those things and firearms, too!)

    47. Re:Oblig. by Eternal+Annoyance · · Score: 0, Troll

      Standard procedure?!?! For such a freedom loving country? Seems to me U.S. justice system has crossed the line.

      These are actions I expect from China or North Korea, not from the U.S.

      If the potential *cough* troublemakers *cough* have any sense, they file harasment complaints against the officers involved. They might be able to make a corruption case against higher-up officers. This should not be happening, and the fact that it is possible in the U.S. indicates that the justice system suffers from severe corruption and too little splitting of powers.

    48. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm hardly a fuckwit, I'm working on my Master's degree.

      I'd be willing to bet that it's not in English, because your command of it is very poor. A brief jaunt through your posting history reveals that you're not very intelligent and you're not a nerd. I'm not sure why you post here: I think you'd be happier on Digg.

    49. Re:Oblig. by Teilo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Tonight, I was coming home from a sign painting party for the Campaign for Liberty, here in the Twin Cities. I stopped at Walgreens and saw a police car in the parking lot. It said, "Federal Protective Services" "POLICE" "Department of Homeland Security". I had never heard of this organization before now. There is an article on them here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Protective_Service

      What I find chilling is the words "Federal" and "POLICE" put together. And this was not any typical FBI-style black unmarked job. It was a police car in every way. Lights and all.

      Yes. In eight short years, we have been transitioned into a police state. Mind you, there have been many attempts over the last several decades to in one way or another federalize the local police. These efforts have been resisted by grass roots organizations. Through the Patriot Act, this has now been accomplished. All local police are now arms of the Federal government. And we have bona-fide Federal Police running around.

      It Will Only Get Worse. And it does not matter one whit who wins in November. Either candidate will work to extend and consolidate federal power, and further restrict liberty.

      --
      Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
    50. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have 5 gallon buckets of Urine..how about you?

      You think you're being pretty smart but you are only showing yourself to be the same kind of dumbass they are. "Honest office, I wasn't going to do anything with the 55 gallons of piss."

      If you can't tell the difference between what they had and what you and I have in various drawers and in the garage, you're a moron.

      I'm thinking you can, and that makes you even more of a moron for your post.

    51. Re:Oblig. by stanjam · · Score: 1

      No, the news is that this is happening at all in our country. Routine? Since when? Why is it routine to suppress free speech? In both cases, war protesters were targeted. Granted it happens a LOT more at Republican functions. The Dem rally was full of protesters, many of whom were untouched. I saw representatives of the free pot brigade, even appearances by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. And yet the war protesters are routinely gathered up and arrested, even when there is no evidence of breaking laws. Now they are even admitting that they are infiltrating these groups? What are they doing that is so threatening or illegal? Routine my a..

      --
      Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
    52. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP is not spreading FUD. In fact, his claims is uplifting.

      What pitch-tinted glasses are you wearing that would make such a positive story be confused with FUD?

    53. Re:Oblig. by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      There is no "rock bottom". It's just what we tell ourselves that exists so we aren't scared of the fact that things can always get much much worse, no matter how bad they already are. This is probably made worse by the thought that we're in freefall.

    54. Re:Oblig. by OSUJoe · · Score: 1

      I know that illegal search and seizure, freedom of assembly and all that are pertinent here. If real, face bandana-wearing Anarchists are involved, well... I've seen some Anarchist "protests" in person that were very much not on the legal side of things. They involved destruction of public property and provoking police officers. If that's what these groups were meeting to plan, then there is some level of justification. Something in the realm of Conspiracy to Commit *insert felony here*.

    55. Re:Oblig. by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

      Boston police arrested dozens of suspected trouble makers for the explicit purpose of keeping them in jail for the duration of the festival.

      You're so full of shit. Please read the fucking article:

      looking for people who had defaulted on warrants for crimes including shoplifting, rape of a child, and assault and battery with a deadly weapon

      The better question is why these people hadn't been arrested before.

    56. Re:Oblig. by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy to Commit *insert felony here*

      So now we're arresting people on the assumption that they may commit a crime in the future. We don't know what they may have done, so we charge them with a "fire code violation".

      This sounds a lot like "Precrime" as seen in Minority Report

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    57. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAAAHHHH.... The Patriot act at it's finest....

    58. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounding more like China...

    59. Re:Oblig. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The similarities to early Nazi Germany is striking where the SA (Sturmabteilung) was used to help strike down on demonstrations and opposition. Today sections of FBI and DHS does the same work.

      And the Jews of today are Muslims. The similarities are striking even there, even though the reasons are different. The Jews was accused of being accumulating wealth at the cost of common people, Muslims are accused of being terrorists.

      And communication snooping, with today's Echelon was different, but also similar. Paper letters were steamed open and read and then re-sealed before reaching their destination. (I wonder where the SS got the lice and fleas from)

      The whole situation in the US is so weird, and even though the voting system still is there it has showed that it has flaws caused by the Diebold machines. To me it seems that Bush is more a figurehead and a sacrificial goat for those in power behind that actually controls the whole scene. This means that even if McCain is put in place the core will still be in place behind the front that the White House is.

      I'm just waiting for someone to dig up something really rotten about Obama or someone close to him to make sure that McCain gets the presidency.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    60. Re:Oblig. by Astro+Dr+Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The liberals only support some civil rights, and conservatives don't have all of them, either.

      For example, one of the few rights we still have (in some states) is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. And it provides another means of fighting for rights.

    61. Re:Oblig. by Slur · · Score: 1

      Which leads me to wonder... Can you still get the McCain schwag if you post anonymously?

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
    62. Re:Oblig. by foobsr · · Score: 1

      ... facts. No one wants to hear them anyway.

      And I thought it was about 'institutions' interested to hear 'facts' from you in order to keep/get you out of the loop.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    63. Re:Oblig. by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      If you really want the bill of rights back, better vote Libertarian. The democrats will make some vague motions in that direction, but they'll be too afraid of being labeled "soft on terror" to do anything serious about it.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    64. Re:Oblig. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      comin' straight from the underground

      for slashdot that's your mum's basement, but hell thats underground. right?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    65. Re:Oblig. by bhima · · Score: 1

      So if no one is bothering to report it, who are these news sites that you are linking to?

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    66. Re:Oblig. by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Of course the networks pay it no heed

      Of course not. The police are just doing their job by eliminating unauthorized competition from the video market. No story here, just move along...

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    67. Re:Oblig. by REALMAN · · Score: 1

      Just the New World Order in action. No problem here. Stay asleep. Everything will be A-OK.

      zzzzzzzzzzzzz

      --
      - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
    68. Re:Oblig. by MrZaius · · Score: 1

      http://www.startribune.com/video/27709809.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiacyKUU

      Might as well hear 'em out, first. There were a fair number of actual weapons and weapon-making materials seized. Not supporting the excess use of force in the raid, but perhaps the raid itself was warranted.

    69. Re:Oblig. by EriDay · · Score: 1

      Did you RTFA? http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/31/raids/index.html Even without reading, if you scroll to the bottom of the page, you can clearly see FBI on the jacket of one of the thugs.

    70. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't play this down. The stuff you quoted were the first stepping stones for what's happening now, and are pale in contrast. This is not about Democrats and Republicans as it is about Civil Rights. Starting a flamewar between the sides will not help anything except some trollish agenda that feasts upon sidetracked bickering. It wont take many more steps and you don't hear these stories anymore.

    71. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's especially bad when you realize that this story is just more Republican bashing. Why? Because this is Standard Operating Procedure for police.

      It has only recently become Standard Operating Procedure. Government, at all levels, has used "9-11" to increase their level of pro-active investigation of organized protests. After all, how do we _know_ none of those protesters intended to assassinate McCain? How bad would it look if the FBI knew about organized protests that later turned out to include blowing up the Xcel Center and they had done nothing?

      Did the RNC ask jack-booted police to run about quashing free speech? Probably not. Probably no more than the DNC asked law enforcement to do the same in Denver. In both cases, it's simple over-reaction on the part of city and law enforcement officials who just want to show their city at its finest and have a major national convention go off without a hitch.

      This is only Republican bashing if you blame the Republicans for the fear mongering that put us in the situation where raiding private homes and meeting rooms based on secret search warrants is Standard Operating Procedure.

    72. Re:Oblig. by Charcharodon · · Score: 0
      I lived through the '60s and '70s, through COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org], and through Wstergate [wikipedia.org]. Did you or were you too young, not born yet?

      So that makes you what about 60 years old?

      (Snort)...sure you are.

    73. Re:Oblig. by Charcharodon · · Score: 0
      I lived through the '60s and '70s, through COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org], and through Wstergate [wikipedia.org]. Did you or were you too young, not born yet?

      You are full of it. Your Yahoo profile shows you to be 44. You didn't live through those times any more than I did. You were eight years old at the end of COINTELPRO and 9 when WATERGATE happened.

      You big fraud. :)

    74. Re:Oblig. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if anyone else does it, you can still bash Republicans. All you are showing is that it is ALSO correct to bash Democrats. The real answer is to bash anyone in power in this country. The US is the most corrupt country in the world, so bash away. At least the dictatorships in the world aren't pretending to be about anything other than power. Here, the politicians are simply lying hypocrites, which makes them far, far worse.

      I already believe there is no reason to respect the Law in this country. Articles such as this simply reinforce this belief.

    75. Re:Oblig. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Look at telecom immunity. There is no way any officer or superior will suffer any repercussions. Bush will not allow it.

    76. Re:Oblig. by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      The report I read about this included the items seized by police - including caches of hatchets, machetes, molitov cocktails, and body amour.

      Um, look, any protesters using that kind of gear I want the FBI arresting, OK?

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    77. Re:Oblig. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what? They are involved in all of it, not just at the RNC. They messed with people at the DNC, too, documented here, and here, and here.

      The point being that they do this everywhere (with the FBI and other armed bureaucracies involved). So it's the same thing they always do. They aren't doing anything "special" for the RNC.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    78. Re:Oblig. by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      I don't have 5 gallon buckets of Urine..how about you?

      Then again, maybe the protesters didn't either. From the Star Tribune article:
      The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    79. Re: Oblig. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this. This is utterly unacceptable.

      We should have been up in arms the first time we heard the term "free speech zone".

      OTOH, this isn't entirely new. There's a long history of zealotic (is that a word?) law enforcement taking a "get tough" approach in the lead-up to political conventions.

      I think sometimes that mentality is what causes the following civil disturbances, too.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    80. Re:Oblig. by fugue · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of a line in Schindler's List (fantastic movie--you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you haven't seen it (that and Babylon 5)). I can't remember the context--perhaps a Jewish family is being forced to move from their posh house downtown to an all-Jewish community in another part of town. They are, of course, desolate to be leaving their beautiful home, and one of them says something along the lines of "We have really hit rock bottom. How could anything be worse than this?"

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    81. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, what he's probably smoking is technically illegal, even though it shouldn't be (although WHY it is illegal really OT)

    82. Re:Oblig. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      You are full of it. Your Yahoo profile shows you to be 44.

      Who's full of it, you? I haven't looked at my profile in a long tyme however even if I was 44 that means I was born in 1964 so I would have lived through more than half of the '60s and all of the'70s. However I am older than that.

      Falcon

    83. Re:Oblig. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      So that makes you what about 60 years old?

      Am I 60? Can you add and subtract? If I was born in 1960, which would mean I lived through the '60s and '70s seeing as I'm still alive I'd only be 48, 47 if I haven't had my birthday yet this year. Actually though all I recall is how much people were scared, I recall some of the fear when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.

      Falcon

    84. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so much against the police, they're just following orders... however, I really DO have a problem with law enforcement that cannot think for 1 second that "Hey, these folks DO have a constitutionally given RIGHT to protest peacefully vs. the current gov't."... No, not much against GOOD cops that is, as I am against the people issuing them the orders to go do this type of thing...

      I mean, "WTF!!!"

      HEY - this is NOT a communist nation, nor is it Nazi Germany... this IS (or @ least WAS, last time I checked), the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

      What's happened to her?

      Ordinarily, I don't get "too bent" about the stupidities of the Republican party, & the fiasco their "so-called leadership" has created... yea, "fight for freedom", but WHOSE FREEDOM?? Their FINANCIAL FREEDOM is more like it, & certainly not 'yours & mine' fellow "joe public's" out there like myself! Economic woes I have NO doubt this nation can recover from, by giving folks jobs, since folks will spend with good jobs (that give them beyond "hand to mouth" existences, & give them disposable income to "pay peter, who in turn pays paul" & we ALL pay taxes too)...

      (Good jobs... for, well, You know - the American 'working stiff' really, who isn't a "political crony/sycophant" who "kisses ass & knows his role/knows where his bread gets buttered" as that disgusting type often seems to state (& certainly DOES hold that view also - the kind of person that'd slit your throat for $1 dollar more to their paycheck a week @ YOUR expense)).

      This nation's FULL of rats & scumbags, & I think that most of us KNOW which political party they belong to (REPUBLICAN)!

      Guess what though - well, look @ the "bright-side" of this people: Less than 6 months more of this to go, & we're probably FREE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR DECADES TO COME is my guess (provided they don't 'electoral college rig the vote as per usual', like the last 2 'elections' before this upcoming one that is).

      It's making ME sick, don't know about you guys...

      I am no longer PROUD to be an American/U.S. Citizen anymore, after Bush & crew's debacles (yea, sure - blame it on the CIA, that they gave you "bad data", well clue/new news: IT'S UP TO YOU, THE ISSUERS OF ORDERS, TO DOUBLE-CKECK ANY DATA YOU GET, & not feed the U.S. public crap & try to find a fallguy (which is what they do usually, to cover up their TRUE motivations (Haliburton, Raytheon, & all other war profiteering "iron mongers" out there & their stockholders + political cronies)...

      APK

      P.S.=> I'm HOPING that Obama is a better man... because in no WAY, shape or form, will I ever vote republican (I never have & never most likely will)... those bums are ALL crooks that are just "frat boys" who "take 1 for the team" but NOT YOUR TEAM AS U.S. WORKING CLASS FOLKS (the majority of us), but rather their "private clique of sycophants & cronies + political appointees"... sad fact is? I think MOST of us realize this is the case, today... time for change! apk

    85. Re:Oblig. by number11 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you can't tell the difference between what they had and what you and I have in various drawers and in the garage, you're a moron.

      Here's the complete list of what was seized from one house. I've got a lot of those items. Maybe not so much propaganda, but in a house full of people planning a demonstration I'd say that's probably normal. I don't have any throwing knives, but I do have a couple of honking big scary knives, and the only "rife barrell"s I have (can't the department give these guys some remedial English lessons?) are attached to working firearms. No caltrops, but if the pictures I saw were the items in question, they wouldn't stop a horse, much less a bus. Caltrops are legal to possess, in any case.

      rife barrell (sic)
      2 foam padding
      2 jars metal staples from basement
      4 boxes lititure propaganda (sic)
      filter mask
      climing (sic) equipment
      2 boxes "sector packs and propaganda"
      $670 US currency
      rent receipt
      computer hard drive
      4 bike locks
      2 digital cameras
      helmet
      filter mask
      throwing knives
      cell phone
      goggles
      literature propaganda
      hatchet
      bolt cutter
      machete
      box propaganda
      spray paint
      3 cell phones
      I-Book laptop computer
      city maps
      propaganda books
      quote for print job from St. Paul Legal Ledger
      Dell computer
      thumb drive
      2 boxes literature propaganda
      2 walkie talkies
      cell phone
      mass storage device
      checkbook
      several 5 gal buckets
      2 Kryptonite bike locks
      hacksaw
      2 curtain rods
      multiple bicycle inner tubes
      13 cans paint
      6 vehicle tires
      37 caltrops
      bolt cutter
      hardware bolts, nails, screws
      silver cable
      pry bar
      propaganda banner
      can charcoal lighter
      denatured alcohol
      mineral spirits
      Community Emergency Response Team bag containing vest/helmet, batteries, pry bar, caution tape.

    86. Re:Oblig. by dpastern · · Score: 1

      It's interesting... in an earlier post of yours you talk about how it's perfectly legal for people to take photos in a public place where there's no expectation of privacy.

      And now you post this. Do you realize that some of the people attacked (yes, attacked) by the authorities were NOT people planning protests, but rather people (and legal reps) planning merely to OBSERVE protests and videotape them to insure that people's rights are not violated? To make sure that the authorities don't commit crimes?

      But no, you applaud this, because you're an authoritarian fuckwit hypocrite who is happy to see the law violated and rights trammeled upon, as long as the victims are people you don't like.

      Actions like the police have done are eroding our civil rights - your civil rights. But you still have some. Stop now and think of those rights you still have. Now stop and realize, if you're capable of it, that the reason you HAVE those rights is because the people you detest - the liberals, the ACLU, the civil rights activists - fought for them. Fought for them in the streets and in the courts, against the attacks on them coming from people who think like you. People who are like you.

      The people you detest fight for your rights against the attacks of people like you.

      You have it wrong - you don't have any rights unless the rich and powerful grant them to you.

      Let me tell you a story about the millions of pagans who were staked, burnt to a crisp, mutilated, murdered and so forth during the witch hunts - how many "christians" are ashamed of that? Was the Christian church ever legally hounded for these crimes? The church had the power, the minority suffered, it is the way human society has always operated.

      I'm certainly not saying it's right, but I am saying it is in our nature, and it is why we are a despicable species. We will never change, in hundreds of years (providing we survive that long), things will still be the same, probably worse.

      Some will say that I'm a pessimist, but in reality I'm a realist.

      Dave

      --
      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
    87. Re:Oblig. by tbannist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I doubt the U.S. is the most corrupt country in the world, according to some sources The U.S. is still (barely) in the top 20 least corrupt countries in the world.

      So while the U.S. is 20th, Bangladesh and Chad appear to be tied for last place at 158th.

      It should be noted that most Dictators prefer to appear legitimate, so even Dictators tend to be lying politicians. They just tend to kill anyone who points out that they aren't wearing any pants.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    88. Re:Oblig. by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      The ones running the show don't care which person wins the role as president... They control both parties... They have for some time as well. It's one of the reasons the two party system is now so entrenched... If you look back 80 years, we had as many as 8 influential parties in the US... Then right around the time of WW1 we polarized into two main parties and we've never gone back to having real contenders from third parties.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    89. Re:Oblig. by JonToycrafter · · Score: 1

      I was present at one of the houses being raided minutes before the raid. I can confirm from my colleagues in I-Witness Video that the FBI was involved - I saw a photo, but can't remember where. I also was present at the house about an hour before the raid, when an FBI agent knocked on the door for an ostensibly unrelated reason.

      More about all this at http://iwitnessvideo.info./ Sorry for replying so late - I've been busy, as you can see :)

  2. This is not how you stop riots... by Foofoobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... this is how you START them. This coming from someone from Seattle who lived on Capitol Hill during the WTO riots and had police overreact and create a situation when none existed.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... this is how you START them. This coming from someone from Seattle who lived on Capitol Hill during the WTO riots and had police overreact and create a situation when none existed.

      Yes, indeed. The "anarchist" morons from all over the country came to Seattle looking for a riot , the the equally brain-dead cops gave them a reason.

      "Anarchists" and Repugnitans, a match made in heaven.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Foofoobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well a couple of brain dead anarchists breaking windows and throwing bottles does not create a riot. Cops over reacting to those couple of people and treating the entire crowd as IF they are those couple of people and then driving them all into a residential neighborhood of people who have nothing to do with any of it DOES create a riot.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    3. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, Foo, I was there (I worked in downtown at the time), and it's not quite a you state. But there's really no point in arguing with someone who thinks "anarchists breaking windows and throwing bottles" is a minor issue.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I hope I hope I hope I HOPE to see some riots over this!!!

    5. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by nizo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whelan says his roommate, Erin Stalmaker, went out to talk to talk to the police. She asked the officers why they were there. The officers asked why people were running away from them. Erin reportedly told the officers that their drawn automatic weapons probably had something to do with it. She was detained after asking to see a warrant.

      http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/30/inside-an-rnc-raid/

      If this is true (being arrested after asking to see a warrant; no warrant being produced), this is insane. Heads must roll for this; our country absolutely depends on it.

    6. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      Clearly you need perspective. I suggest you visit any one of the hotspots in the world to see how bad it *can* get when left to fester/suppressed.

      People dont get out of bed to "break windows and throw bottles" unless they have something upsetting them.

    7. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      From an interview I watched earlier, the cops arrested a few, didn't book anybody, took a bunch of computers and diaries, and then produced their warrant on their way out.

      --
      Fnord.
    8. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      anarchists breaking windows and throwing bottles?

      Or double agents provoking a riot?

      --
      What?
    9. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ... this is how you START them. This coming from someone from Seattle who lived on Capitol Hill during the WTO riots and had police overreact and create a situation when none existed.

      Exactly. You may have heard about similar unrest at the APEC summit in Vancouver in 1997, where I was living at the time. The overreaction to protests by police is a distraction tactic.

      In Vancouver when Prime Minister Cretien first visited after APEC, again there were protests that turned violent. The police formed a "bike line" about 150' from the entrance to the hotel where Cretien was, meaning police with bicycles stood about 25' apart and ordered everyone not to pass them. Since it was not even remotely intimidating everyone marched right past them. But having done so, they can then be arrested and charged with disobeying a legal police order.

      So they had uninhibited access to the hotel front doors, which were recessed from the sidewalk and therefore private property. Once they were on private property, asked to leave, and they did not, they were then trespassing as well. As luck would have it, there just happened to be a legion of police with full riot gear in the hotel lobby to engage the protesters with batons and pepper spray.

      Either they were giving out gourmet donuts, or it was a deliberate tactic to entrap the protesters into committing crimes. They report to the press that the protesters had access to areas within vocal range of the Prime Minister, but forced their way through the "barricade" with the intent of engaging the Prime Minister violently, so reciprocal violence was justified.

      In the end, the violence upstages the protest, and nothing gets done about the human rights violations they were trying to bring to the public's attention. It's been a popular tactic in North America since the 1960's. Now it appears they're taking preemptive actions to make sure the protesters are going to put on a good show. Makes sense, given the level of apathy these days.

      I advise anyone involved in a protest to enlist the aid of people trained in conflict resolution (i.e. bar security staff) to quell any troublemakers among the protesters, and have a lawyer on site to act as a liaison with the police. You're probably going to need one eventually, and you know you'll have to deal with the police. Who deals with the police without a lawyer? Criminals, idiots, or both.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    10. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      I gotta agree with Khasim. I worked in downtown at the time. Not much happened until the cops overreacted. When you have that many people in one place, stuff like broken windows and thrown objects happen. You do your best to isolate the bad apples not isolate the entire MASS. You obviously have not lived in a large town during a mass event like this if you think one or two broken windows is a big deal for a couple thousand people protesting with a couple hundred riot police.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    11. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Shark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, if you'll remember the SPP meetings up in Canada, you'll also notice that it has been documented that the anarchists trying to start a riot sometimes *are* cops. Of course, they officially denied that. Check youtube for footage of these guys and tell me they behaved like peaceful demonstrators, rock in hand...

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    12. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Clearly you need perspective. I suggest you visit any one of the hotspots in the world to see how bad it *can* get when left to fester/suppressed.

      So because they have worse riots other places, it's OK to break windows of innocent local businesses in St. Paul and Seattle? What a load of bullshit.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    13. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by nizo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In a sane society, wouldn't the warrant be required before actually bashing down doors? Oh wait, I forgot that isn't necessary anymore. Obviously the new FBI powers aren't intended to only be used to protect us from terrorists, but from those damn protesters too.

    14. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Counterargument: France. If anything, the government there is far more responsive to the demands of its citizens than the United States. Yet the French could totally school us in rioteering. The standard response is that they, unlike us sober and hardworking American folk, are self-entitled and corrupted by secular values. My view is that it means that the people are far more in control of the government than vice versa. That is both the cause and the result of their rioting.

      Rioting has a strong cultural component, is all I'm saying.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    15. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I think he's just saying that RNC protesters are yet another in a long, long list of bogus "existential threats" that right-wingers have used to whittle away our civil rights. Nothing that the protesters could do, even in Dick Cheney's most fevered dreams, constitutes the sort of threat that requires the police state that so many Americans seem to desire.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    16. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      detain != arrest

    17. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see, SOME Republicans dropped bombs on defenseless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe we should round them all up and imprison them for life so it doesn't happen again. After all, we have to protect the public safety. Don't want any of those corporate murderers harming Americans, do we? Come to think of it, irony aside, might not be a bad idea....

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    18. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the people in power, the angry people(mob) are terrorists. This is why its a bad idea to give people in power to much power.

    19. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your country is lost. Might as well vote for McCain. No need to drag it out. Only thing gonna save you is retaking the Reality Studio. But that takes guts and you folks have been sittin' on your butts too long watchin' Judge Judy and American Idol and the great hypnosis machine where black is white and freedom is slavery and we spread democracy by murdering elected leaders.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    20. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by maxume · · Score: 1

      As a lazy, secular, drunk, I object to your characterization of me as hardworking and sober.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    21. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Foofoobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      exactly. People seeing only the broken window and not the lost civil rights are losing site of what is TRULY being lost. At the end of the day which would you rather have: a broken window by a rioter or a broken jaw by a cop for speaking your mind?

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    22. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by NaCh0 · · Score: 1

      So in response to that "bogus" threat, they plan on throwing bottles, breaking windows, and other acts of douchebaggery?

      That's great lefty logic for you.

    23. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Voline · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for everyone, but I was one of those anarchists (Boo!) who went to Seattle for N30 1999. My affinity group and I went there not "looking for a riot" but to blockade with our bodies the entrances to the venue for the World Trade Organization meetings to prevent the delegates from meeting there and conspiring against the public good.

      In an attempt to clear the streets, the cops began to use pepper-spray and tear gas. Only then did groups of protestors begin to smash things up. If you've never been tear gassed, I can tell you it engenders a strong desire to smash shit belonging to the gassers. If I didn't, it was only because I didn't come across what I felt was a suitable target.

      Later in the day the police pushed a large chunk of the demonstration out of downtown and up into the Capital Hill neighborhood where they continued to unleash their pepper spray, tear gas, and clubs indiscriminately on anyone on the sidewalks or even standing on the porches of their homes observing. They gave the good people of Capitol Hill an object lesson in what the police are all about in this society.

      Far from being brain-dead, I think that I and my fellow protestors were better informed and politically engaged than the public at large.

    24. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Quixote · · Score: 1
      Heads must roll for this; our country absolutely depends on it.

      LOL. . . . here's what will really happen: you and all the slashdotters will bitch and whine on this forum; and a few minutes later, move on to ... oooh, shiny new gadget at gizmodo ... oh look! Messiah Jobs has unveiled a _new_ Macbook ..... ...... ....... get my drift?

      We're all keyboard corporals here. No amount of bitching and whining will make any heads roll, unless you count the chess piece some nerds will knock over while posting indignant comments here.

      If you _really_ want to see heads roll, then start by putting your money where your mouth is. Donate money to politicians (like Kucinich) who are actually trying to make a difference. Money talks. Bullshit walks. So far, the bullshit seems to be winning.

    25. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clear that you have little understanding of the demographic underpinnings which have lead to the more recent french riots. Ironically, there is a cultural component, but it has nothing to do with your understanding of the word. From my sociological armchair, I would say the recent riots in France primarily result from either social-economic and cultural integration problems (Ã la Durkheim)...in other words, they are experiencing riots because some cultural relationships got fucked up at the same time as some economic ones, ultimately causing the primarily north African lower class to decide the only way to have anyone at all pay attention was to burn cars and riot. Of course this widens and deepens any socio-cultural rifts, and makes future rioting more likely. The French riots are probably more comparable to some of the riots in L.A., Detroit or Stonewall riots...essentially a cultural conflict between specific groups of identity becoming a physical one. It is not quite the same even as Chicago 68, where there were a number of disparate groups which had no long unified history as a monolithic identity. Just because your car won't start doesn't mean it's always vapor lock, and just because your city is rioting doesn't mean that the underlying causes are at all similar.

    26. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      I am not defending the cop's actions, but when making an argument it is in your interest to get your facts right and in this regard you have made a tragic error.

      You have confused the concepts of being detained and being arrested. They are very different beasts. This distinction is at least as old as Terry Stops (i.e. 1968), but IANAL so it might be much older. Even a traffic stop or a cop just asking someone questions to figure out what is going on in some cases might be considered being detained. So saying someone was detained really isn't saying much.

      Again I am not defending the cop's actions, but if you want people to take your position seriously you have to present a legally and factually correct argument.

    27. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has been played.

      "On Saturday afternoon, he displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine."

    28. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      On Wikileaks and other places, there is an FBI training pamphlet that they send to local police, for dealing with terrorists. On the bullet point list of how to know who is a terrorist, two points are asking about a warrant, and citing the constitution / bill of rights. Also on there and similar materials, is failing to provide name address and photo ID on request, asking to see a badge, asking for a badge number, or asking to speak to a superior. All of these classify you as an anti-authority radical with intents of "policing the police" and murdering cops.

      So its SOP. This woman asked to see a warrant. She also questioned the reason for their being there, also on the list, AND made snarky and antagonistic comments (The nerve, implying that drawn and free automatic rifles trained on them might make them uneasy!). She probably also cited the constitution. All warning signs the FBI gave the police prior to the raid, that she was a member of the "Common Law Movement" and a serious danger to the officers.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    29. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      Nope. its because people feel the need to riot and break windows its ok to break windows of innocent local business.

      Which do you think (based on my comments) I care about; some windows being replaced (property damage) or social ills finally being redressed with a minimum of violence (loss of human life)?

      Its a human thing...now if you happen to be in the property rights before human rights category, I'm sure I'm a heretic worth burning for suggesting otherwise.

    30. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      >My view is that it means that the people are far more in control of the government than vice versa. That is both the cause and the result of their rioting.

      >Rioting has a strong cultural component, is all I'm saying.

      Naw - its just that the gestapo tactics have escalated here and most Americans don't feel connected to the actions of their government anymore. Look at our voter turn-out rate.

      Americans *used* to enjoy civil liberties. Generations of immigration from authoritarian regimes (in Europe) have degraded the idea of "we the people" into "the government is always right".

      My school's motto (started by Benjamin Franklin) was leges sin moribus vanae - Laws without Morality are in Vain. Nowadays there is a whole class of citizens who think laws establish morality. There was a sense of personal responsiblity for our actions, and accountability at the top echelons of the government for their actions. Now most people don't even have a basis in what their civil rights are much less their civil *duties*.

    31. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your country is lost. Might as well vote for McCain. No need to drag it out.

      Nonsense. The reality is, McCain and Obama have very different policies on a number of significant issues, as do the Democratic and Republican parties in general. The outcome of this election will have a noticeable impact on the lives of millions of people.

      This "oh, it doesn't matter, they're all politicians, maaaaaan" attitude has infested Slashdot for too long. Knock it off.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    32. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link please? Not that I'm calling you out or anything, but I've tried searching Wikileaks for several of the phrases you've used, and turned up nothing of the sort.

    33. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either they were giving out gourmet donuts, or it was a deliberate tactic to entrap the protesters into committing crimes.

      That word, "entrap", does not mean what you think it means.

      The police didn't coerce or persuade any of those protesters to cross the bike line, or trespass on the hotel's property. In fact, as you said yourself, they told the protesters not to. The protesters decided to ignore the "good cops" and enter the hotel anyway, where they were met by the "bad cops". And you're telling us that's somehow the fault of the police? Why, because the cops outside weren't intimidating enough to stop people who were consciously willing to break the law anyway?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    34. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by DreadHarn · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. How many videos of police in riot gear do you see them beating someone with a camera or just standing and watching? They run up and start beating people. I know these are isolated events, but you can only justify it so long.

    35. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

      SOME Republicans dropped bombs on defenseless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe we should round them all up and imprison them for life so it doesn't happen again.

      Works for me ;->

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    36. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please take note that blocking entrances is not legal nor favorably viewed. The problems with protests and police aren't going to fix themselves overnight, but this is a small thing you can do to help.

    37. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      You are correct and explained exactly how riots like this get started.

      First the protestors ignored a lawful order from the police and then they trespassed on private property. If you don't listen to the police they only have one option left which is to use force. No one should be surprised when repeated warning by police are ignored someone gets hurt. Obviously the protestors weren't interested in anything the police had to say.

      The popular tactic by protestors since the 60's has been to ignore the police and get your ass kicked. You get more publicity that way and can rail against the fascists on TV. The problem is everyone else just thinks they are a bunch of dicks and causing trouble.

      These people marginalize themselves and wonder why the world doesn't listen to them. If they could present a coherent argument they might get more support.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    38. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a prescient game...
      ______________________
      Be Safe: Be Suspicious

      Terrorism has become an unfortunate fact of life not only in New York but the
      country at large, a direct assault on our communities and our way of life that
      leaves citizens struggling to find answers to difficult questions, not the least
      of which is "What can I do to prevent such atrocities? How can I help?"

      Quite simply, terrorism is successful because terrorists are able to pass
      unnoticed and unremarked upon - but they fail to count on the best intelligence
      network ever devised: the American people. How can you tell who might be a
      terrorist? Look for the following characteristics:

      * A stranger or foreigner.
      * Argumentative, especially about politics or philosophy.
      * Probing questions about your work, particularly high-tech.
      * Spends a greater than average amount of time on the Net.
      * Interests in chemistry, electronics, or computers.
      * Large numbers of mail-order deliveries.
      * Taking photographs of major landmarks.

      And those are just a few. If you're suspicious, then turn them in to your local
      law enforcement for a thorough background check. Better safe than sorry. You
      and your neighbors will sleep more securely knowing that you're watching each
      other's back.

    39. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by diggum · · Score: 1
      I was there, too. My building was surrounded most of the morning and early afternoon (Union Square.) My office looked directly down onto 6th Ave and into the thick of the events. The people who were PROTESTING were loud, but peaceful and reasonable. The morons throwing bottles and climbing on the Nike Store sign were few and should have been easy to handle considering the hundreds of officers.

      Rather than try to get the handful of people disrupting the peace, officers chose to unleash the pellets and tear gas.

      I walked through the area around 1pm. The hallways leading outside were thick with the smell. I saw a guy slumped against a wall, his face was completely red and swollen and a woman was washing it with water trying to help him out. The cops came up, yanked her by the arm, and kicked him over until he got up and stumbled away. They were not there to help someone who looked pretty seriously injured by their tactics. They were there to continue their fucking tactics.

      If a few bad apples really did ruin things in your opinion, then a WHOLE lot of bad cops did a significant amount of damage to their image as a whole that day.

    40. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      the cops outside weren't intimidating enough to stop people who were consciously willing to break the law anyway?

      The police knew the protesters were predisposed to ignore warnings and proceed where there were not adequate physical barricades to obstruct them. Look up the legal term "due diligence". The police did not exercise due diligence in preventing the protesters from committing crimes, nor warned them of the consequences. It was clearly a deliberate ploy to abuse their unfamiliarity with the law and advance their otherwise legal motivations into a criminal act.

      That is the very nature of entrapment, no different than manipulating the motivations of a lonely man into hiring a prostitute.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    41. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by WhiteHorse-The+Origi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, short of everyone getting out their rifles and grenade launchers, marching down to that police station and having it out with the cops, I doubt the country will ever change or improve. As long as everyone has Sunday night football, gas for their SUV, and McDonalds to feed their fat arses, nothing will change.

    42. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Since it was not even remotely intimidating everyone marched right past them. But having done so, they can then be arrested and charged with disobeying a legal police order."

      So the argument you are making, in that this was "entrapment", is basically that the police HAVE TO BE INTIMIDATING, or protesters are being entrapped into disobeying their orders. If the police IS intimidating however, they are being fascist and authoritarian.

      What is wrong with you fucking idiots?

    43. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by WhiteHorse-The+Origi · · Score: 1

      I think Obama has taken money from certain special interest groups that will prevent him from fulfilling all of his promises.

    44. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Well except these "anarchists" were peaceably assembled in a residence. Sounds like we're carrying the pre-emptive Bush doctrine down from invading Iraq to invading people's homes now.

      "The Chicago police are not here to create disorder, they are here to preserve disorder." - Mayor Daley (Sr.), 1968.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    45. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      When did it become illegal to own guns, knives, bows and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots or rocks. Also, your article contains a typo, it was 'bucket' of urine (from an apartment without a working toilet), and the other buckets were identified as unknown liquids and described as gray water for greener flushing by tenants.

      I own many of these items. I've also used a bucket of water to flush my toilet. Likewise, I've known myself to urinate in various containers when a bathroom or appropriately concealed tree was unavailable.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    46. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      So in response to that "bogus" threat, they plan on throwing bottles, breaking windows, and other acts of douchebaggery?

      Where's your evidence any of this has or will happen?

      Falcon

    47. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The police knew the protesters were predisposed to ignore warnings and proceed where there were not adequate physical barricades to obstruct them.

      Yes, so what? Is that supposed to be an excuse: "the police knew we like to break the law, so they should've just let us do it"?

      Look up the legal term "due diligence". The police did not exercise due diligence in preventing the protesters from committing crimes, nor warned them of the consequences.

      The police aren't obligated to prevent crime -- well, IANAC, so maybe they are up there, but I doubt it. They certainly don't owe it to potential criminals to stop them from getting themselves in trouble, though.

      As for the consequences... what exactly did the protesters think was going to happen when they ignored a warning from police, walked through a barricade, and trespassed on hotel property after being asked to leave? Perhaps they thought they could just shout "king me!" and the PM would have to accept their demands?

      That is the very nature of entrapment, no different than manipulating the motivations of a lonely man into hiring a prostitute.

      Sorry, but you're wrong. Entrapment is about convincing people to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't have committed.

      It's very different from manipulating someone into hiring a prostitute. No one was manipulated into crossing that barrier or staying on hotel property; in fact, they were told not to do it. That's about as far away from entrapment as you can get.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    48. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Well, for one thing, Obama is far less reliant on large donations than McCain is.

      But also, keep in mind that every special interest group gives money to one side or the other, or both. That doesn't mean anyone's obligated to do what they want.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    49. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Cops over reacting to those couple of people and treating the entire crowd as IF they are those couple of people [...] DOES create a riot.

      I don't know beans about what happened in Seattle, but I have seen cops do exactly this to crowds celebrating sports championships.

      Both times, I was in big happy peaceful crowds. There were probably a few idiots up to no good, but the general mood was jubilant. But the cops kept getting edgier and pushier, until they brought out the tear gas.

      I only saw my piece of it, naturally, but it seemed easily avoidable to me.

    50. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up (no, he is not I). This is the basis for every argument against terrorism-based legislation: the government has the ability to label anyone a terrorist at will, making any anti-terrorism legislation a weapon to use against anyone they wish.

      Then again, I'd think the slashdot community already knows this. Maybe this will give sensible people finally a bat strong enough to awaken the apathists.

    51. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Get a couple thousand people together and go sit in a park somewhere with banners, megaphones and other ways of attracting attention. Make sure to tip the press. Sit there and tell anyone who will listen you're not leaving till an official with the power to do so has promised to investigate this matter.

      Passive resistance still works, and so long as there's lots of free press around the authorities really can't do all that much about it.

      Lose the press, lose your freedom.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    52. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by rho · · Score: 1

      The outcome of every election has a notable impact on millions of people.

      If you believe that if one person gets elected that the country will go to shit, but if the other one wins there will be gumdrops and rainbows, you're deluded. Americans directly elect 537 people in Washington D.C. There are 3,000,000 federal employees and untold lobbyists and media. Your vote isn't going to change much.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    53. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by wellingj · · Score: 1

      On their way out? As if it wasn't fishy enough... This wasn't a drug raid. They need to show it up front unless the want to incite trouble. Law enforcement should know better than to flaunt their power.

    54. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is true (being arrested after asking to see a warrant; no warrant being produced), this is insane. Heads must roll for this; our country absolutely depends on it.

      You're a bit late- by 40 or so years. The US has been slowly but steadily turning into a police state for at least 40 years. It's these tiny increments, spread over long time, that most people don't seem to notice. Once in a while there's a story of police being given some kind of reprimand, but citizens live's are shredded, people brutalized, and sometimes killed, and the cops walk on to the next illegal raid. The system protects itself. Prosecutors and cops work together. Who will prosecute the criminal cops when the prosecutors often order the illegal raids? Who will prosecute the prosecutors? Court rarely convict them, so the gradual erosion of the citizen's freedom, and increasing police power continues. I'm normally an optimist, but more of a realist, and I see no fix. I'm looking for other countries to live in.

    55. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it's still your country?

    56. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The outcome of every election has a notable impact on millions of people.

      Yes, thanks for reinforcing my point. Elections matter.

      If you believe that if one person gets elected that the country will go to shit, but if the other one wins there will be gumdrops and rainbows, you're deluded.

      If you use those words, perhaps. But the outcome of an election can have a major impact on the direction the country takes and how well it does in the future. If 2000 had gone differently, for instance, we might not have spent $500 billion (and all our credibility) in Iraq, New Orleans might be in much better shape today.. hell, we might've even prevented the 9/11 attacks by following through on the intelligence we had.

      Americans directly elect 537 people in Washington D.C. There are 3,000,000 federal employees and untold lobbyists and media. Your vote isn't going to change much.

      A single vote rarely changes much, that's true. But the outcome of the election can change a lot. It's incorrect to draw any conclusions from the proportion of elected officials to other employees: the elected ones give the orders, the rest just carry them out. Even the lobbyists and media have to work within a framework built by elected officials.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    57. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by NaCh0 · · Score: 1

      Evidence right here:

      "ST. PAUL, Minn. -- A protest near the site of the Republican National Convention gave way to violence Monday as demonstrators attacked members of the Connecticut delegation, smashed windows, slashed car tires and threw bottles during an anti-war march, St. Paul police said."

      http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/01/anti-war-protest-at-gop-convention-turns-violent

    58. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      The police aren't obligated to prevent crime

      I needn't read your reply any further.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    59. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Evidence right here:

      That's not evidence those raided were planning anything. Fact is is they were different people, so try again.

      Falcon

    60. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by rho · · Score: 1

      A single vote rarely changes much, that's true. But the outcome of the election can change a lot. It's incorrect to draw any conclusions from the proportion of elected officials to other employees: the elected ones give the orders, the rest just carry them out. Even the lobbyists and media have to work within a framework built by elected officials.

      That's perhaps the most naive thing I've read in months.

      Yes, thanks for reinforcing my point. Elections matter.

      You missed the sarcasm, I guess. You're ascribing a lot of weight to this election, but seem to be woefully short on specifics. However your assertion that Gore would have prevented the flooding in New Orleans tells me how unserious you really are.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    61. Re:This is not how you stop riots... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      That's perhaps the most naive thing I've read in months.

      I'm sorry you have so little understanding of our political system that you think it's naive.

      You're ascribing a lot of weight to this election, but seem to be woefully short on specifics.

      If you want specifics, look at the candidates' web sites, or read some political blogs. You'd have to have lived under a rock all year to not be aware of the major issues, and the differences between the candidates are clear.

      However your assertion that Gore would have prevented the flooding in New Orleans tells me how unserious you really are.

      I made no such assertion. If you want to appear "serious", try responding to what I actually wrote, rather than the strawman argument you wish I had written instead.

      What I said was "New Orleans might be in much better shape today". You do recall what a disaster Bush's FEMA appointment turned out to be, don't you? Had 2000 gone differently, we might have had someone who was qualified to respond to a hurricane, rather than a horse lawyer who happened to be the president's buddy.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  3. Disruption != peaceably assembling by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 0, Troll

    The Constitution guarantees the right to peaceably assemble. It doesn't give free license to actively disrupt. If they were planning to do something illegal in this case, it's conspiracy.

    Push them out of MN. Pop some of them in the face. And move them into a nice safe cell for the time being.

    1. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by snl2587 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Were they planning on doing something illegal? I doubt it.

      In the house that had just been raided, those inside described how a team of roughly 25 officers had barged into their homes with masks and black swat gear, holding large semi-automatic rifles, and ordered them to lie on the floor, where they were handcuffed and ordered not to move. The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant. They were forced to remain on the floor for 45 minutes while the officers took away the laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the house. One of the individuals renting the house, an 18-year-old woman, was extremely shaken as she and others described how the officers were deliberately making intimidating statements such as "Do you have Terminator ready?" as they lay on the floor in handcuffs.

      I don't call this freedom.

    2. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Why do you doubt it? Because the one-sided article doesn't give enough details about the protestors' activities?

      Since the police had a warrant, some judge thought they had enough reasonable suspicion to go in and make these raids.

    3. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 1
      Yes! Absolutely!

      That's why we need a pre-crimes unit composed of psychics to nip stuff before it even buds!

    4. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all well and good, but how does violating fire codes disrupt a convention?

    5. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that there were no warrants.

    6. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant.

      Now, I have only the same information you do, probably less. But the quote above seems to indicate that they actually did have a search warrant.

    7. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by ejdmoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      From: http://www.nornc.org/

      This isn't a peaceful assembly if you ask me:

      "How we get there (the strategy):
      1. Start Strong - Throw all of our energy into the first day. We'll kick this off right and stretch the militarized police state out so far that it can no longer contain and suppress our voices and desires.

      2. Transportation Troubles - This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."

      This is the group that the Star article describes as having been arrested.

    8. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Let's say they did have a warrant. Why did they refuse?

      The police have a higher standard to hold to because they're the professionals. If they can't follow the law then they have no business enforcing it.

    9. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were no plans to 'disrupt' the convention, i.e. stop it from happening. Some people who were attacked in their homes may have intended to attend protests, as any free people should have the right to do so. The police clearly want to fight. Their superiors view protests as an opportunity to start fights and thus alienate the greater public against them as 'radicals'. Its another way of strengthening state power.

      We currently have two domestic military operations against private 'citizens' in the United States, New Orleans and St. Paul.

      But anyways, let the media circus show begin for all our voting television viewers!

    10. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      because your right to peaceful protest is more or less gone at this point. that's why. thank you for playing.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    11. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by NeoTron · · Score: 4, Informative

      It obviously doesn't.

      But consider this : in order for Those In Power to keep their power, they have to do a number of things;

      1) Subvert the Constitution - because it gets in the way of their plans.
      2) Create an atmosphere of Fear - this is accomplished in a number of ways;
              a) Create more criminals - this is done by adding lots of laws.
              b) Engineer situations where you can create enough world tension that eventually you can say you
                    are in a permanent state of "war".
      3) Dumb the people down - again, this can be accomplished in a number of ways;
              a) Culturally - dumb down the Press, TV
              b) Educationally - dumb down the system.

      What you have seen is the use of point 2)(a) in that basically They Can Get You For Anything if you do something
      to disrupt their plans.

      Welcome, America, to your Police State.

    12. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Transportation Troubles - This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."

      Nothing like annoying thousands of people who are late getting to work to convince them that your cause is just.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Transportation Troubles...

      Sounds like a Critical Mass rally.

    14. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Dogun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They might have refused because they didn't want the person on whom they were serving a warrant to call up their lawyer and have him hover over the officers' shoulder to make sure they didn't overstep the bounds of the warrant.

    15. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by j0nb0y · · Score: 1

      No, they are required by law to show the search warrant when asked.

      To me, their refusal clearly indicates that they didn't have one.

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    16. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is how we do it in a civilised country

      Note the quote from the police - Police said despite the massive traffic disruption on the motorway, the man had the right to protest peacefully.

      Bob

    17. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pigs and politicians are the enemy of freedom. When are you people going to get that through your heads.
      Cops are evil bastard murders with badges and they hope to kill someone. The oath they swore to defend is an outright lie. They are the enemy, when are you going to fight back?

    18. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by shma · · Score: 1

      From: http://www.nornc.org/

      This isn't a peaceful assembly if you ask me:

      "How we get there (the strategy): 1. Start Strong - Throw all of our energy into the first day. We'll kick this off right and stretch the militarized police state out so far that it can no longer contain and suppress our voices and desires.

      2. Transportation Troubles - This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."

      This is the group that the Star article describes as having been arrested.

      And what part of this advocates violence? This is a perfectly fair, if not particularly effective, way to protest.

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    19. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by F.Prefect · · Score: 1

      Look, whether they were planning on being colossal douchebags or not doesn't change the fact (if it is a fact) that they were raided without a hint of a warrant. People need to get it through their heads that the Constitution was implemented largely to constrain what government agencies can get away with. Whether it turns out ex post facto that the victims of government overreach were guilty is utterly irrelevant. If the police thought that there was probable cause they could have easily gotten a warrant and done things the right way. That they (apparently) didn't shows that civil liberties are well on their way to being nonexistent in this country, not only for the guilty, but also for those who might only appear to be guilty, or who might've pissed off the wrong person at the wrong time.

      --
      --Ford Prefect
    20. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      And people following the speed limit on highways are pulled over for *following the speed limit*.
      Disruption of everyday traffic is part of peaceful protest. Pulling you from your car and beating you senseless (er police?) is not. Not that I envy the police in such situations.

    21. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by TehZorroness · · Score: 1

      TFA seems to say the warrent was for the wrong address anyway.

    22. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They might have refused because they didn't want the person on whom they were serving a warrant to call up their lawyer and have him hover over the officers' shoulder to make sure they didn't overstep the bounds of the warrant.

      TOUGH SHIT.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    23. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Where does the constitution guarantee you a right not to be disrupted, or declare disruption of traffic as an act of violence?

      You think your wish not to be disrupted should trump the right given by the constitution to peaceful assembly and to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures?

    24. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Dachannien · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Were they planning on doing something illegal? I doubt it.

      So they were keeping buckets of urine on hand because they liked the smell?

    25. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a real shame that the courts tend to side with Police Officers. The moment they refused to show the warrant they were no longer lawfully preforming their duties, and thus are supposed to lose all protections given to the police. At that point, for failure to display the warrant it is reasonable to assume they have none, and are thus legally just people trespassing with drawn weapons. Use of lethal force against armed trespassers is completely legal in many areas.

      But $DIETY help the person who does attempt to legally use lethal force against the officers. If they survive the firefight (unlikely) then the courts will (as they inevitably do) completely ignore the actual law in the subsequent court case.

    26. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      You think your wish not to be disrupted should trump the right given by the constitution to peaceful assembly

      Keyword: peaceful assembly. Blocking traffic is just about the textbook definition of disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct, i.e.: disturbing the rights of your neighbors to be left the hell alone. It's called the public order and it's generally one of the things that society demands from the Government.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    27. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by pcameron41 · · Score: 1

      Really? I wonder how many people were inconvenienced by civil rights marches 60's. You must not be a big fan of local parades.

    28. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant.

      Now, I have only the same information you do, probably less. But the quote above seems to indicate that they actually did have a search warrant.

      You're a fucking idiot!

    29. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Were they planning on doing something illegal? I doubt it.

      Um... possibly. From the article: "On Saturday afternoon, he [Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher] displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine."

      Assuming the items were legitimately confiscated (and not planted), there's a fair indication that something illegal may have been planned. Buckets of urine aren't standard household equipment (and throwing it around would be a crime).

      Furthermore, large scale protests _do_ attract idiots who like to cause violence (on both sides). Raids to disrupt such activity would be legitimate police work.

      However, the scale of the raids, the nature in which they were conducted (e.g. refusing to show a warrant), and the fairly indiscriminate targeting is far too extreme. SWAT tactics aren't needed, and the only purpose is to intimidate people who intend to protest in a legal fashion.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    30. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by db32 · · Score: 1

      Yeah...I bet anyone who loses their house or family member because emergency services couldn't get there in time is going to be more than happy to join their cause. This is why I hold nothing but contempt for those idiot students that thought it would be a good idea to march out and lay down in the road to represent dead soldiers. I only wish that a firetruck would have run them all over.

      Protesting in a public area is not the same thing as being an irritating asshole looking for 15 minutes of fame. People that pull this kind of crap also are the ones that allow for justification of these kind of gestapo tactics. It is a bit harder to justify "we raided and arrested 1000 people that were going to show up in the park across the street" rather than "we raided and arressted 1000 people that were going to cause major disturbances and endager innocent people"

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    31. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by asylumx · · Score: 1

      I don't know a lot of people who have to go to work Monday (Labor day)... Mostly just retail.

    32. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1
      I don't know if the parent should be marked troll as he has a valid point. According to one of the linked articles:

      At least five suspected leaders of the RNC Welcoming Committee, a self-described anarchist group, were taken to the Hennepin County jail, and another was being sought, said Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher. On Saturday afternoon, he displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine. "We know these things were going to be used as weapons," Fletcher said, a charge protesters and their advocates vigorously disputed.

      It seems to me like they had some evidence that this protest might get violent. Granted, being in possession of some weapons shouldn't be used to incriminate these folks, but if the informants were worried about general public safety, then there might be a more logical reason to these strong-armed tactics besides the knee-jerk reaction that they are evil fascist cops trying to hold us down. From their perspective, risking a law suite might outweigh the risks of having someone injured or killed.

    33. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Transportation Troubles - This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."

      Protesting I'm fine with. Blockading downtown roads and bridges in the Twin Cities area, especially during rush hour while the rest of the workforce in the Twin Cities that actually has something better to do commutes back and forth to work? Deport them to Siberia. Seriously. There are enough transportation issues up here, especially with the interstate bridge still down.

      Oh, and I read the article. Editors on Slashdot are pandering to their target demographic again - disaffected impressionable young people that think the Democrats will cure everything. Dolts, every single one of you. The best part is that most of you will read that and (wrongly) assume I think the opposite is true.

    34. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is how it's done in the UK, where pointing out political bullshit in public is now an arrestable offence (meaning fingerprints and DNA-sample are recorded) under Blair's anti-terror legislation

    35. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From: http://www.nornc.org/

      This isn't a peaceful assembly if you ask me:

      "How we get there (the strategy):
      1. Start Strong - Throw all of our energy into the first day. We'll kick this off right and stretch the militarized police state out so far that it can no longer contain and suppress our voices and desires.

      2. Transportation Troubles - This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."

      This is the group that the Star article describes as having been arrested.

      I donnou looks to me their worries about getting stepped on by the police state were pretty well founded.

      Read the page, looks like standard activist gobbledygook* to me. Not even any overthrow government shit, and they sure weren't Anarchists Call them selves that but to be honest I don't think they know what it really means. Liberals would probably be more accurate but I don't think thats right either.

      *Holy shit, my spell checker actually had a correction for me on gobbledygook!

      Bottom line though, Theres a major convention for one of the two big political parties in the States, Free speech is first and foremost about political speech. If you can't stage a demonstration where a political party is setting up shop its pure bullshit. Even if the group planning their protest was marginal in a case like this you want to bend over backwards (as a government agency) to NOT get in the way of a protest, because this is basically textbook example of what free speech is for.

    36. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by hakova · · Score: 1

      I call it repression of freedom.

    37. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      This is a perfectly fair, if not particularly effective, way to protest

      Never mind how effective it is (it's not - pissing off the people you're trying to make listen to you rarely works). But fair? How is it fair for a group of idiots to block off the bridges and roads that their fellow taxpayers are paying to make available? How is it fair to do what you can to physically intefere with other peoples rights to free assembly as they hold a political event? They can stand there and chant all they want. But the group in question had stockpiled buckets of urine to throw on people, were planning on blocking streets in a way that would prevent emergency services from being able to respond, and so on. Are you actually asking about 'fair,' here?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    38. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      i think you hit the nail on the head.

      This groups track record and stated goals don't help their claims of innocence. easy to act tough in back rooms, but they fold when the big boys take notice. what pussies.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    39. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your mother dropped you on your head as a baby didn't she.

    40. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I doubt they even know what the law says...

      The mentality of police in such cases has always been to shoot first, ask questions later. In this case, they arrest first, then get the courts to either throw out the case or sue the municipality. Since they're not directly punished, they don't really care. And, even if the guy in charge is punished, Rove and friends will have a "position" ready in some dummy company and nice fat check in the guy's mailbox every month. It's the same with the shooting, just that the guys who pull the trigger tend to be able to get off scott free, and if not, they'll go into the bodyguarding or mercenary business afterwards anyway.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    41. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dick Cheney? Is that you? Or perhaps Palin-NRA baby-gurl? Any Fascist or Fascist Hired pen will do actually.

    42. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by shma · · Score: 1

      How is it fair for a group of idiots to block off the bridges and roads that their fellow taxpayers are paying to make available?

      It's called civil disobedience. When the choice is to break a law and protest where you can be heard or to be placed in a 'Free Speech Zone' miles from the convention where no one will see you, it is fair to choose the former. Don't like it? Demand that they be allowed to protest at the convention. Hell, they already have that right. They just aren't being allowed to exercise it.

      How is it fair to do what you can to physically interfere with other peoples rights to free assembly as they hold a political event?

      This is a story about police terrorizing a group planning to protest and you're claiming the PROTESTERS are interfering with the right to free assembly? The RNC have their convention hall and the power of the entire government behind them. Nothing any protest can do will stop them from getting their message across.

      ...were planning on blocking streets in a way that would prevent emergency services from being able to respond

      Show me where it says they were planning on blocking emergency service vehicles.

      When unjust laws are passed that make visible protesting illegal, then you break a law to protest. Again, if you're upset that they protest in the streets, then demand that they be given a proper place to voice their dissent at the convention.

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    43. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so *their* lives are unimportant, and it doesn't matter if *they* are inconvenienced so that some liberal asswipes can disrupt the Republican convention.

      Pardon me, ma'am - your slip is showing...

    44. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a peaceful assembly if you ask me

      All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

        -Thomas Jefferson

    45. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      Yea, but it's not constitutionally guaranteed. The other two are though. :-)

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
    46. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest might disagree. You, sir, do not deserve to be an American.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    47. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.
      -- First Amendment, US Constitution.

      The right to peaceably assemble...nothing in there says you get to bring along buckets of piss, poo or slingshots.

    48. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Hey, these are descendants of immigrants from places like Italy. Do you think they understand the damned constitution? They're still waiting for Jesus to return. Yeah I'm a troll. What are you gonna do about it, call the fucking Homeland Security?

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    49. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bucket (single, not buckets, the other buckets were just plain dirty water) of urine was confiscated from an apartment that didn't have working plumbing. Disgusting, but not proof of some kind of anarchist plot.

      The rest of the stuff, assuming it was found in small quantities, aren't particularly suspicious, certainly not enough to justify a police raid with automatic weapons drawn.

    50. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't say anything about violence, they are just talking organizing tactics using flowery language. I read that whole page, and while it certainly is rude, it does not look unstable.

    51. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1
      While I would consider such civil disobedience in this case to be incredibly stupid and counter-productive at the least and seriously damaging at the worst, you seem to be asserting that civil disobedience that causes inconvenience or which could be characterized as disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct is NEVER warranted.

      By that standard, there would still be Jim Crow. It was civil disobedience, sitting down in streets, blocking traffic, sitting unwanted in bus front seats and whites-only lunch counters that started the eventual end of the apartheid that existed in America. It was absolutely legitimate and warranted.

      Times now are different though, I think such kinds of protest these days are almost always completely ineffectual and actually damaging to the cause of those engaging in them.

      --
      This space available.
    52. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Or -- they didn't produce it until last because they didn't want any evidence destroyed before they could secure it. People with incriminating evidence do that.

    53. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct thing to do, from a political standpoint, is to let them start setting up blockades, videotape them, arrest them, publish the videos, and (optionally, if there's enough public outrage) prosecute the living hell out of them. Then, the protesters look like lunatics and the Republicans look like they have saintly patience. This PR victory would be well worth allowing the convention to be slightly disrupted--especially in contrast to the Democratic convention.

      Oh, but that assumes that the GOP is willing to lose a battle to win a war--not likely for those idiots.

    54. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      This of course, presumes the innocent anarchists are telling the truth. I believe the very term anarchist implies heavily they wouldn't be above lying.

    55. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Um, yes it is. That's why they used the word peaceful for the kind of assembly.

    56. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, because their toilet stopped working.

    57. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, is this article yet more FUD? On one hand, these types of pre-emptive arrests have been going on for years, so this Sound and Fury going on is justified. On the other hand, these guys were intending to disrupt, so the police actually did something right (!), to Slashdot's dismay.

      Maybe this is the real injustice: the rise of Yellow Journalism 2.0.

    58. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by crush · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because blockades are soooooooooo non-peaceful ;)

    59. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Um, no, "disturbing the peace" means causing or triggering violence or war; it doesn't mean "causing an inconvenience".

      Blocking traffic isn't disturbing the peace -- it is disturbing your morning commute, which isn't protected by the constitution.

    60. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by russotto · · Score: 1

      Assuming the items were legitimately confiscated (and not planted), there's a fair indication that something illegal may have been planned.

      Gun: Weapon protected under the second amendment. Common item found in many households.
      Bow and arrow: Weapon used for hunting and target practice. Probably protected under the second amendment. Common item found in many households
      Throwing knives: A slightly more unusual weapon, but still legal. Assuming they were "throwing" knives in the first place, and not paring knives or something.
      Flammable liquids: Found in almost EVERY household. Gasoline, turpentine, paint thinner, lighter fluid, etc.
      Paint: Incredibly common item. I have oil paint, acrylic paint, latex paint, spray paint, and several bottles of enamel paint.
      Rocks: You're kidding me, right? More common than paint.
      Slingshots: Another common item.
      Buckets of urine: Oops, turned out they lied about this one. Two contained dirty water used to flush toilets (damn environmentalists, always trying to conserve water), one, which did contain plumbing, from an apartment without working plumbing.

      In other words, no indication anything illegal may have been planned. Unless you think that an environmentalist who is also a weapons enthusiast is suspicious in itself.

      I

    61. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the group that the Star article describes as having been arrested.

      1) They weren't the only group arrested.

      2) There's no evidence (I've seen) that they were planning violence (transport disruption is not violence)

      3) You're an asshole. It's people like you who're ruining your country.

    62. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by ejdmoo · · Score: 1

      He didn't physically stand in front of and block traffic traffic.

    63. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by ejdmoo · · Score: 1

      The Constitution doesn't say "non-violent assembly," it says "peaceful assembly."

      Peace is not simply the absence of violence.

      To be sure, it's up to interpretation as to what a peaceful assembly is and is not. My interpretation is that blocking bridges in a major metropolitan area is not peaceful (even if it's not violent).

      From WP
      "Peace can be a state of harmony or the absence of hostility. "Peace" can also be a non-violent way of life. "Peace" is used to describe the end of a violent conflict. Peace can mean a state of quiet or tranquility -- an absence of disturbance or agitation. Peace can also describe a relationship between any people characterized by respect, justice, and goodwill. Peace can describe calmness, serenity, and silence. This latter understanding of peace can also pertain to an individual's sense of himself or herself, as to be "at peace" with one's own mind. peace can be also the living of the family calmly together without any quarrels."

    64. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by moortak · · Score: 1

      This of course, presumes the innocent anarchists are telling the truth. I believe the very term anarchist implies heavily they wouldn't be above lying.

      Hardly, many anarchists are fond of the truth. The fact that they do not believe in the legitimacy of government does not make them any less honest than any other group.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    65. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      So they were keeping buckets of urine on hand because they liked the smell?

      Another troll who hasn't even read the /. thread which debunks the urine in a bucket 'biggie'. Urine - How utterly dangerous! Urine should be classified as an WMD (or maybe it already is...).

    66. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      The police have a higher standard to hold to because they're the professionals.

      I disagree. They're the equivalent of the old German SS at best these days.

    67. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by bpkiwi · · Score: 1

      Hold on, you think that if you searched any random six suburban houses you wouldn't find at least one hunting rifle, lot of kitchen knives, lawnmower petrol, house paint, kids toys, and stones in the garden??

      What, do you live in a rubber walled room or something?

    68. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by bpkiwi · · Score: 1

      What weapons?? Take my house and just two of my friends. In our combined houses we have:
      Throwing knives - one friend is a black-belt, I think he made them himself.
      Gun - Other friend is a a pistol shooter.
      Bow and Arrows - I foolishly took up archery a year ago, slacked off after three months, still have the gear.
      Flammable liquids - we all have petrol cans
      Paint - yup, we all have that
      Slingshots - Friend's kids have one I bet
      Rocks - Seriously? I have a garden path full of them.

    69. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds peaceful to me. They're just intending to assemble en masse in a way that would be legal at any other time.

      Stretching the police thin is kind of essential to having any kind of presence. And from what I can see, they mean to do it simply by being there in large numbers and in a variety of locations--nothing non-peaceful about that.

    70. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

      The much cited "buckets of urine" were from the house being overcrowded, resulting in a shortage of bathrooms. Please look above where this is addressed.

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    71. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      This was a guy who got thrown out of the Labour conference for protesting (I don't agree that he should have been BTW) - not surprisingly the backlash against this in the national media was massive.

      What we're talking about here is to not even be able to voice dissent anywhere in the whole city where the party convention is happening, with people being arrested because they might be thinking about protesting. This is in a whole different league, and I suspect the US national media will barely touch on it.

      Bob

    72. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      Not directly, but the police stopped it for him (so that if he fell he wouldn't be killed).

      These guys definitely stop traffic though. You'll notice that although the police tend to break up the event, people don't get arrested and people certainly aren't arrested before that've started to protest.

      Bob

    73. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Why would the officer even want (let alone need) to go outside the bounds of the warrant? If the officer did do that any evidence they found would have been suppressed at trial.

      An officer searching for things outside the scope of the warrant is illegal.

    74. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      Oh, why not? I don't see any references to violence in the paragraph you've posted. *confused*

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    75. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so *their* lives are unimportant, and it doesn't matter if *they* are inconvenienced so that some liberal asswipes can disrupt the Republican convention.

      Holy shit, a Republican finally shows concern for the working man!

    76. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think his concern is more about getting those retail wage slaves to work on time. Can't spare 15 minutes of profit to show concern over the war. Citizens you must SPEND, SPEND, SPEND. It is the path to victory over the terrorists!

    77. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am aware that most of those items can be found in most American homes, which is why I mentioned that simple possession should not lead to investigation and arrest. My point was that the summary and commentaries are rather slanted to believing that the cops are evil and the arrested are the underdogs. Simply put, I'd like more information as to the context of the situation before casting blame. Maybe all those items were not in the closet but out, ordered and ready for use. There is some evidence to support that the use of force was rather excessive but there is also some evidence that it might not have been unjustified.

      :/

    78. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You really have a backwards view of things. A political convention is a private event held by the party that pays for it, organizes it, and invites the people it invites to participate in it. They make arrangements with a facility to host it. The city in which that facility sits usually gets a lot of money to cover the costs of the extra burden that the private entity in question is placing on them - just like they do when they host a sporting event, a trade show, etc.

      The gathering of an organization is protected by the First Amendment. You know - freedom to assemble? It's a big one. The protesters planning on blocking the streets - so as to prevent the peaceful assembly of the people going to the convention, and the supporting services required to make it safely happen - are specifically seeking to deny that group of people their right to assemble and talk.

      Hell, they already have that right.

      No, they have the right to have their own convention or assembly. And they can do exactly what the DNC and the RNC do when they make arrangements to have a large meeting and convention: they talk to the city hosting the event to make sure everyone knows what's going on. They don't (as the group in question here did) jot down their plans to specifically strain the local law enforcement and safety people "to the limit" so that they'd be unable to function. They don't prep large collections of urine-filled buckets with which they plan to assault other people.

      Civil disobedience? How about if someone in that group of people, meeeting in their urine-stocking event warehouse, had a heart attack, and a couple thousand people from the DNC or the RNC thought it was civilly disobedient to form a large crowd on every street that would allow EMTs to reach the address in question, and stop them? How about if they explicitly planned to do that in advance?

      Free speech zones? The idiots in question can have their OWN private event, just like the political parties do, and can expect exactly the same protection if they also make arrangements for it. Is your idea of civil discourse simply the right to use force and disruption to physically impede and shout down anyone that's gathering to have their own private event? If the RNC could have gathered enough people in Denver to physically block all of the streets leading to Obama's Temple On The Mount speech, and prevent the crowd from being able to attend that little bit of theater, would you consider that to be protected activity, or appropriate? Would it be simply "disobedient" to keep those 80,000 from crying in person at The One?

      Physically stopping a group from assembling and carrying on with a private event isn't civil disobedience. It's not debate. It's childish BS, and you know it. We're not talking about the government, here. It could have been a quarterly meeting of the Sierra Club, or a trade show. Should a group of rabid real estate developers be allowed to prevent them from having a meeting in a space they've rented? Prevent the city that hosts that venue from being able to ensure that emergency services can get to that venue? How is THAT free speech? It's the opposite. It's the angry group being too lazy to ever hold an event of their own that's in any way interesting or persuasive to some audience they want to reach, and settling instead for attempting to deny other people the right to do the same.

      Show me where it says they were planning on blocking emergency service vehicles

      They said they were planning on blocking the major roads and bridges in and out, and doing it simultaneously, specifically to tie up the police in those spots. I'm sorry you have trouble grasping how those two things relate. That explains a lot, actually. Even without their specific call to occupy emergency services and police on the first day, to strain those services to the limit, all you have to do is look at the simple consequences of shutting down streets. I know, it's an advanced concept.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    79. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blocking traffic isn't disturbing the peace -- it is disturbing your morning commute, which isn't protected by the constitution.

      Eh, in my state it would be disorderly conduct:

      A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
      5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    80. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by anyGould · · Score: 1
      In my mind, there's a simple solution (from the perspective of Honest Law Enforcement):

      If I have access to 25 heavily-armed police officers, could I not just wait politely outside? If they come out sans-weaponry, all is well. And if they come out with weaponry, then you have some cause to start knocking heads. But I would suspect that a minor amount of respect (read: hi, glad you're going to the rally, but I can't really let you wander downtown armed like that, hint hint) might go a long way.

      From the protester side, I'm amazed no-one's come up with a way to combine those USB "internet sticks" to a digital camcorder and stream live video (or at least live upload to somewhere more secure).

    81. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by stdarg · · Score: 1

      That's a disgusting law. All protest has the goal of annoying some portion of the public and all large-ish groups of people who stand close to one another are obstructing either vehicles or pedestrians.

    82. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      That's a disgusting law

      That depends on your perspective, now doesn't it? Disgusting from the vantage point of the protesters..... probably just fine and dandy from the perspective of someone who just wants to get to work or the grocery store in a reasonable amount of time.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    83. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The gathering of an organization is protected by the First Amendment. You know - freedom to assemble? It's a big one. The protesters planning on blocking the streets - so as to prevent the peaceful assembly of the people going to the convention, and the supporting services required to make it safely happen - are specifically seeking to deny that group of people their right to assemble and talk.

      You apparently don't understand the First Amendment. It's protection from interference from the government, not other private groups.

      The only interference from the government here is against the protesters. They have not DONE anything yet. Preventing them from assembling is unconstitutional, bottom line, doesn't matter how many laws and city ordinances say otherwise.

      And it doesn't matter if the cops think the protest will get violent. You have to wait until they start committing crimes before you can arrest them. That's why the cops need to have a presence DURING the protest, so that they can control it if it starts getting violent. If the cops are being overwhelmed, then quit bitching and get more cops. Borrow them from neighboring counties and states if you want. Shortage of manpower is not an excuse to start violating the Constitution!

      They don't prep large collections of urine-filled buckets with which they plan to assault other people.

      This shows you haven't read much about what's going on.

    84. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by stdarg · · Score: 1

      To be sure, it's up to interpretation as to what a peaceful assembly is and is not. My interpretation is that blocking bridges in a major metropolitan area is not peaceful (even if it's not violent).

      It seems like any large crowd is going to be blocking somebody. It makes sense to have your protest at chokepoints where you maximize your exposure. I don't think that they would have blockaded the bridges in the sense that they would sit there with machine guns not letting anybody get through.

    85. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From: http://www.nornc.org/

      This isn't a peaceful assembly if you ask me:

      So...these protestors have gathered together and were watching movies. Also, many apparently intend to participate in non-violent civil-disobedience.

      How is that not peaceful assembly?

      They were certainly peacefully assembled at the time of the raids. Even the worst of the actions they were "conspiring" to commit were a far cry from violence. Blocking traffic might make them a pain in the ass, but it's certainly not violent.

    86. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by stdarg · · Score: 1

      We're talking about stuff recovered from ALL of the police raids. If those items had all been in a single room, sure that's suspicious (I would still say not illegal though). But come on, pick a random set of 50 people from across the country and you'll probably get even more crap. Cops are as bad as the RIAA when it comes to hype, from the street value of drugs to calling shoes "dangerous weapons".

    87. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Certainly the cops themselves aren't evil but the people in charge need to be punished. This doesn't seem too different from the malicious prosecution in the Duke lacrosse case.

      I'd like to know what evidence you've heard of that suggests the use of force was justified. Not that there shouldn't have been search warrants and all that, but that RAIDS with automatic weapons were required, as if they were expecting these people to be sitting around heavily armed and ready to fight. These weren't the secret hideouts of terrorists and mafia bosses they were raiding, right? I think the whole thing is pretty fucking ridiculous.

    88. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, if you have solid information that someone is planning a murder, and a judge agrees, and issues a warrant... that's too much prior restraint for you, because despite the conspiracy to commit a crime, it hasn't happened yet? How about something simpler, like a theft? How about an assault? How about vandalism, say, of your car? Which crimes, in the planning stages, and with evidence of that planning in hand, do you consider only worth doing something about after the crime has been committed?

      If you are staging a political meeting of your own, and a group is allowed to shut down your event - and it cannot in practical terms me held again - you're OK with that? Your idea of freedom of assembly is that private parties should be left to screaming matches on the grounds that one of those parties has rented in order to hold the event? Other parties should be allowed to used force and disruption and assault - even when they've said in advance that that's exactly what they're going to do - to disrupt a one-time event, because nobody should ever prevent a crime in progress or one being carefully planned?

      So, if some nutjob group had a good plan to cut the power to the DNC's event just when Al Gore was going to talk, and you knew it, well... it's no crime until they actually do it, right? And since it's not the government doing it, there are no protections that can be invoked?

      Just wanted you to clarify your position: that no assembly should be free from any action that anyone wants to take to stop it. Say, if your sister or daughter was getting married, and someone thinks that it's in bad taste because she's marrying someone who doesn't look right... well, it's fine to trash that event? Fine, even if the police have evidence that someone's planning on throwing buckets of urine on the bride, to allow that to happen, since it's not assault until the assault actually occurs?

      You're obviously OK with the notion of a private assembly being fair game to anyone who wants to stop it, but how are you on the issue of criminal conspiracy? Some people don't care what happens to them, as long as they get to do the crime. That's true of tantrum-having idiot protesters, and for suicide bombers. When you know you've got either one of them sitting in a room passing each other notes about what they're about to do, stockpiling the wares they'll use to do it, and gearing up for the act... oh well, huh? No? Or is it only a bad thing if the private assembly being disrupted is one that you personally like?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    89. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by stdarg · · Score: 1

      No, I meant it's disgusting because of how it can be misapplied. Obviously it wasn't originally meant to target protesters and people assembling for political speech, because that's protected by the Constitution. But it's vague enough to be used for that purpose, as you noted.

    90. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by stdarg · · Score: 1

      So, if you have solid information that someone is planning a murder, and a judge agrees, and issues a warrant... that's too much prior restraint for you, because despite the conspiracy to commit a crime, it hasn't happened yet?

      If there were not a law against conspiracy to murder, then obviously you couldn't arrest a person for murder until they actually murdered someone. As it happens, there is a law against it, so your example would be fine. Do you see how that works? Bad analogy.

      Other parties should be allowed to used force and disruption and assault... because nobody should ever prevent a crime in progress or one being carefully planned?

      Wow, did you even read my post? Like the part where I said "That's why the cops need to have a presence DURING the protest, so that they can control it if it starts getting violent."

      Just wanted you to clarify your position: that no assembly should be free from any action that anyone wants to take to stop it. Say, if your sister or daughter was getting married, and someone thinks that it's in bad taste because she's marrying someone who doesn't look right... well, it's fine to trash that event?

      Bad analogy #2. How is a wedding, presumably taking place on private property like a church, equivalent to a political protest taking place in public?

    91. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to me that in this day and age (instant messaging, SMS, cell phones, blogs, etc) that it's going to take a lot more than disorderly conduct laws to stop people from assembling for political speech.

      As with most things a balance needs to be struck. Your right to freedom of expression shouldn't trump my right to be left the hell alone if that's what I desire. There are ways to protest without disrupting traffic and "blockading" (to use their word) airports.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    92. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Or -- they didn't produce it until last because they didn't want any evidence destroyed before they could secure it. People with incriminating evidence do that.

      I didn't know people could destroy evidence when they're forced to lie down with handcuffs on.

      Falcon

    93. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      How is a wedding, presumably taking place on private property like a church, equivalent to a political protest taking place in public?

      Because the event that protesters said they were planning to disrupt was also on private property. And access to that property via public streets is one of the things that the host city provides to the people using the facility. Obviously, the citizens of the city also have a more general interest in being able to actually use the streets that these twits were planning to make unavailable.

      Of course, there's more to it, isn't there? As of this evening, groups who showed up in St. Paul are - as they said they would doing things like smashing windows, slashing tires, starting fires, and otherwise trying to keep the emergency services people expensively busy. That's their idea of free speech. And the group that got raided? You know, the one with the warrant issued because of information demonstrating their plans to destroy property and whatnot? Weapons (including firearms) were siezed. The presense of those non-MN-residents with firearms, and written-down plans about "striking hard on the first day to keep the police strained to the limit" ... that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. To you, that's just warm and friendly free speech, I know.

      There ARE laws against assault, vandalism, property destruction, and the rest - as well as for conspiracy along any of those lines. What do you propose, exactly, when a group of people announces their plans to perform those acts on their arrival at someone else's event, and then meet in a place where the tools of that mayhem are being stored, along with their carefully jotted down To Do lists of exactly those sorts of actions? Heck, they're just freedom loving kids, right? Only smashed windows, arson, and slashed tires will help the world to understand the need for peace and for peaceful assembly, right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    94. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Keyword: peaceful assembly. Blocking traffic is just about the textbook definition of disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct, i.e.: disturbing the rights of your neighbors to be left the hell alone. It's called the public order and it's generally one of the things that society demands from the Government.

      It's also a pretty good definition of Civil Disobedience. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man she disturbed the public order as well.

      Falcon

    95. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Your right to freedom of expression shouldn't trump my right to be left the hell alone if that's what I desire.

      Except you only have the right to be left alone on your own property. In public you have no such right. Like some of those detained I am photographer and I have the right to take photos of anyone in a public venue. What I do not have the right to do is to then sale, for anything other than as an editorial or news item, any photo of a person who can be clearly identified without a consent form signed by them.

      Falcon

    96. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We NEED a police state, are you joking? We have more than enough jackasses doing whatever the fuck they want to as it is. Someone needs to smack these people upside the head with a 2 by 4 every so often. SORRY for you that you do not care for the enforcement of laws. If you think its so bad here, then move somewhere where they REALLY dont give a shit about what people do.

    97. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      the group in question had stockpiled buckets of urine to throw on people

      Making things up because you don't like the what or how they protest aren't you?

      Falcon

    98. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Except you only have the right to be left alone on your own property

      I'm pretty sure that I have the same right to use the roadways and other transportation infrastructure as these "protesters" who were planning on disrupting them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    99. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      Or -- they didn't produce it until last because they didn't want any evidence destroyed before they could secure it. People with incriminating evidence do that.

      Some do, and they can be charged with evidence tampering, but their guilt is no excuse to violate other suspects' legal rights. Burden of proof is always on the accusers. You "law & order" types need to remember that the body of law that the government is responsible to uphold includes "innocent until proven guilty."

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    100. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that I have the same right to use the roadways and other transportation infrastructure as these "protesters" who were planning on disrupting them.

      Actually, no. Their right to use it for peaceful assembly is protected by the constitution, while your right to use to commute to work isn't.
      Note that the constitution, when it guarantees a right to peaceful assembly, doesn't limit it to what doesn't cause inconvenience. If it causes you monetary damage, you have the right to take them to civil court to get just recompense. And if they break the peace, they can be charged with felony charges for causing harm to others. But short of that, they enjoy special protection, for good reasons.

      And even if there hadn't been such a special protection, your rights would not have trumped theirs.

    101. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      Since the police had a warrant, some judge thought they had enough reasonable suspicion to go in and make these raids.

      Wrong. The judge has the legal right to provide a certificate of reasonable suspicion, which the law calls a "search warrant." That document provides only limited rights to search and a judge's power does not allow him to provide anybody permission to conduct these raids, which were illegal, nor any other criminal abuses of search warrants by performing searches in a manner that exceeds the parameters of their warrant. A crime was committed when the warrant was illegally executed before it was presented. No judge has the power to make these raids legal.

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    102. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by Larry_The_Canary · · Score: 1

      What about what you quoted isn't peaceful? There are no violent words at all. A blockade is not violent, just annoying, and has been a staple tactic of demonstrators (union strikers do this all the time, it's called a picket line) for a long time.

      Maybe there's something else on the site you 'forgot' to mention.

    103. Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that I have the same right to use the roadways and other transportation infrastructure as these "protesters" who were planning on disrupting them.

      Sure you do but you don't have the right to be left alone while in public.

      Falcon

  4. In Soviet Russia. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Soviet Russia, you didn't have the right to peaceful assembly or to travel without showing your papers.

    I wish there was a joke I could make here.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, you COULD travel inside the USSR without showing papers. Train and airplane tickets were anonymous and you did not need to show ID to board a train or an airplane.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Also, private trade for profit is a crime.

      Yet, on The Berlin Wall came down and the Russian government revoked this law, there were people on the street corner selling clothes and food within hours of the announcement. 70+ years of suppression wasn't enough to crush the entrepreneurial instinct.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      welcome to the people's republic of america

    4. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      70+ years of suppression wasn't enough to crush the entrepreneurial instinct

      No, it takes a Western style bureaucracy and twenty different layers of Government to do that ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:In Soviet Russia. by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

      there were people on the street corner selling clothes and food within hours of the announcement.

      I expect they'd been doing it discretely the whole time. Just revoking the laws brought it out into the open

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    6. Re:In Soviet Russia. by ejdmoo · · Score: 0

      Peaceful assembly?

      From the org's website (http://www.nornc.org/):

      "How we get there (the strategy):
      1. Start Strong - Throw all of our energy into the first day. We'll kick this off right and stretch the militarized police state out so far that it can no longer contain and suppress our voices and desires.

      2. Transportation Troubles - This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."

      If these idiots *aren't* allowed to protest, perhaps there's a chance they won't ruin it for the peaceful protesters. One big problem in situations like this is that a small group ruins it for everyone else who was protesting peacefully.

    7. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, people abuse power over people.

      Not funny, but fitting.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Teun · · Score: 1
      But every apartment block had a person responsible for checking and registering who was staying there and with who, hotels did the same.

      Only with a permit you could legally stay in a different town.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    9. Re:In Soviet Russia. by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes.. that's what "suppression" means.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...ruin it for the peaceful protesters... Bullshit. If cause for arrest cannot be found for each person than arresting that person is a crime. "someone may commit a crime so lets round them all up" is the primary tactic of a police state.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    11. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it was more complicated. You could stay for about 3 months without needing any permits. In fact a lot of students used to travel during summer to all parts of the USSR without any problems.

      However, you needed a stay permit (it was called 'propiska') to permanently move to another city. Getting this permit was a quite different story.

      PS: I'm not saying that USSR was a very nice place overall. But there were good parts which I miss...

    12. Re:In Soviet Russia. by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing anything violent in your quotes. Perhaps you could point out what I'm missing?

      Bob

    13. Re:In Soviet Russia. by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you COULD travel inside the USSR without showing papers. Train and airplane tickets were anonymous and you did not need to show ID to board a train or an airplane.

      Damn hippie communists.

    14. Re:In Soviet Russia. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Western style bureaucracy isn't so bad (imagine if your 20 layers of government were *not* a joke):

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16Harford.html

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:In Soviet Russia. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Under capitalism, man exploits man.

      Under communism, it is just the opposite.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    16. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Rufty · · Score: 1

      There is a joke you can make: "America, land of the free"...

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    17. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Oh our system isn't nearly as bad as what you linked but the 20 layers isn't really a joke.

      You've got your Local (village/city & county) Government(s). Odds are that you'll need some sort of permit(s) from them to do business. Then you've got your State Government. Depending on what type of business you are running you are probably reporting to at least one but likely multiple state agencies. Taxes are the obvious example but there may be regulatory agencies and licensing agencies that you also have to work with to keep doing business.

      Then you get to the Federal Government. You may have some regulation on this level, depending on what type of business you are doing. You may even have regulation from multiple Federal agencies, all of which think their rules are the most important and think they are the sole agency regulating you. And what other Federal agencies can "crush the entrepreneurial instinct"? This being /., let's start with a discussion about our fucked up patent system. Or we could talk about things as absurd as childhood chemistry sets being dumbed down due to fears of terrorism.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:In Soviet Russia. by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      blockades aren't violent? what if i want to drive through one of their blockades. are they just going to let me through? wouldn't be much of a blockade is it was.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    19. Re:In Soviet Russia. by maxume · · Score: 1

      I am convinced enough that there are people that must, *must*, be told not to piss in the pool, so I can accept that a good chunk of that regulation isn't simply in the way. Certainly not all of it is beneficial, but lots of it is.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    20. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Well, it seems the way Putin is doing things, you might get your wish.

      Not that I thought the USSR was terribly impressive myself. I've always believed that Communism could be developed under Democracy with every persons full voice, along with a charter of Unassailable Rights. After all, Marx's definition of Communism was the direct control of the machines of production by the people.

      The way I thought it would ever have the possibility of working is under a meritocracy in which everybody is guaranteed a stable way of life... just not a comfortable way of life. One would work for the good of everybody (and oneself) to further themselves to more prosperity. To fix the problem with the ruling military class, one would have elections for military service ala the ancient Greeks. A lottery worked for them, in which everything from generalship to waterworks was chosen at random from the citizenship.

      Instead, we ended up with a country that thought a large military class with many very poor proles with a wafte of communistic ideas was communism. Even the 2nd biggest communist country like the taste of capitalism.

      --
    21. Re:In Soviet Russia. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's a sad day when Soviet Russia has better protections against civil rights than the USA.

      You'd expect a story like this to come out of China. Then again, cops in the US are pretty stupid... If only the official law enforcement departments could start attracting people with a little more intelligence and leave the dredges of society currently in law enforcement to stick with being rentals.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    22. Re:In Soviet Russia. by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nstead, we ended up with a country that thought a large military class with many very poor proles with a wafte of communistic ideas was communism.

      The "we" does not include the USSR. The abbreviation means "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and every child knew that they had socialism, not communism. There is a big difference.

      It is also important to understand that USSR had no "military class" and not a single soul in any way benefited from military manufacturing, very much unlike the USA.

    23. Re:In Soviet Russia. by tftp · · Score: 1

      You can't fight for your rights and at the same time expect convenience. Last time the USA had a civil war some people were even killed!

    24. Re:In Soviet Russia. by ya+really · · Score: 1

      PS: I'm not saying that USSR was a very nice place overall. But there were good parts which I miss...

      Care to elaborate?

    25. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Cheap travel (trains and airplanes were state-subsidized), half-decent healthcare, low crime level.

      Though I still prefer living in the capitalist Russia of today.

    26. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True but there would still be checkpoints setup at the stations and airports where you would have to show your papers.

    27. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      so I can accept that a good chunk of that regulation isn't simply in the way. Certainly not all of it is beneficial, but lots of it is.

      I never said otherwise. Clearly some regulation is necessary. Just don't pretend that it comes with zero cost. And beyond regulation there are lots of things in this country that stifle innovation -- software patents being the /. favorite.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    28. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice in leftist rhetoric how everything about other countries (non-western) is "more complicated" and "nuanced" than what happens in the west?

      The west does something bad? The west is evil. Black and white. Nothing they do is redeemable.

      Non-western countries do something bad? Ah well, "it's a lot more complicated than it looks ..."

      Hypocrisy indeed.

    29. Re:In Soviet Russia. by ejdmoo · · Score: 1

      Peace and non-violence aren't the same thing.

      The Constitution allows for peaceful assemblies, not non-violent assemblies.

      Granted, "peaceful" is up to interpretation, but just because it's non-violent doesn't make it peaceful. I would disagree that blocking bridges in downtown MSP is peaceful.

    30. Re:In Soviet Russia. by glwtta · · Score: 1

      However, you needed a stay permit (it was called 'propiska') to permanently move to another city. Getting this permit was a quite different story.

      Which went something like this: to get the permit you had to have a job in the city, and you couldn't get a job without the permit. They were really good at little bureaucratic flourishes like that.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    31. Re:In Soviet Russia. by bugg · · Score: 1

      Standing holding a banner isn't violent? Why, if I wanted to walk right through where they were standing with a banner, are they just going to let me through?

      Are you aware that you just asserted that if someone stands somewhere and is prepared to defend themselves, they've committed an act of violence? What a crazy definition...

      --
      -bugg
    32. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, private trade for profit is a crime.

      In what dimension? I'm sorry, but trade is the cornerstone of todays society. There is nothing illegal about it, unless you're referring to an ideological marxist state.

      The only thing that is illegal is not reporting your full income on your tax sheet (tax evasion), which happens easily if you do not keep records of your transactions.

    33. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet America police attack you!

    34. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually ... you needed an internal visa for leaving your immediate place of residence for a longer period e.g. to go from St.Petersburg (aka. Leningrad) to Moscow .. cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_passport .. just goes to show "rock bottom" maybe far ways down..

    35. Re:In Soviet Russia. by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      A lottery worked for them, in which everything from generalship to waterworks was chosen at random from the citizenship.

      While I think the concept has some merit, I don't know that I'd want a former plumber to suddenly be my commanding general on the eve of war. Wait... I do know. Fuck that!

      But to expound on the general idea, I think that electing politicians by lottery has some merit, if you establish basic criteria (perhaps a high school or college graduate, no felonies, etc.). Each "winner" serves exactly one term, and then can no longer serve public office. The lucky ones might win dog catcher... the unlucky ones: President.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    36. Re:In Soviet Russia. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That was pretty much the joke I was refering to.

      You know what's not funny? When jokes about a stalinist regime become applicable to what we consider the free world.

      "How do you tell the GOP now governs the Iraq?"
      "Can't tell the first 8 years, but then sand's in short supply"

      A german, a french and a british dog meet. Said the German "Oh, the fall of the wall really was great. Now you just bark and they throw you a slab of meat." Said the french dog "sorry, what's that 'beef' you're talking about?" Said the british dog "And what means 'bark'".

      Ok, it ain't so far yet. Well, give it another 8 years.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, do NOT welcome our new jack-booted overlords.

    1. Re:I, for one... by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      I, for one, do NOT welcome our new jack-booted overlords.

      I, for one, agree with you... and won't bother to post anon. Behavior less egregious than this started our revolution. I'm not advocating violence, ever, but I can understand those who have less self-control. There are way too many disaffected people, with stages of anger starting at merely mad and going through to spitting apoplectic.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
  6. Anarchists? by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't that what they blamed stuff on pre-WW I? What kill the kaiser think? God help us if Ferdinand is shot!

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Anarchists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ferdinand was a classmate of John McCain, you insensitive clod!

  7. Not suprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    seeing as all the same senior politicians in the WH today are the very same ones that where there in Nixons goverment, they just slinked into the background in the 60's hoping you would forget their names and misdeeds
    and it worked ! except they are back with more vigor
    torture, wiretaps, harrasing political groups, removing civil liberties, wiretapping
    the list is endless and so it seems the Americans patience as they dont want to do a damm thing about it

    a single clip could sort out a lot of troubles in this world

    1. Re:Not suprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your last comment is worth reporting. Hopefully it will be investigated somehow - with or without wiretaps.

    2. Re:Not suprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "report me" all you like mr brown shirt
      luckily i dont live in your shit interpretation of a "free" country
      so get back to defending the fatherland comrade, those terrists are out to get you

  8. Unconventional weaponry by Nasajin · · Score: 2, Funny

    On Saturday afternoon, he displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine.

    Personally I'm surprised that, upon finding "buckets of urine" that the police decided to take it with them.

    1. Re:Unconventional weaponry by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They took along *anything* and *everything* that might be related to possible riots. When they raided a home that wasn't actually the correct home, they still detained people for over and hour while they obtained the correct warrant. When I read that I posted that I was concerned that when I arrived at home that I too would find cops on my doorstep because after all, that was the point of all of this horseshit.

      When you finally hear from the other side you learn that the "buckets of urine" was actually gray water used to flush the toilet (my father developed a tank system in the 1980s that used shower/tub water to flush the toilet which saved us so much money that the water company came out 3 or 4 different times to replace the meter because they thought it was defective).

      I have been ashamed to be an American for a long ass time but between the Ramsey County Sheriff's response to this event, the confiscation of camera equipment in the name of Homeland Security for the RNC, and using Blackwater mercenaries in New Orleans in preparation for Gustav I am not quite sure I am actually living in the United States of America anymore.

      I am disgusted to be a Minnesota and United States resident. This is fucking shameful and horrifying. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of free speech violation. This is a stupid political rally, not a fucking war on our soil. Personally I'd love to join the protests but I seriously fear for my freedom and my life. I am not against the RNC but I am definitely against the manner in which protesting is being handled.

      FUCK YOU AMERICA.

      For live footage of raids and other First Amendment violations, check out The UpTake on Qik.com.

    2. Re:Unconventional weaponry by iworm · · Score: 2

      The cops were just taking the piss.

    3. Re:Unconventional weaponry by garcia · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thank you for marking this troll and proving that Americans just don't care about the atrocities being committed against our fellow citizens.

    4. Re:Unconventional weaponry by jps25 · · Score: 1

      Rather offtopic, but does your father or do you still have the blueprints for that tank system? I would be quite interested in them.

    5. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Charcharodon · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Personally I'd love to join the protests but I seriously fear for my freedom and my life. I am not against the RNC but I am definitely against the manner in which protesting is being handled.

      I have been ashamed to be an American for a long ass time

      No need to feel ashamed about being an American, because frankly you aren't one, not a real one anyway.

      Real Americans go out in the world and change things, not sit on sites whining like a child about how unfair life is. Once you move out of your parents house and see the world you might begin to understand that.

      Back to the orginal topic, freedom of assembly applies to both groups not just the protesters, who at every large meeting have proven unable to restrain themselves. It sounds like this group was no different.

      I say the police should go back to the sixties, when they used to use fire hoses and tear gas on the crows, beat people with wood battons, and shoot protesters with rubber bullets. At least then you might have something of substance to bitch about.

    6. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're a coward.

      Keep on typing, anonymous Internet warrior.

    7. Re:Unconventional weaponry by david_thornley · · Score: 0, Troll

      Real Americans go out in the world and change things, not sit on sites whining like a child about how unfair life is.

      Okay, so on one side we have people who are actively protesting to try to make the world a better place. On the other hand, we have people like you who whine about protesters.

      I guess we see who the Real Americans are.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Matteo522 · · Score: 1

      Nice post. I'm so sick and tired of seeing your typical clueless idiot nerd-rage all over this site every time a slanted political summary shows its face. They're just a bunch of whiny children, as you rightly pointed out, just bitching to a safe audience (that's the important part... they only bitch to the ones that agree with the groupthink).

      The GP is *exactly* the reason why we've become so complacent toward the atrocities that he himself is so upset over. I guarantee the full extent of his civil responsibility is crying on a website and maybe voting in a general election every four years for one of the two major parties.

      Please, sir, leave the great state of Minnesota. Get out of this country if that's how you feel. Of course I know you never would because you love the comforts this great, yes I said great... not flawless, not perfect, but still great... country provides.

      Put up, shut up, or make a difference.

    9. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU TO HELL, YOU FUCKING DESPICABLE BITCH! ROAST FOREVER, DIE YOU SAD IDIOT!

      If the police had reasonable suspicion that illegal activities were being planned, such as violent protests, then that is a legitimate reason to raid the group meeting where that is being planned.

      And again:

      FUCK YOU, GARCIA BITCH!

    10. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU AMERICA.

      Fuck you too, asshole. Most of America doesn't like it any more than you do, but until you find a way to direct your outrage toward the appropriate actors then you're not helping.

    11. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America deserves to die. Everything that has happened to us for the past 20 or so years we DESERVE every last bit of it.

    12. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're not going to do anything those atrocities must not be very atrocious. Come back when you have something more to tell us than the police didn't beat you with a rubber hose, rape your wife, tear out your fingernails with pliers. I mean, it's fucking terrifying that the police won't throw flash-bang grenades through your windows and bust down your door because they've not got the correct warrant. That's some kind of police state.

      Go spend some time in Darfur or Georgia and gain some perspective.

    13. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would have been embarrasing if it had been Blackwater in the toilet and greywater in new orleans...

      Oh wait...

    14. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always leave, Garcia

    15. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am disgusted to be a Minnesota and United States resident.

      FUCK YOU AMERICA.

      I am disgusted that *you* are a Minnesota and United States Resident. If your "America" does not have any representation or significance beyond the government or it's stooges, then you have failed at being a part of a country of *individuals*. America is "the people of America," inclusive of the *minority* that makes up the government.

      And yes, this *is* a war on our soil. We (Americans) are always at battle with each other over political issues and the power to enact legislation to enforce our perspectives on those issues. We are also at war with the machine of government, which *we* have put in place to act on our behalf-(or behalves?).

      America isn't a football team that you cheer and boo from the sidelines. *You* are in the game. If you are "ashamed" of America, then I doubt very much that you are part of what "America" and what it is supposed to be--beyond being a citizen on paper. Again, it is a collection of individuals and ideas. (Why view it as a single-minded entity?)

      You can be ashamed of yourself. You can be ashamed of Americans. But to be ashamed of "America" and then throw a tantrum when it doesn't work for you betrays your ignorance of what it is for many, many other citizens.

      Personally I'd love to join the protests but I seriously fear for my freedom and my life.

      You have just seriously FAILED as an American.

    16. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Eternal+Annoyance · · Score: 1

      Personally I'd love to join the protests but I seriously fear for my freedom and my life.

      Ok, you're afraid of your own country's justice system on political grounds (oppression of freedom of speech). This is a sign of an oppressive (instead of a supportive) government, may I suggest you flee to a West/North European country? You'll feel a lot safer here.

    17. Re:Unconventional weaponry by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      the protesters, who at every large meeting have proven unable to restrain themselves.

      I refer you to this post explaining how the protestors become "out of control".

      If systematic police harassment were a part of your life you'd get pissed too.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    18. Re:Unconventional weaponry by ablair · · Score: 1

      I am disgusted to be a Minnesota and United States resident. This is fucking shameful and horrifying. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of free speech violation. This is a stupid political rally, not a fucking war on our soil. Personally I'd love to join the protests but I seriously fear for my freedom and my life.

      You sound like you have principles and conviction. Please do one or the other:

      1. Overcome your fear and do something about the atrocious system under which you now live. I don't mean violence or joining a meaningless protest march, but something constructive and meaningful (there are still organizations left that do this work). This is the best option, since it *might* result in a better place for our kids to live in. But not everyone can find a way to make a difference or can take the risks needed.

      2. If you can't do that - maybe you have loved ones that depend on you - consider moving to Canada. Really. Canadians welcome people that find overbearing police state action like this shameful and horrifying, and people that care about civil liberties. Its why they trust their authorities and their government much less than Americans do, and maybe why its not gotten to that point yet in Canada. You wouldn't be the first American to move on political grounds.

    19. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU AMERICA.

      So fucking leave, cocksucker. I know it's cliche, but just go. Fucking take your slimy, stinking ass and go. No one wants you. NO ONE. You are useless. Go. Fucking just go, shitsack.

    20. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am disgusted to be a Minnesota and United States resident. This is fucking shameful and horrifying. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of free speech violation. This is a stupid political rally, not a fucking war on our soil. Personally I'd love to join the protests but I seriously fear for my freedom and my life.

      I wonder how the police can tell if their policies have been successful or not ...

    21. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hide like a coward then. Ashamed to be American? Have you done anything to help fix the problem?
      "When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."

    22. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am disgusted to be a Minnesota and United States resident.

      Please leave

    23. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I'd rather you left the country and took the retard above with you, but then I would also have to bear the shame of you abroad telling everyone you were an "American: Fuck Yeah!"

      I guess if you were willing to be a tough guy at the bottom of a chemical toilet, instead of anywhere else, then you can stay.

    24. Re:Unconventional weaponry by garcia · · Score: 1

      I doubt he ever made blueprints for the project. He used an old water heater for the tank and a pump to bring the water back up. Once the toilet was filled a switch was triggered to turn the pump off. The problem was that when the tank was empty (too many people visiting the house and going above the capacity of the tank) it would flush the soap scum from the bottle of the tank. You had to fill the tub back up, we used cold water for this, and thus fill the tank to flush the toilet.

    25. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In response to the person above cursing America. If you don't appreciate living in here with all of the freedoms that you DO HAVE, you can always move to Canada...

    26. Re:Unconventional weaponry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry if this is double post. I hit delete and everything just went away.

      I went to the "grey water" site, which says it is written by a doctoral student studying political protest groups. Everything as described indeed looked quite technically innocent, although obviously meant through obtrusive greenness (really, did they think it worth undoing the plumbing to gather greywater?) to remind them constantly that they are morally superior to those vicious fossil fueled Republicans.

      But then, almost off the cuff, there's a warning to fellow protest studiers (note, not to protesters) not to get near a "blockade" at the end. Blockade? Tell us more.

    27. Re:Unconventional weaponry by kevintron · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You have discovered one of the top responses the enemies of freedom would most fervently dream of seeing from you. When you say things like "ashamed to be an American" or "fuck you America," you play right into their hands.

      The vast majority of people who see these statements will feel alienated from YOU, not from those who seek power through gradual broadening of police powers. The average reader will believe your sentiments make you part of the threat that they need to be protected from. When you do this you are giving aid and comfort to the very forces you oppose. They can point to carefully selected quotes from your overreaction and say "Look! There really are people right here in our cities who hate America!"

      Get a grip on your emotions. Stop creating more excuses for those who want to clamp down on your freedoms. Stop stirring up the politics of fear and division. If you really want to protect the First Amendment and all the rest of our freedoms, state the merits of your principles with calm firmness.

  9. sad day by stabiesoft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stuff like this really makes me sad. Just 20 or 30 years ago, demonstrations could get out of hand, but I think that is part of free speech. Now, any speech off script by either party is squashed as if it was soviet russia. Maybe mrs mccain should rethink the trip to georgia she just took. Maybe instead of taking democracy around the world, we could start by re-invigorating freedom here at home. I'm afraid to predict the next 20 or 30 years. I'm sure it will include many cameras, microphones, drone planes and fear.

    1. Re:sad day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet somehow the U.S. Government still criticizes China on not allowing protests during the Olympics. This is probably one of the reasons why China doesn't give a rat's ass about what the U.S. says about human rights abuses in China.

  10. Sad and scary by JimMcc · · Score: 1

    We are rapidly turning into the latest Banana Republic.

    1. Re:Sad and scary by maxume · · Score: 1

      Corn Republic. Or maybe Tank Republic.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  11. No protesters at the DNC? by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could the fact that we didn't see such an article about last weeks DNC be because there wasn't anybody bothering to protest? HBO's Real Time had footage from the "Free Speech Zone" in Denver which had more kids on bikes than protesters.

    1. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There were protests at the convention. One involved a bunch of veterans pulling a publicity stunt by blocking access to the convention. One of the spokespeople said they were hoping they could incite a response and prove that democrats did not care about veterans. In the end, the ringleader was allowed in to talk to an Obama staff member. You see that is what civilized people do. Talk out their grievances. When you over react and begin to violate civil rights, you simply prove that the corruption and greed they are protesting against is real. This is why the KKK is allowed to wander around aimlessly and harmlessly on city streets. They just want to start something, and blame the other guy. The protestors, like the terrorist, have won. The republican party has proven itself a bunch of whiners, unable to cope with the real world.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phrase "Free Speech Zone" should be a call to arms for every person concerned about any sort of freedom in the US, be it freedom of speech, religion, or anything else.

      The fact that there is a zone for free speech implies that all other zones are places where you may not speak freely.

      Chilling.

    3. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could the fact that we didn't see such an article about last weeks DNC be because there wasn't anybody bothering to protest? HBO's Real Time had footage from the "Free Speech Zone" in Denver which had more kids on bikes than protesters.

      The reason you didn't "see such an article about last weeks [sic] DNC" was because the secret jails, midnight raids, and protests there didn't fit in with the MSM narrative of "Obama the Uniter." Of course there were no protestors in the "Free Speech Zone," because such designated protest areas are always set up so far from the main event as to be completely meaningless. All of the real protesters were protesting in the area immediately outside the convention site, and getting rolled up by the police for "protesting without a permit" any time their numbers got above the arbitrary limit, which is another reason why you didn't see (m)any protesters on your TV screen. Both parties do this every time they hold their conventions, and the crackdown accompanying the DNC is usually bigger and uglier, but for some reason it's always the RNC in the news for "oppressing free speech."

    4. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could the fact that we didn't see such an article about last weeks DNC be because there wasn't anybody bothering to protest?

      What are you smoking?

      DNC detention camp is a warehouse with chain-link fence, barbed wire, and stun guns:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQEc3ejHIaM&NR=1

      Police trap hundreds of peaceful protesters between buildings and assault them:
      http://newsproject.org/videos/113

      More:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIh-RIctjh0
      http://digg.com/politics/Police_slam_CodePink_protester_to_the_ground

    5. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There were arrests, Google is your friend, but when the Republicans do it it is news for /.ers.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose this lady was just there to cheer for obama

    7. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And this is yet another reason I'm voting Obama. When people tried a deliberate troll-protest, the Obama campaign let them in to talk peacefully. That is HOW a fucking STATESMEN handles things.

    8. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by localman · · Score: 1

      The republican party has proven itself a bunch of whiners, unable to cope with the real world.

      Yes, a bunch of whiners with a hell of a lot of power and no hesitation in using it against anyone in their way. What do you think they've lost exactly? The moral high ground? General respect? The problem is they don't care. They've got fear on their side and no conscience to slow them down. As far as I can tell, they're winning.

      In all fairness, I'm sure there's plenty of Republicans who would be disgusted by this article too. But I know the group you're talking about: they dominate not only the Republican party, but also the US. They have no concept of what the American Ideal is, thinking and acting with all the compassion and subtlety of leaders of a third world nation. Yet they are more comfortable telling others to love the US or leave it. Meanwhile, we take on the guilt and shame that they don't feel, and we want to leave -- even though in reality this is _our_ country: it belongs to the people who believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.

      Bah. Rambling. Frustrated. What can actually be done? Anything?

    9. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Actually, the same reporter from Salon involved in the Minnesota story also reported on the police removing a "new media" video crew that was attempting to interview "blue dog" democrats being feted by AT&T for their support of telecom immunity.

      The difference in Denver is that apparently there weren't any pre-emptive raids there.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    10. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by rpillala · · Score: 2, Informative

      I found a source for this. That will come in handy if folks need to present this info to others.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    11. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a troll-protest. The Iraq Veterans Against the War are somewhat...stupid...in protesting that the one person who's pleaded to withdraw troops has a plan that 'takes too long', but they're a legit group. Although, frankly, they'd be better off protesting anyone but Obama, like the Democratic Congress.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    12. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Fun quote:

      In a juxtaposition that is becoming familiar in Denver, two worlds seemly unconnected are living side-by-side, only streets apart â" the polished Democratic showcase and the simultaneous protests in the parks and streets where the voices of ordinary people remain unheard by the Democratic dynasty.

      Oh, how horrible for the DNC protesters...no one paid them any attention.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    13. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by drglitch · · Score: 1

      The group was the Iraq Veterans against the War. They were not trying to "prove that democrats did not care about veterans". Their three main goals are "Immediate withdrawal, full veterans benefits, and reparations for the Iraqi people". They had a statement in a letter they wanted read to the delegates during the convention.

      Sure an Obama rep finally agreed to talk with them. However all they did was take the letter and said they would get back to them. They never did. So much for hope.

      Nice trick to end the protest and get good press while actually doing nothing.

      Remember Mohamed Ali's Rope a Dope? The new version is now Hope a Dope. I'm supporting Nader's campaign to stop corporate dominance of the government.

    14. Re:No protesters at the DNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In interviews some of the members stated that they assumed that they would not be let in, and they would hold a press conference blasting democrats on their lack of support for veterans. Of course Obama did not talk to them, what good would it have done. We can't pull out because no one is brave enough to look like they are cutting and running. We can't afford to help veterans because there is no money in the budget. When we budget for war, we don't budget for taking care of the victims. And oil revenue is supposed to help the Iraqi people

      The point is not the group or their cause, which is just. The point is that a group was there to cause trouble, and the Democrats had enough skill to defuse the situation peacefully. Everyone is scared shitless because of the fear mongering that has been going on for the past 8 years, including the soldiers who never signed up for an endless war, and the best thing to do with scared people is to listen, even if nothing is going change. This is opposed to shooting at them, making them more scared, and change nothing.

  12. also by globaljustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FUCK THE POLICE!

    And the sheriff's office, and the FBI, and DHS, and ICE, and the mainstream media, and us...

    Yep, us too. Every US citizen bears some responsibility. We should demand media coverage of these obvious civil rights violations, these people aren't violent anarchists, they are citizens protesting the government. We should demand a police force that upholds the law instead of subverting it. We should elect the leaders who will do the most to protect our civil rights.

    We've been tolerating this kind of behavior since 9/11 out of fear. It's time to admit to ourselves that we overreacted to the events of 9/11 and allowed our government to trash our civil rights in the name of protecting us.

    We let fascists take our country from us in the name of making a 'war on terror.'

    Vote. Email or write your local, state and federal representatives. Email local and national news. Protest.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:also by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've been tolerating this kind of behavior since 9/11 out of fear. It's time to admit to ourselves that we overreacted to the events of 9/11 and allowed our government to trash our civil rights in the name of protecting us.

      Get a tiny bit of perspective - things have been like this before the Conventions since the '68 DNC Riots. Or did you not notice the guy who was arrested in Denver for checking into a hotel just before the DNC with a couple rifles? No reason to believe he was doing anything wrong, other than having a rifle near a Democrat, but that's the way it goes.

      Admittedly, the Secret Service types have to be especially sensitive to the possibility of someone trying to do in Obama. I don't think it'll happen, but that opinion changes from day to day....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:also by LGagnon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who said anarchists are violent? They are amongst the protesters, and they did not plan any sort of violence. Your stereotypical statement about them sounds like an attempt to legitimatize what the FBI did, not argue against it. It's ignorance like this that allows them to carry out raids like this.

    3. Re:also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it matter if they were anarchists? Last time I checked it's not only legal to be an anarchist (according to constitutional law), but it's also legal to publicly demonstrate in favor of anarchy.

    4. Re:also by TehZorroness · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just look at all those confederate flags still flown down in the southern states. This country is still packed with fucking racists. I'm not religious or anything, but I pray for his safety as president.

    5. Re:also by forgoil · · Score: 0, Redundant

      They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    6. Re:also by Score+Whore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should demand media coverage of these obvious civil rights violations, these people aren't violent anarchists, they are citizens protesting the government.

      What? First, the RNC isn't "the government." Second, yes they are anarchists. From their website:

      The RNC Welcoming Committee is an anarchist / anti-authoritarian organizing body preparing for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

      They intend to block the bridges into and out of the city. The blockades are going to be categorized as "red zones" (prepared for "self-defense"), "yellow zones" (peaceful but assertive), and "green zones" (aiming to avoid risk of arrest.) I don't see how holding public property by force is at all non-violent.

      I agree however, people should protest. They should protest these hooligans who don't believe in the core basis of the USoA: that ideas will not be propagated by violence. Differing opinions will be discussed and if your opinion isn't the most popular you don't get to enact your ideas. Perpetrating acts of violence, intimidation and seizing property for long term use (a goal described on their website) aren't something any civilized country should be getting behind.

    7. Re:also by Firehed · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between showing up for a (hopefully) peaceful protest and bringing a rifle. As in one is a constitutionally-protected right, and the other is a very clear intent of first degree murder.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    8. Re:also by walshy007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      while I agree the country would have it's fair share of racists, there would be other reasons to be proud to fly a confederate flag, when the southern states economy was being sacrificed for the northerns piece of mind, they chose to secede. Basically a 'fuck you for not looking after us too', which is similar to what USA did to the english some time earlier,

      lesson learned, try to secede, win and your considered heroes by the population, lose and you'll be cast the villain forever, the victor writes the history.

    9. Re:also by rhakka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      let me point out that "non violent" doesn't mean you do everything you're told, that's called "complicity" or at best "complacency". Having 50k people arrive at a location and sit down and refuse to leave may not be convenient, and might even put some people at risk (say, you were in the middle of hte crowd and had a heart attack), but that is not "violence".

      "violence" involves destruction, pain, intimidation and real risk of bodily injury. *some* anarchists are into that sort of thing. But "Anarchist" covers a wide variety of people, just like "republican" does. Some "Republicans" don't think it's ok to kill anyone arab just because some arabs hate us. Some think we should "turn the middle east into a parking lot".

      it's not fair to judge all republicans by the violent assholes within any more than it is to judge all anarchists by the same measure.

      I also don't think that seizing property that is not being put to use when there are people who need shelter in the streets is so radical that "no civilized country" should get behind it.

      further, I wouldn't demonize anyone who looks at the current state of our country and thinks that maybe we're getting close to the point where words alone is not sufficient response to the ongoing mismanagement, misinterpretation and appropriation of our government to anyone with suitable ambition and a large enough checkbook.

      I'm not at that point myself, but I can't say that it would be impossible to get there in my lifetime and sometimes I do wonder if I'm just playing the game laid before me by "the house", and the house always wins.. witness RealID and the basic conception among most people that you "can't challenge the federal government", constitutional or not.

    10. Re:also by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between showing up for a (hopefully) peaceful protest and bringing a rifle. As in one is a constitutionally-protected right, and the other is a very clear intent of first degree murder.

      Really? So, the last time I put one of my rifles into my car to take it up to the farm to plink, I was preparing for first-degree murder? How odd - I could have sworn I was just going up to target shoot.

      Note also that buckets of urine doesn't equate very well with "peaceful" protest.

      Mind you, I'm not trying to argue that this is right and proper behaviour. I don't have enough of the facts (and neither do you) to know. What I do know is that it doesn't just happen at the RNC, it happens at the DNC (yes, the "friends of the people" do their best to keep the riffraff at arms' length during their convention too, and further that it isn't new to the last eight years - it's a forty year old pattern, and thus not really attributable to Bush.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:also by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 0

      I just heard on the news they were planning to insight a riot according to an undercover informant and they confiscated a machete, a hatchet, throwing knives, axes, bolt cutters, equipment used in rappelling - and three 5-gallon buckets of urine.
      But hey, dont let that get in your way. please continue telling us about free speech and peaceful demonstrations.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    12. Re:also by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      while I agree the country would have it's fair share of racists, there would be other reasons to be proud to fly a confederate flag, when the southern states economy was being sacrificed for the northerns piece of mind, they chose to secede. Basically a 'fuck you for not looking after us too', which is similar to what USA did to the english some time earlier,

      ...and then, post-secession, the Confederacy trampled all over the same states' rights it claimed that the secession was all about up-front.

      My reference material is all at home, or I could provide citations here -- but prior to later (early-1900s) revisionism of its teaching in American textbooks (and certainly in its immediate aftermath), the Civil War was well understood to have had the issue of slavery at its heart.

    13. Re:also by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1

      I should also supply a link to my fox news neocon website showing all this propaganda
      http://politicsinminnesota.com/2008/aug/30/authorities-seize-weapons-equipment-and-urine-pre-rnc-raids-5-arrested
      or
      http://www.startribune.com/politics/27695244.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciatkEP7DhUsr

      I'm not sure what peaceful demonstrators need with a 5 gallons worth of urine, gas masks and home made caltrop to disable buses.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    14. Re:also by Charcharodon · · Score: 0
      Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

      It there for must be a.....?

      I'll give you a hint, it start with a D and rhymes with fuck.

    15. Re:also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who says these guys are anarchists? They might just want to shake up the system, not do away with it completely.

    16. Re:also by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Awfully dark up there, isn't it? Smells a lot like shit too, doesn't it? Why don't you just call it the "War of Northern Agression"? Anonymous Asshole, more like it.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    17. Re:also by powerspike · · Score: 1

      I had a quick read of the article (i know it's slashdot..), but been australian, i have a question, do all american's keep buckets of urine in their house, along with slingshots bows and guns? but in all seriousness, they had weapons, and well buckets of urine, and where planing to use them at the protest, so reading what you said, it think this is ok ? because there's the extreme that the goverment is taking abusing civil rights, but your supporting protest groups doing the same thing? quite seriously, do you think it's ok to get covered in urine to make a political point? While i think the abuse of the rights of citizens (of any country) is bad, but this type of raid (from the article) is good, but allowing people to run around with weapons and shit is just an extreme on the other end of the scale...

    18. Re:also by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Good response. But please keep in mind that I'm not judging "anarchists". I'm judging these specific people and I'm talking about a specific plan. They describe themselves as anarchists. They advocate violence and suppression of free speech.

    19. Re:also by rhakka · · Score: 1

      Understood, but that doesn't make them indicative of the entire anarchist movement. so if you are referring to them, you should refer to them, not to anarchists as a whole.

    20. Re:also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, us too. Every US citizen bears some responsibility.

      I suppose you think rape victims "bear some responsibility" too if they are outside the safety of their homes, not wearing their burkas, or daring to excite men with eye contact instead of keeping their eyes downcast. You're blaming the victim.

    21. Re:also by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      The worst racists I have ever seen in my life were to be found when I contracted in Rhode Island/New Jersey.

    22. Re:also by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Confederate battle flags. The Confederate flag was quite different.

    23. Re:also by gillbates · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they didn't actually do these things.

      If, as the police storyline goes, the groups had been infiltrated, why couldn't the infiltrators arrest the offending protestors at the time they committed the crime? Oh, that's right, because the entire group could be peaceful, and there's the risk that none of the allegations of future crime would ever come to pass.

      Even supposing you're right about these "freedom hating" folks, the fact is that the tactics used by the police will only ensure the evidence brought before the court - if anyone is actually charged - will be so weak that anyone with a good lawyer will walk. End result? People who are legally innocent have been harassed by the police for no one's benefit. If they are indeed criminals, the police haven't done anything to protect the community; if innocent, the protestors will end up paying for their patriotism. No matter which way you look at it, we, the taxpaying public, are worse off.

      Police harassment is not the same as law enforcement.

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    24. Re:also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They should protest these hooligans who don't believe in the core basis of the USoA: that ideas will not be propagated by violence."
      What? Someone should have told that to the 'hooligans' in 1776.

    25. Re:also by Curtman · · Score: 1

      but been australian, i have a question, do all american's keep buckets of urine in their house, along with slingshots bows and guns?

      Do you really have to ask questions like that about the country that brought us Jerry Springer?

    26. Re:also by Toonol · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they didn't actually do these things. If, as the police storyline goes, the groups had been infiltrated, why couldn't the infiltrators arrest the offending protestors at the time they committed the crime? Oh, that's right, because the entire group could be peaceful, and there's the risk that none of the allegations of future crime would ever come to pass.

      If they were planning to commit a crime, and there is good evidence they are planning to commit a crime, of COURSE the police should stop them. That's not punishing thought crime, that's being a good cop.

      We'll have to see what the evidence was. If there is evidence they were going to commit violence or vandalism, I'm all for jailing the uncivilized bastards. If they were planning a peaceful protest, than they should never have been arrested in the first place, and the police/feds are in the wrong. It'll all come out.

    27. Re:also by littlegiantsteps · · Score: 1

      I agree however, people should protest. They should protest these hooligans who don't believe in the core basis of the USoA: that ideas will not be propagated by violence.

      Spreading "liberty" in Iraq.

      Differing opinions will be discussed and if your opinion isn't the most popular you don't get to enact your ideas.

      More people voted for Gore than Bush.

      Perpetrating acts of violence, intimidation and seizing property for long term use (a goal described on their website) aren't something any civilized country should be getting behind.

      War on drugs.

    28. Re:also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when do anarchists organize or gather in groups?

    29. Re:also by ablair · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They should protest these hooligans who don't believe in the core basis of the USoA: that ideas will not be propagated by violence.

      What?!? I must have completely misunderstood the modern US history of the last 8 years or so. I had no idea that the CORE BASIS of the USA was that ideas wouldn't be propagated by violence. Speaking as someone living outside the USA, your foreign policy hasn't led me to believe that either.

      Come to think of it, maybe the violent rebels of 1776 should have rembered it too.

    30. Re:also by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The police have been doing this sort of crap for decades. Their goal is to remove all "troublemakers" from the street until the event is over. They don't care if the charges are bogus or that they violate people's civil rights. If you are lucky, you will get some monetary damages from the local government, many years later. The local officials and police are never held responsible for their actions.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    31. Re:also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read TFA? Did you read what they seized, "f you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready, in addition to the slingshots, bow and arrows, and gun that police seized. It's pretty clear that whatever protest these people were planning was going to go beyond peaceful words, unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine."

      nevermind that. Bash the republicans again.

    32. Re:also by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      You 'heard on the news' a few snippits and believe them. So much for your understanding of the actual events. You'd do better to read the thread here on /. It debunks your 'news' information.

    33. Re:also by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      If you'd read the article, or the /. discussion, you'd know there was one bucket of urine in an apartment which had no toilet. Being from Australia, I guess you can't read... ;)

    34. Re:also by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between showing up for a (hopefully) peaceful protest and bringing a rifle. As in one is a constitutionally-protected right, and the other is a very clear intent of first degree murder.

      Ah, bearing a firearm shows clear proof a crime is going to be committed? Fact is is both protest and bearing firearms is constitutionally protected. And bearing a firearm does not mean any crime is going to be committed.

      Falcon

    35. Re:also by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 0
      Why dont YOU read the article posted on slashdot:

      On Saturday afternoon, he displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine.

      "We know these things were going to be used as weapons," Fletcher said, a charge protesters and their advocates vigorously disputed.

      Fletcher however, stressed that he and other agencies had informants planted inside this and other groups for "a long period of time."

      There was an informant inside this organization that told authorities what was planned. They raided these extremists houses and found what they wanted and stopped them. Maybe you should just admit you wish they'd pulled it off, in sighted a riot so people like you can use it for more propaganda about how its a police state run by George Bush
      Sorry good guys 1, hippies 0.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    36. Re:also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well said Score Whore.

    37. Re:also by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just heard on the news they were planning to insight a riot according to an undercover informant and they confiscated a machete, a hatchet, throwing knives, axes, bolt cutters, equipment used in rappelling - and three 5-gallon buckets of urine.

      Like all of those are illegal. NOT! As for 3 buckets of urine, from the Star-Tribune:

      "The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."

      But hey, dont let that get in your way. please continue telling us about free speech and peaceful demonstrations.

      But hey, don't let the truth get in your way.

      Falcon

    38. Re:also by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do of course realize that this kind of "zone designation" is necessary because of authoritarian court appointees upholding "free speech zones" --conveniently located far enough away the hubble won't see the protest.

      When you have a choice between protesting "lawfully" in the middle of yellowstone for an event in washington DC, or unlawfully where you will actually send a message, i know which option i'd take.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    39. Re:also by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      Why dont YOU read the article posted on slashdot:

      There was an informant inside this organization that told authorities what was planned.

      I've just informed on you and told the police what you plan to do. You might want to watch your door for a while.

    40. Re:also by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. Not even those who do do things are blameless, as they have not done enough if it hasn't changed. Unfortunately, I have to say I fall in this category as well, but at least I'm accepting the blame.

    41. Re:also by WhiteHorse-The+Origi · · Score: 1

      I used to write to my representatives until they told me to fuck off and go away...

    42. Re:also by bwcbwc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, state's rights was the secessionists' last line of defense, politically before the actual war. But they wouldn't have had to go to war over those rights if a) the north had ignored the abolitionists and let slavery continue or b) they had voluntarily come up with a plan to terminate slavery. So saying the battle was purely states' rights is completely disingenuous. Stating that the civil war was purely over states rights is like stating that the war on terror is only going after the perpetrators of 9/11.

      On the other hand, based on the 2nd amendment clause of "...a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE...", I think the south was actually constitutionally correct at the time that secession was legal, ASSUMING that states rights were actually being violated. The constitution states clearly that the rights not given to the federal government belong to the states or the people, and the 2nd amendment is clearly designed so that the states and the people could defend the rights of the individual state against encroachment by the federal government.

      So the question then becomes whether the federal government was actually trampling on states rights. And the answer is: probably not. Based on the interstate commerce clause, the federal government could have killed off slavery with various prohibitions at the federal level: transporting slaves across state lines, interstate trade in slaves, use of funds from one state to finance slave purchase in another state would have stood constitutional muster even before the commerce clause was broadened so much in the 20th century.

      And the south was screwing itself over economically, anyway. The main reason large slaveholders couldn't free the slaves even if they wanted to was because they were up to their eyebrows in debt collateralized by their slave holdings.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    43. Re:also by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      So, the last time I put one of my rifles into my car to take it up to the farm to plink, I was preparing for first-degree murder? How odd - I could have sworn I was just going up to target shoot.

      thats fine, but when your already on a watchlist and taking your rifles to somewhere you'd get the opportunity to kill somebody you dislikes its different. Of course neither of us no the specifics , but id guess that the police don't have enough time to check everybody in Denver so they must of had a reason to check the guy they did catch.

      Note also that buckets of urine doesn't equate very well with "peaceful" protest.

      NO it equates to a lack of a working toilet

      it happens at the DNC (yes, the "friends of the people" do their best to keep the riffraff at arms' length during their convention too.

      funny because obama staffers went out and dealt with the main protest outside the conference, thats not really keeping them at arms length.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    44. Re:also by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The "buckets of urine" thing has been debunked now multiple times, but I'm curious to know something: supposed the buckets of urine were intended for use at a "violent" protest: how do you use them?

      I mean, do you think these "violent protesters" are going to carry around heavy buckets of urine? What do they plan to use them for? What are the logistics of transporting and using buckets of urine in an environment in which you have to walk around with them until you use them? And then, presumbly the aim is to humiliate someone by pouring the bucket over them - how, perchance, do you get close enough to throw the urine at your victim given the heavy police presence?

      And supposedly there are multiple buckets. Is the "aim" to get close to several VIPs at once and pour urine over them? 'cos if it isn't, if it's to seek them out at different times, then the first guy to get close to a VIP and throw urine at him or her is going to, well, kind of spoil the fun for the others. I mean, it's somewhat improbable the secret service are going to let the first guy get through in the first place, but even if they did, anyone carrying a bucket after the first "attack" is going to get arrested.

      Here's supposedly the "smoking gun", the evidence that these damned peace-loving anti-war hippies were going to go all "violent", and I can't get my head around what the scenario is for use that our police-state apologists think they'd be used in.

      Call me a naive liberal, but when I think "bucket with urine in it", I think "broken toilet", not "vicious weapon". I have a sneaking suspicion that we're looking at a severe case of projection on the part of right-wingers like you with this: you guys do seem to have an attitude of "War first, ask questions afterwards". Your assumption a heavy, unwieldy, bucket containing urine is intended for use as a weapon could simply be because you assume everyone else thinks like you do.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    45. Re:also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I took the easy way out, but after seeing the direction the government and the citizens of the US respond to national crisis - I left. Perhaps I'll be back one day.

    46. Re:also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The democrats did the same thing - when an abc reporter was taking pictures of dems meeting with lobbyists at some hotel in denver during the dnc, denver police with cigars in their mouths (weird) were pushing him into the street, one put his hand on his throat, and finally they cuffed him.

      The weird thing is that the video of it on abcnews.go.com now seems to be gone. I guess keeping it around would take away from whatever story they're about to put up about "the fascist republicans."

    47. Re:also by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1

      I've just informed on you and told the police what you plan to do. You might want to watch your door for a while.

      See you in court then #698728 when they find nothing in my house. See how the system works? Sure you can lie but when an informant gives someones plans then they have all the tools to carry out those plans. These guys look guilty and you know it. From here the system will sort out whats lies and what isnt to the best of its ability.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    48. Re:also by dwpro · · Score: 1

      AC has the exact response I was formulating, though maybe a bit more course. Sure, there may be some radicals that we should worry about, but to associate flying a rebel flag to a violent racist assassin is just ignorant. We southerners actually have a cultural heritage and modicum of self restraint along with our differing opinions and proclivity for firearms. You should look us up sometime.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    49. Re:also by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      "They look guilty, ergo..." Spoken like a good Stalinist era informer! Yeah! You have my number! NOW I'm REALLY afraid!

    50. Re:also by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Just look at all those confederate flags still flown down in the southern states. This country is still packed with fucking racists.

      There are a lot of racists in the Old South. But in my experience, living all over the country, there are more racists up North than in the South these days. They're just not flying Confederate Battle Flags. Note, by the way, that very few of the people I know who fly a Confederate Battle Flag aren't expecially racist. No more than in the general population, certainly, and usually a lot less. About half the people with Confederate Battle Flags that I know are reenactors, who just like to play dress up and shoot rifle-muskets on weekends.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  13. Yes, indeed. by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And I really hope the legal community (especially the lawyers who were arrested themselves) steps up to the plate - even if it means working for free.

    Unfortunately, it will not be a PC thing to do considering the most folks believe that if yo do nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about and the police are always right and never lie. I once actually tried to convince someone of this (stupid me) but he insisted that the cops are always right and always have a justifialble reason. I guess he saw too many cop TV shows where the cops are saints and the "bad guys" are always guilty.

    If the lawyers get those folks acquitted, I'm sure the consensus will be that the sneaky, snarky, lying, greedy, lawyers got those dirtbags off because of a "technicality" and the poor innocent police who didn't have warrants or just cause are the victims.

    1. Re:Yes, indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess he saw too many cop TV shows where the cops are saints and the "bad guys" are always guilty.

      He had a mortgage to pay.

    2. Re:Yes, indeed. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

      Hey, old guy, read the articles. Right up front and center was a rep from the National Lawyer's Guild, as usual. Maybe the average lawyer is too much of a wuss or too shortsighted to put in the time (though plenty did in NYC during and after the RNC) but the Lawyers' Guild can be counted on, as predictable as sunrise, to be there in the thick of things, doing what lawyers are supposed to when rights are being violated: serving witness, acting as intermediaries, citing relevant codes, and otherwise doing the hard work of trying to keep this a nation of laws instead of simply one of the powerful.
      And yeah, they've been there for me when I needed them.

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  14. Evidence of conspiracy? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Was there any actual evidence of conspiracy? Or will this end up being one of those deals where the police confiscate all the protesters signs and bullhorns and then apologize and return them? Next week, after the GOP convention has finished.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. When was the last time that caused a riot? by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bottles are broken every single day.

    I see a different broken window at local businesses at least once a month.

    Those events do not cause riots.

    They are "minor". They are resolved by arresting / fining the idiot(s) who did it.

    I am also in Seattle.

    1. Re:When was the last time that caused a riot? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      It's called "inciting a crowd to riot".. it's a symbol.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:When was the last time that caused a riot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So are a bunch of police in full riot gear gassing and shoving everyone they see.

    3. Re:When was the last time that caused a riot? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Bottles are broken every single day. I see a different broken window at local businesses at least once a month.

      Not quite the same thing as gasoline cocktails and tossing paper boxes through the windows innocent local business. That's what happened in Seattle. I was there.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:When was the last time that caused a riot? by Voline · · Score: 1

      No gasoline bombs were thrown in Seattle. I have never even heard such an assertion made by the police. Cite your sources.

    5. Re:When was the last time that caused a riot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one individual throwing a bottle or breaking a window is no big deal. however if I get ten of my friends and we walk down the street throwing bottles at you're house and you're neighbors I don't think you're going to give to much of a damn about my freedom to express my frustration at you're picture window. Then you put 500 uncooperative protesters who, in protesting something they don't like, already feel like a minority and as if they're in a hostile environment, between the police trying to get to the individuals causing a ruckus and the officer and well you've got yourself an idea of why the cops step in and why the crowd over reacts.

  16. Free Speech by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

    We'll be getting a lot more of this if we elect McCain into office. Nominally we all have the right to free speech, but in practice the government can easily suppress unauthorized speech on technicalities such as "fire codes". If it weren't for the Internet, free speech in the United States would be mostly limited to private spaces between trusted friends -- public criticism being so easily stifled.

    I think the only way to get a message across is for people to speak out even in the face of strong government opposition. If they won't let you speak, go ahead and speak. People carrying signs and screaming "blah blah blee blee blah blah bloh... hey hey... ho ho" are bound to be ignored. People who get beat on by police, on the other hand, might actually get some attention from the media.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Free Speech by Shark · · Score: 1

      I entirely agree with you. But Obama's rumored approach reminds me of a close mix between the hitlerian youth and the stasi. Of course, none of it is done yet but it makes one ponder just how screwed the american people are when it comes to presidential choices.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
  17. Repeat of the NY Republican Convention by John3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This happened in NY City in 2004 during the Republican Convention although the police waited until the convention had started. My brother was one of the thousands swept up in the sweeps the police did to clear protesters from the street. His lawsuit is still pending, most likely he will wind up with a nice settlement, but the goal was to get these "troublemakers" off the street and that was accomplished. The same marching orders are likely in effect for the Republican Convention this year, and by the time the lawsuits are settled in four years the next election will be on the horizon. Kind of depressing that the police can get away with this bs.

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    1. Re:Repeat of the NY Republican Convention by HungSoLow · · Score: 1

      I think the solution isn't lawsuits, it's firing these wannabe police and publically hanging (or, maybe just the blocks) whoever is in charge. Someone has already said it, we need to see some heads roll. By heads roll, I mean purely legal means to get people fired -- none of that revolutionary stuff ... unless anyone is interested in organizing. It seems to me like americans have a modern king of england in their midst.

    2. Re:Repeat of the NY Republican Convention by Americium · · Score: 1

      Did you see the NYC channel 1 coverage on this? Most were all crammed into a condemned building and many people suffered from chemical burns. 60,000 cops on the street that day. Good times.

    3. Re:Repeat of the NY Republican Convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, the "Feds" (certainly the FBI, likely the Secret Service and other organizations) have targeted a number of groups, especially the one that made videotapes of the 2004 anti-RNC protests in NY (I-Witness). (And got > 400 charges dropped by revealing that NY Cops were perjuring themselves. Hence the ongoing lawsuits and settlements there.) The raids appear to have focused on seizing journals, computers, and video cameras, and so far appear to be targeting journalists covering and lawyers visiting during the convention.

      Here in St. Paul and Minneapolis, the Ramsey County sheriff's office seems to be the front organization for most of these raids. However, Minneapolis is in Hennepin (NOT Ramsey) county. (One of Minneapolis detentions did not involve the Ramsey County sheriff's office.) Some of the raids reportedly did not have search warrants; in one of them authorities surrounded a house, then got a search warrant for the house next door, and then raided the surrounded house.

      The Ramsey County sheriff, Bob Fletcher, is a Republican (unlike the mayors of St. Paul (Chris Coleman) and Minneapolis (R.T. Rybak)). Several of his officers are under federal indictment, and it's rumored that he is under investigation. http://www.startribune.com/local/east/27134929.html
      http://www.startribune.com/local/east/16716681.html?elr=KArks:DCiUtEia_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU

      Most of those detained in the raids have been released shortly after; those that are still being held are supposedly to be charged with "fire code violations" or "conspiracy to riot" (see Greenwald/Salon and various videos for their analysis of this -- it seems exceptionally "thin"). An attempt to have a raided house in St Paul condemned by the county has at least one St Paul council member angry. That they demanded it be condemned on account of the front door that police destroyed seems indicative of the authorities' strategy.

      Those charged can be held until Tuesday evening without charges; until charged, they cannot be bailed out. This is pretty clearly an attempt to keep these people away from the RNC on Monday, when the largest protests are expected.

      The reference to "suspected protestors" in the official releases also seems at best dodgy. ("Suspected"? The convention hasn't even started yet.)

      What I feel sure of, as a resident of St Paul and Ramsey County, is that ultimately my tax dollars will be going to pay for these abominations against the first amendment, justice and freedom, in the form lawsuits and payouts that these raids of highly questionable legality will engender.

      I also will not be surprised if Minneapolis and St. Paul wind up suing the Ramsey County sheriff's office. And if the residents of Ramsey County have much sense, they're no doubt regretting the election of Bob Fletcher (who very narrowly won his first term in the most recent elections) and will elect whoever runs against him in the next.

    4. Re:Repeat of the NY Republican Convention by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      The folks in MN weren't on the street. They were in a residence. This is a whole new order of pre-emptive arrests that we haven't seen since the civil rights movement in the 1960's.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    5. Re:Repeat of the NY Republican Convention by John3 · · Score: 1

      Someone please mod this anon post up. Lots of great info.

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    6. Re:Repeat of the NY Republican Convention by John3 · · Score: 1

      I never saw the coverage, just read the reports as well as heard the first-hand story from my brother. He was held in that same building, formerly used for auto repair and storage I believe so lots of chemicals and generally filthy.

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  18. Rise of FACISM by Tschuai · · Score: 1

    They didn't show their warrant?! We need to organize, write letters and make sure that justice is served. It's still our country no matter how many incidents like this happen. Take responsibility America!! Stand UP against this fascist bullshit! Write your congress/senate write the police station. When that doesn't work (it won't) we need to protest at their front fucking door! OUR COUNTRY

    1. Re:Rise of FACISM by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, did you sit down to write a letter after posting that?

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    2. Re:Rise of FACISM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *YAWN*

      No.

    3. Re:Rise of FACISM by Proud+Virgin · · Score: 1

      It's easier to stand back and wait for things to fix themselves, or write an angry rant on the internet. We're not used to fight for our rights, people did it before us.

    4. Re:Rise of FACISM by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      More people should exercise their second amendment right to have a firearm, and defend themselves against armed intruders into their houses.

      If police enter without knocking and showing a valid warrant, they are just like any other armed person breaking into a house. (If you think shouting "Police!" is enough, then every armed intruder is going to be shouting that, and then kill you when you surrender.)

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    5. Re:Rise of FACISM by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. The MN police had just such a situation not too long ago. They just brought even more guns. And then they gave medals to the cops who got shot.

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    6. Re:Rise of FACISM by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      If police enter without knocking and showing a valid warrant, they are just like any other armed person breaking into a house.

      With the difference that you and anyone else in the house will end up dead and the surviving police officers will get promoted. Really good plan.

  19. "Part of Free Speech" by DesScorp · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Just 20 or 30 years ago, demonstrations could get out of hand, but I think that is part of free speech. "

    Throwing urine on convention attendees is free speech? Do you yell "fire" in crowded theaters for fun too?

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      yes 20 or 30 years ago it was alot worse than some urine or a tomato. Do you not remember the riots in chicago in 68? I seriously doubt these guys were planning anything even close. Just google it if your too young to remember.

      How close are we to arresting people applying for permits to demonstrate like the chinese did at the olympics?

    2. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      In most countries you would get arrested for throwing the urine, not merely thinking about it.

      Bob

    3. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Urine is not very dangerous. By all means arrest these people if they actually go out and throw it on other people, but there's no justification for a preemptive strike.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    4. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by paulgrant · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yelling fire in a crowded theater is indeed permissible under free speech. look it up on wikipedia.

    5. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    6. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by Shark · · Score: 1

      This suggests that the urine was not part of the protest plans. The other buckets were apparently to flush toilets which is a pretty good idea for the environmentally conscious.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    7. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throwing urine on convention attendees is free speech?

      I heard they were going to throw magic pixie dust on them too! I can make up all sorts of bullshit if I'm not pressing charges and have to testify under oath, and I bet I can get some pixie dust out of Evidence if it did come to that.

    8. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked at a one of the smaller Democratic meetings to elect delegates or something, I can tell you firsthand that there *were* people there that did indeed want to "recreate '68". Now, that being said, the MN popos, and the FBI, and the entire government is going completely wacko in making sure that the bureaucrats are protected.

    9. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by tftp · · Score: 1

      Yelling fire in a crowded theater is indeed permissible under free speech.

      It is also a good idea if there is an actual fire in a crowded theater.

    10. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      but not necessary ;)

    11. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Throwing urine on convention attendees is free speech?

      The urine was taken from an illegal living space that had no toilet, and was occupied by people unrelated to the protesters.

    12. Re:"Part of Free Speech" by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I love the fact some of the guns were later 'taken from suspects' so they know they're back on the streets.

      Man, if I were one of those suspects, I'd be asserting that the gun wasn't taken from me at all, and that the guns are not, in fact, on the streets at all. But rather some of the police stole them to plant on people.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  20. And you guys want to bring democracy to others? by Britz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean I don't want to barge ahead. We only read the accounts of one side, but if it is even remotly true the US of A is far from being a free country. Why would the police even want to intimidate people that way? Only if there was a political reason. Semi-random police brutality is one thing, but the report looks like those were fairly large scale orchestrated moves by the police to influence politics. When the police stops working as law enforcment and starts working for a political party how far is that from a banana republic?

    And then the W guy comes up and talks about spreading democracy in the middle east? How about spreading it in Minneapolis?

    1. Re:And you guys want to bring democracy to others? by Hairy1 · · Score: 1

      I demand you withdraw your ill conceived and insulting comment. How dare you sully the good name of Banana Republics everywhere.

      But seriously folks, the joke of American "Democracy" is only fresh in the US. You lost your freedom years ago, its only now that you are finding out. Outside the US we have been shaking out heads with dismay for years; if only because our own Governments have been using the US as an example.

    2. Re:And you guys want to bring democracy to others? by shma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And then the W guy comes up and talks about spreading democracy in the middle east? How about spreading it in Minneapolis?

      I want to quote something directly from one of Greenwald's updates to the piece here, which directly addresses this point:

      During the Olympics just weeks ago, there was endless hand-wringing over the efforts by the Chinese Government to squelch dissent and incarcerate protesters. On August 21, The Washington Post fretted:

      Six Americans detained by police this week could be held for 10 days, according to Chinese authorities, who appear to be intensifying their efforts to shut down any public demonstrations during the final days of the Olympic Games. . . . Chinese Olympic officials announced last month that Beijing would set up zones where people could protest during the Games, as long as they had received permission. None of the 77 applications submitted was approved, however, and several other would-be protesters were stopped from even applying.

      On August 2, The Post gravely warned:

      Behind the gray walls and barbed wire of the prison here, eight Chinese farmers with a grievance against the government have been consigned to Olympic limbo. Their indefinite detainment, relatives and neighbors said, is the price they are paying for stirring up trouble as China prepares to host the Beijing Games. Trouble, the Communist Party has made clear, will not be permitted.

      Would The Washington Post ever use such dark and accusatory tones to describe what the U.S. Government does? Of course it wouldn't. Yet how is our own Government's behavior in Minnesota any different than what the Chinese did to its protesters during the Olympics (other than the fact that we actually have a Constitution that prohibits such behavior)? And where are all the self-righteous Freedom Crusaders in our nation's establishment organs who were so flamboyantly criticizing the actions of a Government on the other side of the globe as our own Government engages in the same tyrannical, protest-squelching conduct with exactly the same motives?

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    3. Re:And you guys want to bring democracy to others? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, plenty of us have known for years, some of us just spent a large amount of it below the age where any of those rights were considered ours to matter.

      Only thing I really leaved by the end of grade school was that it had been mostly a propoganda machine and conditioner for the status quo.

      In the decade since, I've learned it pretty much IS the status quo, barring of course you having the money or skills to write your own ticket.

    4. Re:And you guys want to bring democracy to others? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about barging ahead. You're still trying to catch up.

      Don't try to draw an equivalence between this and the torture rooms in Iraq, El Salvador or anywhere else for that matter. The difference is the press is allowed to cover such thing and when mistakes are made there is a process to recover. What middle eastern nation (except Israel) can say that?

      Planning riots has always been illegal, and should be. PEACEFUL assembly is legal.

    5. Re:And you guys want to bring democracy to others? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      It's fresh in the United States? I've known for... well... pretty much since I can remember understanding political concepts -- not that long since I'm quite young but it sure as hell ain't fresh.

    6. Re:And you guys want to bring democracy to others? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      The USA is so generous we gave all our democracy away, mostly to Iraq. But don't worry, we're working on Democracy 2.0, which fixes all the problems with 1.0, things like Habeas Corpus and security from unreasonable searches.

    7. Re:And you guys want to bring democracy to others? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We only read the accounts of one side, but if it is even remotly true the US of A is far from being a free country.

      I have some terrible news for you. First, you know, ... Santa is not real, he is just a imaginary character. And not only that, ...

  21. Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess George Bush learned something from his China trip.

    1. Re:Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a classic case of "East is East and West is...Affected"

  22. textbook example by aleph42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least this gives us a textbook example for the good old "nothing to hide" misconception.

    You can bet that a lot of illegal wiretaping was involved here to find the ringleaders, exactly like during the anit-vietnam protests. Also, note how they went straight for the computers: welcome to the world of "little brother"!

    "- I've got nothing to hide!"
    "- Then you agree with everything the government thinks. Oh, and the Church of Scientology, too."
    (alternate: "- Then you don't have a political life")

    --
    Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
    1. Re:textbook example by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      There is no need for illegal wiretapping. Given the Patriot Act, all sorts of electronic communications could legally be intercepted, without a warrant, under the pretext of 'fighting terrorism'. And the wiretaps need never be revealed, and could get the telephone or ISP staff jailed if they reveal them.

      Also, let's face it. Informants are cheap.

  23. Where were the DNC protesters by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Could the fact that we didn't see such an article about last weeks DNC be because there wasn't anybody bothering to protest? HBO's Real Time had footage from the "Free Speech Zone" in Denver which had more kids on bikes than protesters.

    That's because they were elsewhere in Denver, doing things like trying to levitate the Denver Mint, and screaming Kill Michelle Malkin!.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  24. That will never pass Constitutional muster and you by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    That will never pass Constitutional muster and you will have hard time getting it past a jury

  25. This needs to backfire. by 3seas · · Score: 1

    And charges need to be filed against those responsible for such raids.

    I'm not into teh politics either way and as such I can see without bias, this was wrong.

    Perhaps its time to again read the declaration of independence.

    1. Re:This needs to backfire. by cmoney · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm not really sure of Obama but this pretty much seals the deal. No way is McCain and the police state getting my vote.

    2. Re:This needs to backfire. by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Aim your ire a bit lower down the political ladder.

      This was a great way for Pawlenty to spite McCain for picking a governor from a northern frozen state that just happened to not be Minnesota. Toss in Gus shutting down the convention and McCain won't be getting any good press out of this.

      Another good possibility is ye olde mayors wanting to put on a show for all the big wigs in town. "Hey! Look at us! We're so sophistimacated that we arrest people before they do something! And we do it in a spectacular manner! And we arrest their neighbors just for living next to them!"

      Where's Jesse "The Former Governor" Ventura when you need him?

  26. COINTELPRO 2.0 by mweather · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anyone get the feeling this has all happened before, then laws were enacted to stop it, then Bush was elected and said laws were repealed?

  27. you == asshole by ClioCJS · · Score: 1, Troll
    Wow, so causing you to be late to work is "not peaceful".

    Hell man, I must be at war every day driving to work. My traffic is disrupted. It's not peaceful. Someone should be arrested. That will fix everything.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  28. What does "no crime other than . . . " mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well, it could mean that it's a good, old-fashioned violation of civil rights. Peaceful protest is a right in America, and if these raids were designed only to violate that right, there will be successful lawsuits.

    However, it's far more likely that although they have only (so far) been charged with "no crime other than 'fire code violations'", more charges are forthcoming. They don't take computers unless they intend to scrutinize them for evidence.

    Plausible scenerio leading up to the raids: An idiot on a message board was going on and on about icing McCain and Bush II, and even bigger idiots were playing along.

    PROTIP: The secret service takes all assassination threats seriously no matter how ridiculously they were hatched. See, e.g., the nazi meth-heads that the secret service caught en route to fail miserably at shooting Obama.

    1. Re:What does "no crime other than . . . " mean? by blankinthefill · · Score: 1

      As some on above here pointed out... that type of action doesn't look to be garnering this type of response. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/31/scant-coverage-of-obama-assassination-plot-irresponsible-or-cautious/ Or maybe its just party politics at play again? I hope to god that its not, and its just stupid people. Party politics is destructive enough, when you take it to this level, its not about the party overall, its about how long you can abuse until you have a revolution.

    2. Re:What does "no crime other than . . . " mean? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      It's worth pointing out that these 'fire code violations' are in buildings they rented.

      It's also worth pointing out they rented buildings because in New York the police arrested them in the street, even when they were meeting in areas like public parks.

      If there are actual violations, the correct people to arrest would be the people who rented unsafe buildings, not the victims who were rented them.

      Even if, under some logical contortions, you can arrest people for renting a building with fire code violations...you can't arrest people who just happen to be inside that building. There are only one or two people who rented the building.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  29. So peaceful!!! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to KSTP: "The sheriff's office said it confiscated weapons on Saturday including a machete, hatchet and several throwing knives, empty glass bottles, rags and flammable liquids, homemade devices used to disable buses, metal pipes, axes, bolt cutters, sledge hammers, empty plastic buckets made into shields, an Army helmet, and large amounts of urine." http://kstp.com/article/stories/S561752.shtml?cat=1

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:So peaceful!!! by pcameron41 · · Score: 1

      Which of those items are illegal to posses in the privacy of your home? "Better throw out the empty gin bottles Martha, DHS is coming."

    2. Re:So peaceful!!! by bahwi · · Score: 1

      I homebrew, I camp, and I clean. I have empty bottles, flammables, and rags!! OMG!

      I have knives, and having a hatchet isn't a big deal. It sounds more like they were gonna make trouble rather than assault anyone, i.e. they should wait until it's been done to arrest.

      They also broke into many people's homes without anything, scared them, and did nothing else.

      I prefer a peaceful protest myself(and will probably stay out of it, though after this I am reconsidering). Protecting the people is great, but excessive police force(no matter how little they got from this it doesn't explain away the excessive force present here) is ridiculous.

    3. Re:So peaceful!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe you could find things fitting the description of most of that around my house. Large amounts of urine might be found if had enough folks around that a port-a-potty was required to help facilitate the inevitable needs of nature they would have. Empty buckets made into shields? Think I threw the broken bucket away some porcine gentleman overestimated its strength and the bucket split and flared out. Homemade devices used to disable buses? Thought this was a pre-emptive strike? Maybe they meant "could be", in which case the log chain I replaced the hooks on might fit that description but could probably find some other things if I had my McGyver hat on. Most all the rest can likely be found easily in the kitchen, shop, garage, bathroom or liquor cabinet. Flammable liquids in each and every one of those locations and thus the most common thing from the list. Don't forget, each and every electrician in the country has drug paraphenalia in his toolbelt etc.

    4. Re:So peaceful!!! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll find those and other items in many houses. A quick glance through my apartment revealed the following suspicious substances and items:

      Very sharp knives longer than 5 inches (I cook)
      Precursors for biological weapons (I cook with very hot spices, good enough for pepper spray)
      Nerve toxins (I smoke and drink coffee)
      Percursors for explosives (aspirin)
      Precursors for drugs (acetone)
      Information and tools to invade computer systems (I work in IT security)
      Dispensers for aerosols (my deodorant bottle)
      Highly aggressive chemicals (toilet cleaner)
      Camoflage kit (shoe polish)
      Rubber gloves (I hate to touch my toilet without, especially with the cleaner involved)
      Equipment to create an electronic bomb timer (welding gun and a few ATMegas)
      Hydrogen peroxide (I wear contact lenses)
      Drug containers (plastic bags and tin foil)
      Equipment to create pamphlets and other propaganda material (I have a printer for my computer)
      Equipment to remotely detonate an exposive device (I fly RC planes)
      Heavy metals (lead, to balance out the planes)

      Need I go on?

      You will find a similar collection of "highly suspicious and potentially dangerous" items and "equipment" in many homes. There mere existance doesn't prove anything.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:So peaceful!!! by brentrad · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I have 90% of those items in my house and garage right now, and I've never been to a public protest in my life. Should I be arrested also?

    6. Re:So peaceful!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One helmet? who gets to wear it?

    7. Re:So peaceful!!! by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      That's one group. The I Witness group that was also intimidated is a completely different kettle of fish.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    8. Re:So peaceful!!! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      What do you want to bet the 'hatchet' is actually a fire ax that came with the rented building?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  30. There is video on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Crookandliars.com has some interviews and coverage on these raids.

    story #1
    story #2

  31. It's the quadrennial FNCs by shma · · Score: 1

    Time once again for the Fascist National Conventions. Featuring:

    Confinement of protesters to "Free Speech Zones"
    Jailing of Journalists
    Authoritarian Scare Tacticts

    And remember, the best part about the FNCs are that no matter who is nominated, one of their candidates always wins.

    --
    I came here for a good argument
  32. appologies by aleph42 · · Score: 1

    Hum, after reading TFA, the "tools of civil desobidiance" were indeed just that, and the claim that all the information was obtained from informants seems plausible. Oh, and I apparently dreamed the seizing of computers. Am I getting paranoid?

    Not that it won't be a textbook example when we get more details; protecting their conventions seems so important to them that they always go way over the line.

    --
    Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
  33. Selective Citations? by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    http://www.twincities.com/ci_10344356?nclick_check=1 ...

    The statement said the items found in the searches included:

    - Materials to create "sleeping dragons" (PVC pipe, chicken wire, duct tape), which is when protesters lock themselves together
    - Large amounts of urine, including three to five gallon buckets of urine
    - Wrist rockets (high-powered slingshots)
    - A machete, hatchet and several throwing knives ...

    Protesters have the right to protest. They DO NOT have the right to plant IEDs, spray urine on delegates, etc. Kudos to the police in Minnesota for busting these Stalinists.

    1. Re:Selective Citations? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      The "urine" is hard to explain, but some people are saying it was actually grey water.

      Most of this stuff is not unusual to be found in a home. When I was a kid, most of my friends had "wrist rockets"; I got mine at walmart for $15 or so. The novelty wore off quickly, once we realized that we didn't actually want to go around breaking windows and they just gathered dust mostly.

      The throwing knives are suspicious, but since they've not been charged with weapons possession, I suspect they are actually paring knives or something. Recall that almost everyone in this country has "drug distribution paraphernalia" in their homes (as polyethylene baggies or latex balloons).

      Caltrops, well OK. Maybe. Or they might have had a couple of these, possibly homemade (I did). If I could trust the police and media just a little bit, I'd take them much more seriously.

      I mean, really. "Flammable liquids"? I'd be more suspicious of a suburban home without any flammable liquids.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:Selective Citations? by pcameron41 · · Score: 1

      They did not plant IEDs, nor did they spray urine on anyone. Kudos on the police for raiding Dr. Kool's home and confiscating his carving knife, computer, journal, dirty bathwater that his wife was bathing in and his sex toys.

    3. Re:Selective Citations? by purpleraison · · Score: 1

      I agree! Most of this stuff can be found in half of the teenagers homes in America. I know when I was growing up these things were commonplace to have.

      Machete for camping
      throwing knives -- because they are fun
      calthrops because your a ninja
      throwing stars were cool too.

      Doesn't mean any of us did anything other than throw them at boards or trees-- wow.

      --
      I am open source, and Linux baby!
    4. Re:Selective Citations? by gnud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If, instead of a machete and some throwing knives, they police an automatic rifle and a NRA membership card, the protesters would be True American Patriots(tm), right?

      And pretty please explain to me why it's illegal to have pvc pipes, chicken wire and duct tape.

    5. Re:Selective Citations? by gnud · · Score: 1

      Whooopsie. Should be "the police found an automatic rifle.." etc

    6. Re:Selective Citations? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Well, assuming the rifle was a Class III registered weapon, the police would have been perfectly within the law to go into the house. It's one of those things you give up to legally own a fully automatic weapon in the US. Thank the Democrats for that one.

    7. Re:Selective Citations? by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      They DO NOT have the right to plant IEDs, spray urine on delegates, etc. Kudos to the police in Minnesota for busting these Stalinists.

      Yes, hooray for their psychic ability to see crimes in the future and prevent them now!

  34. This sounds familiar by Len · · Score: 2, Funny

    Government arrests people for planning to speak in public

    Sounds like some other headlines I've seen recently:

    Severe pollution in Minneapolis is expected to hamper the Convention

    John McCain alleged to be 14 years old, not 72 as claimed

  35. GG democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if you think about using your right to free speech you will now get quashed before you can ever use your right. Welcome to the land of the free, free to be screwed over that is.

    1. Re:GG democracy by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You mean like you just were? Please. I exercise that right every day and don't get 'quashed'. Then again, I do it peacefully and don't make threats.

  36. Freedom no more by Imatelephone · · Score: 1

    Things like this prove that America is heading in the direction of a dictatorship. They may not call it that, but that's what we will soon be. It's like George Orwell's "Animal Farm". As the public loses insight and opinion, the manipulative government gains power. Finally, FUCK THE POLICE!!

    1. Re:Freedom no more by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Authoritarian state != dictatorship. I think America looks more like an oligarchy right now.

    2. Re:Freedom no more by Imatelephone · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean dictatorship in a literal sense, if that makes any sense. i was referring to the American government as the dictator and the ignorant public basically as submitting to its dictator.

  37. Where were the raids on Repulbican demonstrators? by HangingChad · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The chuckleheads with the rifles aside, there were Republican protests at the Democratic convention, why weren't they arrested and photographed? The same thing happened in '04. The FBI started intimidating political activists. And now we find out the FBI was behind the raids in St. Paul.

    There have been rumors going back a long way that Rove had friendlies in the FBI that were using police powers in primarily political investigations.

    Don't forget that a lot of /. readers supported this administration and are, at least in my mind, partially responsible for the thuggish, heavy-handed tactics our government feels it can employ with near impunity. Guess you could call it trickle down stupidity. But many of you voted for the bozos at the top. If they keep to their usual form they'll either blame the victims or blame Clinton.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  38. The Seattle Riots by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Well a couple of brain dead anarchists breaking windows and throwing bottles does not create a riot."

    Anyone that says the Seattle rioters (PRIOR TO the police response) were just "a few brain dead anarchists" are at best misinformed, or worse, utterly full of shit. Everyone from Greenpeace to Earth First planned "direct action" in Seattle, and lots of violence was on the menu for the Earth First types. The cops may have overreacted, but lets can this BS meme that the cops were overreacting to a handful of rowdy boys. There were people that had planned violent activities for weeks prior to those meetings, and they were certainly more than a handful. Furthermore, once they got started, the crowd seemed plenty eager to join in the festivities... including things like busting up every Starbucks and McDonalds they could find.

    Don't pretend it was a bunch of naive innocents vs. the gestapo.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:The Seattle Riots by linzeal · · Score: 1

      So? I was there with the wobblies who were mostly over the age of 50 and the direct action types you mentioned did not even get a chance to do anything before a few dozen masked individuals started property damage. Look up the arrest reports they were not affiliated with anyone and to say anything else is slander. They were "individualist" Anarchist types ala Zubrin.

    2. Re:The Seattle Riots by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Friggin' please. They were no more 'individualist' than the Anonymous crowds are. They plan things.

    3. Re:The Seattle Riots by moortak · · Score: 1

      Direct action does not have to include violence. It may, but it can also be sit ins and other distinctly non violent acts.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    4. Re:The Seattle Riots by Accordion+Noir · · Score: 1

      The clearest account of the WTO demonstrations in Seattle is probably the study by the RAND corporation, they are not a hippy-dippy group. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch7.pdf They found that clearly, the police started assaulting non-violent crowds before any windows were broken. The crowds were sitting down blocking access to the convention center, and the Seattle PD and co started gassing, pepper-spraying, and beating them at about 9 AM. The window-smashing started later. There was a small group (maybe a hundred out of 30,000 demonstrators) who did plan to spray-paint and break windows. I think that was dumb myself, it obviously muddied the violence the police were engaging in. The police lost all tactical control the didn't have a plan by then (they never confronted the window-smashers at all). And later they chased a bunch of people into Capitol Hill, panicked when locals were angry at them, and tear-gassed a residential neighborhood. Since then we've seen several things: 1. cops try to preemptively intimidate and arrest people (months or years later, these are thrown out of court.) 2. They usually are more agressive at the beginning of an event (like the RNC), and then they get milder, like they've "learned from their mistakes." This might take the sting off, but it seems to be a pattern, so I wonder if it is a planned tactic. Also, at the RNC in Philadelphia in 2000, the city took out insurance to pay for possible constitutional rights violations. I call that premeditation, and the city and the insurer should be liable. Blah, blah, rant rant. The Rand Corp. document really is an interesting play by play. I think the people giving orders should go to jail.

      --
      "Ruthlessly pursuing the idea that the accordion is just another instrument."
    5. Re:The Seattle Riots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, to an extent you're right. A few of those "brain-dead" anarchists were engaging in what's called a "Black Bloc", which is a carefully planned economic sabotage tactic. Economic sabotage is, of course, an American tradition. (This just in from Fox News 1773: a bunch of brain-dead hooligans dressed as Indians rioted, damaging the property of the British East India Company!)

        Basically, the WTO is a piratical organization that robs third world countries to enrich powerful corporations like Bechtel or Kellogg, Brown, and Root, among others. The WTO board are not democratically elected, and do not answer to the people, but have set themselves up as the arbiters of economic policy for people around the globe, including Americans.

        While the hippies sat around in their drum circles, chanting "Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The WTO has got to go!" and accomplishing both jack and squat, this small group of anarchists went out dressed anonymously, each with a specific list of storefronts owned by members or financial supporters of the WTO. They blended into the crowd, then stepped out and smashed windows etc., then blended right back into the crowd so they could move to their next target, frustrating the police efforts to stop them.
        The result is that while the Mom & Pop companies had only to fear the occasional drunken yahoo or monkey-see-monkey-do type, the various companies that made up the WTO's support network found themselves at the receiving end of huge financial costs.
        The cops are, of course, required to protect those businesses and the interests of the WTO -- as it always goes, if you're a small-time crook, they come after you; if you're really big-time crook, they have to protect you.

        Quite a lot of support for the WTO was withdrawn after the events in Seattle, which actually set the WTO back significantly. I'll leave it up to you to decide if it was because companies realized that being tied to an unpopular organization like the WTO could cost them money, or if it's because they felt sorry after they heard what the hippies were chanting.

        The WTO flat-out kills people around the world with their economic "help," and if you've got a better idea how to stop them, I'd be glad to hear it.

  39. Ah, Minnesota... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the police beat the ever-loving shit out of you if they even think you'll exercise your rights.

  40. Re:Rock bottom by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Your comment made me laugh, it really did. Go look at the civil liberties raped over and over by both sides during the American Civil War or during the First World War in the US, then compare/contrast to the current "erosion" of civil liberties.

    What has gone on for the last eight years is nothing compared to what happened in the past. How many languages have been outlawed in the last 8 years? None, go back to the teens, the government did the equivalent of making Spanish outlawed when the German language was all but criminalized.

    In 1918, these 'anarchists' would be getting deportation hearings right now, even if US citizens or born here.

  41. apples and oranges by globaljustin · · Score: 0, Troll

    things have been like this before the Conventions since the '68 DNC Riots. Or did you not notice the guy who was arrested in Denver for checking into a hotel just before the DNC with a couple rifles?

    Completely different circumstances.

    '68 riots...they were actual RIOTS. In the cases in TFA they had done nothing except plan a legal protest. The charges are bullshit. "Fire code violation" my ass. You must have never had a bad run-in with the police. You have no idea what it is like to be in a position where the cops want to find something to charge you with. If they want to, they will...more often than not anyway. The reality of whether you actually did something worthy of being charged is meaningless in that situation.

    As for the Denver people, they actually were committing a crime as well. They were meth dealers.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:apples and oranges by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Actually, planning to block all traffic in an area is most certainly an illegal protest. Protesting is perfectly legal, effectively forcing everyone to stop and watch your antics is not.

  42. Errr by burnitdown · · Score: 1

    We've been tolerating it a lot longer than that.

    Remember Waco?

    What about the War on Drugs?

    Or the Alien and Sedition acts?

    What about the death of Socrates?

    In Democracy, image -- how we communicate to a Crowd -- matters more than reality. So we often trade sanity for insanity.

    Uninformed people will tell you this is a question of liberty versus tyranny. What if liberty empowers tyranny, through the bad judgment of most people?

    I know this is a unpopular opinion. Most truths are until they reach a tipping point of smart people believing in them. You can help make this change!

    1. Re:Errr by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      You are pushing my argument down the slippery slope. Sure the things you mention have varying levels of similarity to the MN arrests, but that does not invalidate my point.

      Here's your worst line:

      In Democracy, image -- how we communicate to a Crowd -- matters more than reality.

      Bullshit. Of course image and perception matter, but it's not fundamental. Reality exists. Perception can closely mirror reality or be completely different from it. Here's another quote about democracy: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

      Lastly, I've said it before on these boards and I'll say it again...

      A restaurant can serve you a steaming pile of shit with garnish and a nice Chianti. They can put a little card next to it that says "Pasta Primavera." They can arrange for others around you to pretend that it's not shit. They can do alot to alter your perception. But no matter what they do, it's still a steaming pile of SHIT.

      If perception is reality, then I suggest you take a big bite.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    2. Re:Errr by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      Process the shit enough and you can make it look and taste like fish cakes, or anything else you want to extrude (McDemocracy chicken nuggets anyone?).

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    3. Re:Errr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's another quote about democracy: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

      It is, of course, mostly true, but the problem is that in democracy you don't need to fool all the people all the time. It suffices to fool just half of just those part of people who vote, plus one person, and just for a relatively short period of time, during campaign.

      A restaurant can serve you a steaming pile of shit with garnish and a nice Chianti. They can put a little card next to it that says "Pasta Primavera." They can arrange for others around you to pretend that it's not shit. They can do alot to alter your perception. But no matter what they do, it's still a steaming pile of SHIT.

      If perception is reality, then I suggest you take a big bite.

      I suggest you should think more about facts and logic, less about impressing your audience with vivid pictures. It may work, but only so far. In the end people will see you through for what you are and hate you for treating them as idiots. I've seen bad ideas promoted into wrong technical decisions, by using loaded analogies. Your example is flawed, because it is exactly your PERCEPTION (contrary to attempted PERSUASION) that will tell you that it is, in fact, a pile of shit.

    4. Re:Errr by Anti+Globalism · · Score: 1

      Your argument seems to be this: an enough quantity of people will be able to discern propaganda/lies/illusions from truth/reality, therefore democracy is a good idea. Apart from being a poor, inductive argument, you seem to have forget that most people aren't educated in state affairs, apart from what they see on TV. This means their perception of reality is largely a product of media manipulation. Did you ever check out the documentary by Brian Springer, documenting how false this media surface really is? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353

    5. Re:Errr by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      I think you and I would agree on alot of issues. I do not contend that the MSM is competent in its current incarnation. More on that below...

      Democracy is the best idea yet for governance. Its flaws are less harmful than other options. I do not believe there is a 'perfect' solution to governance.

      I don't agree when you say my argument is 'inductive' but otherwise I agree with your basic characterization. What our system does for us is give us the opportunity to do the right thing if we educate ourselves about the reality of the issues. We can vote and hold officeholders accountable if we want to. For me, that's power. The trick is, we have to use it. If you read my original post on this topic you'll see that I place *some* of the blame for the sad state of our country on us, the citizens.

      Yes, I do think that many voters are severely ignorant. I do not think it is a conspiracy by the MSM (at least, most of the time it's not ;), I think they are doing what they think will pull asses in the seats and get them advertising dollars. Some of the MSM is better than others, of course, but they all need improvement desperately. Yes, the inane MSM coverage of the news is dumbing down our society (or HAS dumbed down...) but at the core, as I said above, it is every citizen's repsonsibility to educate themselves, and with that responsibility comes the power to force government accountability (aka redress of greivances).

      I'm a leftist libertarian, but I'm not a pure anarchist. I do see a proper function of a federal government.

      So, my argument is: IF enough quantity of people will be able to discern truth from lies, THEN democracy can be the best system modern humans have come up with SO FAR, even though it won't ever be perfect.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    6. Re:Errr by legalize+dissent · · Score: 1

      In theory if there was an intelligent and active population then democracy might be able to work, but we no longer have the population of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. We have soundbites and a population that averages 7 hours of television every day. A small minority, perhaps 2% think critically about any topic. Few read anything of substance.

      If democracy ever had a chance, that window closed a hundred years ago and each successively dumber generation is less and less able or responsible to govern and be involved in expressing an intelligent and carefully considered opinion.

      Time to start over. Let's come up with a system that favors intelligent ideas and actual solutions.

    7. Re:Errr by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      question: what percentage of the population was literate in the Lincoln/Douglas days?

      I don't know exactly, but it was under 50%

      I absolutely agree that many American's are ignorant. But I say ignorant in relation to what they could know based on what's available in our culture to inform and enrich their thinking today. By comparison, today's above average grad. student has more academic knowledge and philosophical understanding than almost anyone in America in the mid-1800s. Sure, the grad student wouldn't know how to milk a cow, but that skill could be learned easily. Try teaching a farmer with a 6th grade education from the 1800s how to use PowerPoint. There's no comparison.

      We're smarter today than we were then, but not as smart as we need to be.

      So, why don't you just tell me what system of government you think we should have?

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  43. Re:NEWS FOR NERDS HOW???!!! by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

    Nerds are people too, and this is definitely news for people.

    Besides, /. knows their market, and knows that these articles will get a lot of traffic and activity. Taglines be damned- they're a business and a media outlet like any other.

    --
    "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
  44. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I personally known and have spoken with individuals, who have made a "pilgrimage" of sorts to the RNC, with the express intention of causing as much chaos and disorder and disruption as they can possibly get away with -- even the illegal kind.

    They're all members of the local campus chapter of SDS, Students for Democratic Society. That organization bears no affiliation with the similar group from the Vietnam era except that they stole the name and ideology -- violence and social upheaval are the appropriate tools to cause a change to a global communist utopia. Some of these people are my FRIENDS, and they make me (middle left politically) look like Rush Limbaugh.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that some of the individuals raided were planning something felonious and potentially dangerous. But, there's a very fine line between preempting a crime, and just shutting up people you don't agree with.

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you need to get some new friends.

    2. Re:Well... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But, there's a very fine line between preempting a crime, and just shutting up people you don't agree with.

      No there is not. The police do not exist to preempt crime; that is not their purpose in any free society. The police exist to enforce the law when and ONLY when it has already been violated.

      Welcome to the United Oligarchy of America. You've been here for 8 years already.

  45. Amendment I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    I have seen NO reports of violence being planned. Political opposition is the American way! Let them go NOW.

    1. Re:Amendment I by v1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Looks like someone forgot to read the first addition to The Constitution...

      I very much hope to see someone very publicly hauled in front of a judge over this. Even if they were all let go, breaking up this assembly was itself a violation of the First Amendment.

      Trampling on and interpreting laws nowadays isn't too hard to get away with, but direct violations of amendments are still a good deal more difficult to slither out of.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Amendment I by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Especially when you have journalists and lawyers tied up in the whole mess.

      I really, really hope that this time those self proclaimed autocrats will pay for it. Fuck it's more than just time to put down the foot and say enough. Actually, it was enough quite a while ago.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Amendment I by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      LOL. Quite a while ago was the time for protests, strikes, and maybe even rioting. You want your country back *now*, make a revolution.

    4. Re:Amendment I by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Especially when you have journalists and lawyers tied up in the whole mess.

      I really, really hope that this time those self proclaimed autocrats will pay for it. Fuck it's more than just time to put down the foot and say enough. Actually, it was enough quite a while ago.

      I do too. I really do. I felt the same way after the same shit was pulled in New York. I was sure that those responsible would pay. They should be disgraced, arrested. I was so positive justice would prevail I held my breath, and am now a lovely shade of blue.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
  46. The other side? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In my experience, hearing just one side of a story almost always leaves out important facts.

    Before we go apeshit, shouldn't we maybe get the government's / police's side of the story?

    I'm not saying that nothing bad happened here, just that until we know (or at least give an opportunity to be voiced) both sides of the story, we're really flying blind.

    1. Re:The other side? by pcameron41 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would you really trust this government's version of any story?

    2. Re:The other side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you really trust a whiny anarchist protester's version of this story?

    3. Re:The other side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before we go apeshit, shouldn't we maybe get the government's / police's side of the story?

      You must be new here...

    4. Re:The other side? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      After all the perjury by police in New York in 2004? Um, yes.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  47. But if ADMIT to trying to KILL Obama.... by AHTuttle · · Score: 1

    ...you get dismissed as a crackpot druggy even when you have guns, bullet proof vests, disguises, fake IDs, walky talkies etc. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/31/scant-coverage-of-obama-assassination-plot-irresponsible-or-cautious/#more-32351 Just think if those were African Americans on crack admitting they wanted to kill McCain???!!! Or god forbid MUSLIM.

  48. Unbiased by pottymouth · · Score: 1

    "Jane Hamsher and I were at two of those homes this morning"

    So this is sure to be an unbiased account of these events!! Wow! You guys crack me up!!

  49. Re:Rock bottom by MouseR · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well they DID ban French fries for a while.

  50. Re:Rock bottom by Firehed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right, so what you're saying is that because it's not as bad as a century ago, it's OK? There was also a point where not actively following the state's religion would get you killed. That doesn't make today's religious hysteria acceptable, even if it's not as bad relatively speaking (though it seems we're headed back in that direction).

    Please get out of the country now, for everyone's sake.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  51. News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In an unrelated event, members of the party faithful went ahead with a public bonfire and barbecue event to celebrate the last 8 years of prosperity enjoyed by party affiliates. A reported 18,000 books, err, cellulose fuel bricks, were ignited as a demonstration of our commitment to pursuing the development of alternative fuels in anticipation of the next 8 years of prosperity.

    Long live the party! Bless the USA!

    -end satire

  52. re-read post by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misunderstood my post. I said:

    these people aren't violent anarchists

    I do not approve of the actions of law enforcement in these cases. These people were not violent. They were not violent anarchists.

    Let's say they are anarchists. That is not a crime (sometimes it's just common sense).

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:re-read post by initialE · · Score: 1

      You know, when peaceful anarchists fail to make themselves heard, that's when the violent ones take over. The lesson here seems to be that in order to make a difference, you need to shed some blood. (I don't approve or agree with it, but I'm just stating my observations here)

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
  53. Re:Rock bottom by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    No, they had one of the pointless votes that isn't binding to change the name of them in the commissary.

  54. Buckets of urine by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

    The /. summary kind of cherry-picks the bits that it mentions. If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready, in addition to the slingshots, bow and arrows, and gun that police seized. It's pretty clear that whatever protest these people were planning was going to go beyond peaceful words, unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.

    It also notes that these informants were working on the inside of the protest groups for quite some time, to minimize any doubt that these folks were up to no good. So, in other words, the cops were doing their job, and Slashdot has, in typical form, made it some sort of repression of the proletariat by the current administration.

    1. Re:Buckets of urine by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.

      Maybe they didn't pay their sewer bill.

    2. Re:Buckets of urine by iPhr0stByt3 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Seriously! /. needs to get back to it's Tech-roots and stop being so flippin liberal

    3. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      When buckets of urine are outlawed, only outlaws will have buckets of urine.

      You can have my bucket of urine when you pry it from my cold, dead freezer.

    4. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in other words, the cops were doing their job, and Slashdot has, in typical form, made it some sort of repression of the proletariat by the current administration.

      In other words, Slashdot did its job too. Hey man, we're all just doing our jobs here.

    5. Re:Buckets of urine by LearnToSpell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Brian Eno drinks his own pee.

    6. Re:Buckets of urine by nizo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you have a house full of people waiting to protest and the toilet backs up, where else are you gonna go?

      Also possessing buckets of urine, slingshots, bows 'n arrows, and guns is perfectly legal (or was the gun illegally registered, or otherwise illegal?) Certainly there are plenty of illegal things you can do with all of the above items, but unless there is actual evidence that crimes were to be committed with the items, simply having them isn't a crime.

      So at this point it looks like we just have to wait and see what evidence comes to light, including a reasonable explanation of why there were informants in the groups to begin with.

    7. Re:Buckets of urine by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's your "better explanation." Not that it will change your thinking in the least.

      Two buckets contain grey water and were being used to flush toilets, to conserve water, in the upstairs bathroom. Both were identified in the inventory as "unidentified liquid." The third bucket, as shown by inventory sheets, was seized from illegal apartment over a garage in the rear. This apartment has been occupied for several years by a person unconnected to the house occupants or the RNC. No bathroom was in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket. This was listed as "unidentified yellow liquid" in the inventory sheets.src

      Also, since when was ownership of a firearm evidence that someone intends to perpetrate a crime? The NRA would like to have a word with you.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    8. Re:Buckets of urine by gblfxt · · Score: 3, Informative

      they said on the cnn, the buckets of urine were from a house that didnt have working bathrooms.

    9. Re:Buckets of urine by bussdriver · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Star-Tribune SUCKS. Can't trust them. I've lived in Twin Cities.

      My sources (in MN) say that that most the buckets were gray water and a few were because there was no bathroom (the place was over crowded.) Not to mention there is no crime for pissing in a bucket.

      In addition, the Star Trib spends time on the anarchist group when most the raids were OTHER groups that were not anarchist and the paper didn't explain that and left it for the reader to mis-characterize all the other people involved in the raids when most of them were peaceful people gathering on private property.

      They were NOT civil to reporters in all situations. Plus in some cases the people they held were the people asserting their constitutional rights. (there no warrants in most cases.)

      Plus if you have been following, there were reports of the FBI trying to get students to be informants for them... One student spoke out about it months ago; one wonders what kind of characters volunteer for it-- and how trustworthy they are if they hate these protesters to begin with and that is why the agreed to be a voluntary government spy.

      here is another link
      http://www.twincities.com/ci_10346122?source=most_viewed

    10. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "According to Dr. Beatrice Bartnett in her pamphlet, Urine-Therapy: It May Save Your Life, morning urine is the richest and best urine to drink.

      The Urine Cure documents the many practioners of urine drinking (inluding Gandhi and rocker Jim Morrison). Worth a read.

    11. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be 'lukewarm dead freezer'? :D

      Or 'cold live freezer', of course.

    12. Re:Buckets of urine by John3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder how many homes in the area are well stocked with guns and ammunition and yet the police aren't raiding those buildings. Oh right, the Constitution doesn't give people the right to possess urine.

      I don't kid myself that these people were likely planning to disrupt the convention, but I think the laws banning "riot planning" tread dangerously close to violating the right to assemble and the right to speak freely. Democracy is challenging, fascism is easy (for the police).

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    13. Re:Buckets of urine by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready

      If you read the Star-Tribune article thoroughly you would have read this statement from it:
      "The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."

      It also notes that these informants were working on the inside of the protest groups for quite some time, to minimize any doubt that these folks were up to no good. So, in other words, the cops were doing their job

      This is the United States of America where innocence is presumed before guilt is proven. Where is the evidence of guilt? What is it? All this is is an attempt to silence protest during the Republican convention.

      Falcon

    14. Re:Buckets of urine by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.

      Maybe they didn't pay their sewer bill.

      There was no toilet in the apartment where the only bucket of urine was found. The other buckets were filled with dirty water, to flush the toilets that were in the building. But they, whoever they is, will turn off water. I live in Minneapolis in an apartment and so far this year we have gotten 3 notices the water will be turned off if the bill is not paid.

      Falcon

    15. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has to be a troll--if not, there is always a Quisling ready to step forward--and then, yes, guns and buckets of urine are not only mandatory, but vital to the future...

    16. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the evidence of guilt? What is it?

      You'll have to wait for the actual court trial, dumbass.

      Informants shouldn't just blab to the press, nor forward their evidence straight to you.

    17. Re:Buckets of urine by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The Star-Tribune SUCKS. Can't trust them. I've lived in Twin Cities.

      My sources (in MN) say that that most the buckets were gray water and a few were because there was no bathroom (the place was over crowded.)

      GP obviously didn't read the entire Star-Tribune article, or simply left out pertinent info. TFA does in fact say all the buckets but one was filled with dirty water and that the only bucket with urine was in an apartment that did not has a toilet. Here it is:

      "The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."

      It's more than half way down the page. Thanks for the new link.

      Falcon

    18. Re:Buckets of urine by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1
      "It also notes that these informants were working on the inside of the protest groups for quite some time, to minimize any doubt that these folks were up to no good. So, in other words, the cops were doing their job"

      Really? It's the cops' job to infiltrate and spy on citizens and citizens' groups? Not based on evidence of wrongdoing, but to find out IF they are inclined towards wrongdoing?

      And it's their job to raid people's homes without arresting them, confiscate common household items, and release the people while keeping the items - because the cops suspect that these items COULD be used illegally and MIGHT be used illegally because of the political beliefs of the citizens?

      Are you fucking insane?

      --
      This space available.
    19. Re:Buckets of urine by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      When they plan the riot?

    20. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be surprised if the buckets of urine constituted some kind of "green" toilet system. I actually live just around the corner from this house in the Seward neighborhood. The blue house shown on the twincities.com site is not the house. The house is brown as stated in the warrant. Besides being a ramshackle place, I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary there on my walks with the dog. One guy there taps the trees in the neighborhood for maple syrup and seemed pretty nice, but who knows? The police have been out in force here, and I think it is disturbing and 1984ish. I saw a green bus pulled over and being searched that said "Earth Activists" on the I-94 Vandalia exit around 6 or 7pm yesterday, with no less than 8 or 9 police cars around it. I think you could probably go into anyone's home and find quite a bit of paraphernalia that might be construed as "weapons".

    21. Re:Buckets of urine by celle · · Score: 1
      "addition to the slingshots, bow and arrows, and gun that police seized. It's pretty clear that whatever protest these people were planning was going to go beyond peaceful words, unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine."

      That's it???? Considering the sheer level of knowledge and gun access in this country and I mean real guns, you know this is just stuff the owner had around for fun. I doubt most of the weapons have nothing to do with the protest, well except the urine which makes sense when making a statement. The cops are just looking for shit excuses most aren't even illegal. Minor disruptions should be expected especially when the establishment makes it useless to talk by pushing the protestors miles away from the subject of the protest. The disruptions are just another form of protest since the vocal right has been rendered mute. Is this the US or China. Besides, only rarely have real protests been effective with just words.

    22. Re:Buckets of urine by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure. Because the media always reports the unadulterated, unbiased truth, right? Of course they do. No chance whatsoever that they could be.. *** BIASED ***.. in any way, right? That would be bad journalism. Unless you were there yourself you can't say what really was happening there. Even if you personally know someone who was there, who you trust 100%, you'll still only get a partially factual account.

    23. Re:Buckets of urine by abigor · · Score: 1

      ...says the guy with the 1.2 million-something uid.

      Slashdot has always run stories like this. I guess you weren't around for the coverage of the 2000 elections.

    24. Re:Buckets of urine by smchris · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since you have all this figured out from reading the mainstream media, I'm sure you know that these moles are volunteers and only get paid of there are arrests. Plenty of incentive to provoke arrests one way or another.

    25. Re:Buckets of urine by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that gun found in a private residence?

      If I have harsh words with someone and the police confiscate all the sharp knives in my kitchen, stating only that "a number of weapons were found on the premises," that might sound reasonable too. Nevermind that I never considered stabbing anyone. Lets not forget all the 'flammable materials' under my sink, or the paint and brake fluid in my utility closet. I don't have a bow and arrow, but then I'm not god-damned Robin Hood; so there's a good chance it would not be my instrument of choice for political mischief.

      I'm not even sure how I'm meant to employ this nefarious DOT-3 compliant brake fluid I'm in possession of, I just know my last car demanded almost a quart a month in exchange for my life.

    26. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while i agree that there's a good explanation for the buckets and that -ownership- of a firearm means nothing, many individuals having transported said firearms to a meeting location is a bit different. I do wonder why they did that though? Inventory? "Everyone got their pipes and chains?"

    27. Re:Buckets of urine by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready

      Obviously you either didn't read the whole Star-Tribune article or you're trolling. TFA says, cut and paste:

      "The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."

      Falcon

    28. Re:Buckets of urine by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

      The urine is addressed below. The bows and arrows were less than would be found in the average suburban American house so I'm not impressed. As for a "gun", I saw no "gun". Can you point that out to me?

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    29. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A serious explanation? For buckets of urine? Your kidding, right? Did it not occur to you that this is a situation where a lot of people from out of town are staying in houses that might have only a single bathroom? Hell, I know people who will piss in a bottle rather than climb a set of stairs to get to the john - it's hardly proof of any kind of criminal conspiracy.

    30. Re:Buckets of urine by dryeo · · Score: 1

      DOT-3 brake fluid makes good paint remover so if you accidentally pour it over someones car...
      Also if you kept driving a vehicle that was eating a quart of brake fluid a month you're very lucky to be alive and not in jail for criminal negligence causing death.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    31. Re:Buckets of urine by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

      Remind me to never accept any food taken from your fridge.

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    32. Re:Buckets of urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus in Nazi America, thinking about doing a crime has become a crime.

    33. Re:Buckets of urine by houghi · · Score: 1

      Also, since when was ownership of a firearm evidence that someone intends to perpetrate a crime?

      If having a firearm is like the intend to perpetrate crime, having a mouth is like the intend to perpetrate lies.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    34. Re:Buckets of urine by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      I think you need to prove slightly more than that.
      1) they were going to take the weapons to the riot
      2) they were going to use the firearms to break laws

      or a combination of 1 & 2 atm all you have is
      a) they had weapons
      b) they were going to a protest

      I live in London (lots of knife crime around here), i have knives in my house and i go to protests, does that mean the police should raid my house to stop me using my knives at a protests, because that royally fucks my plans for dinner.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    35. Re:Buckets of urine by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      You don't eat with a hunting sling shot.

    36. Re:Buckets of urine by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Not to mention there is no crime for pissing in a bucket.

      Sorry but pissing in a bucket is not considered free speech. Only pissing in a violin is.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    37. Re:Buckets of urine by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      dude, the police lie to the media all the time. They confiscate shit like toy bow and arrows and claim them as weapons.

      Here's an example of one protest organizer's experience with Montreal police:

      "I was charged with
      participating in a riot, breach of conditions, and possessing a
      dangerous weapon: a teddy-bear launching catapult. I was
      detained for 17 days in prison before winning bail. During
      various court hearings while I was in detention, police
      witnesses and crown attorneys alleged that I was the leader
      of the demonstration, and that the catapult was used to
      launch rocks and Molotov cocktails. One officer testified under
      oath that the teddy bears could have transformed into
      Molotovs (no joke). The police did "ballistics tests" on the
      catapult which were recorded on video, after the catapult
      was seized from an affinity group from Ottawa (the
      "Lanark-ists") by the police." source link

      I'd really like to see the evidence they gathered for these protests presented. In many cases, the evidence provided to media doesn't hold in court...

    38. Re:Buckets of urine by anyGould · · Score: 1

      The /. summary kind of cherry-picks the bits that it mentions. If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready, in addition to the slingshots, bow and arrows, and gun that police seized. It's pretty clear that whatever protest these people were planning was going to go beyond peaceful words, unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.

      My uncle owns most of those things - he's a hunter.

      Once they left the house armed to the teeth, then the police can have a word with them. Until then, they were doing nothing wrong. And the proof is simple: if they had done something (anything!) wrong, the cops wouldn't have released them without charge.

    39. Re:Buckets of urine by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      The (one, btw) bucket of urine belonged to a squatter who was living upstairs in the building. Completely unconnected. The other buckets of "urine" were actually dirty wash water.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    40. Re:Buckets of urine by rthille · · Score: 1

      I've got a Glock 9mm (with a cable lock thru the mechanism, locked in a safe it hasn't been out of in months if not years), my wife has a shot gun, in the same safe. We've got a oxy/acetylene welding/cutting torch and hacksaws in the garage. My wife has a compound bow from when she was doing archery competitively. I probably have a slingshot here, I know I had 3-5 of them (the nice surgical tubing ones) when I was growing up, and I figure they made it into the boxes when I moved from my parents' house many years ago. We don't have full-on gas masks, but since my wife does Volcanology, we have some masks for dealing why highly toxic gasses (H2SO4?) which might be of use against tear gas. Not to mention the scuba gear with masks which would probably allow us to deal with tear gas.

      None of those items are illegal for us to own in the U.S.A. Certainly the bucket of urine is strange, but not illegal, and it's disputed in other comments whether the urine was related to the alleged protesters at all.

      Certainly, the police could bust down our door, and come up with a story about how we had to tools for mischief, seize many of our possessions and jail us without cause, and sell it to the public. That wouldn't make it any less wrong.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    41. Re:Buckets of urine by Grim+Beefer · · Score: 1

      Many people of the radical left are ecological mindful, and employ what are known as "grey water" systems. This is the practice of disconnecting your sink drains from the sewage system, placing buckets beneath the drains, and reusing the water to flush toilets, clean something dirtier than the water, or water plants. It's actually quite common. That explains two buckets, which weren't urine at all

      The third bucket was just a plain old piss bucket; maybe you should ask your grandparents about it. The house they were squatting didn't have a toilet(another common practice by radical punks/junkies/hippies/homeless/whatever).

  55. There were protesters, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police basically ignored the protests at the DNC, so there wasn't any real issue. Instead of giving the protesters a hard time, they were nice to them.

    There was a story about it at the time, but I forget in which paper. It was the complete and polar opposite of this situation.

    Which pretty much sums up my feelings about the two parties right now. I know neither party is good, but right now, one of the two parties is a LOT worse than the other.

  56. Re:Rock bottom by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 0

    I'm not talking about political history Pre-American Revolution, or hell, outside the United States before the revolution.

    I'm talking about the political and legal history of the United States since 1860. Compared to the American Civil War, the First World War and the Second World War, the crackdown on civil rights has been tame, compared to the dangerous faced with new asymmetrical weapons and tactics.

  57. Is it though? by QZTR · · Score: 1

    Let me play a bit of Devil's Advocate.

    I ride a motorcycle. Statistics say that it is more dangerous for me to be riding in heavy traffic. If someone deliberately increases risk to me, is that still peaceful? Ok a stretch I know but...

    Make it more concrete. Accidents go up in traffic. And then there's road rage. I'm not saying this isn't peaceful, but I think enough risk is there to be grounds for debate. And honestly, traffic sucks, don't be jerks and make it worse for us. I'd probably be against it just because it pisses me off so much.

    --
    To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
  58. Land of the free? by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

    What the hell are you guys doing over there? You have a good list of stuff that the government should and shouldn't do. This is firmly in the 'shouldn't' camp. Sort it out.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  59. RTFA you twats by timmarhy · · Score: 0
    i'd say their actions were perfectly lawful, these people always cause at best a public nuasence and they had a lot worse planned from what they collected. from TFA

    "he displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine. "We know these things were going to be used as weapons," "

    maybe you can explain away the other items (depending if they were "stockpiled") but buckets of urine? that shit was going to be flung at someone monkey style. given the track record of these kind of rally groups i'd say the cops were rightfully concerned, remember they planned on disrupting someone elses right to free speech, possibly in a violent manner. Or isn't that a problem because their republican?

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:RTFA you twats by pcameron41 · · Score: 1

      So which group has a greater right to free speech? I would argue that the protesters do simply because they hav enot spent the past 8 years trying to deny everyone else's rights.

    2. Re:RTFA you twats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're, not their, republican.

      The Republicans do not control the grammar police yet. W is one of our favorite targets.

    3. Re:RTFA you twats by colonslash · · Score: 2, Informative
      From the same article:

      The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said.

    4. Re:RTFA you twats by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      I think it's funny these groups make up excuses when they are caught, and only stand up when they have the mob behind them. they don't really believe in free speech, or they wouldn't be disrupting someone elses speech, they are just out to destroy property and abuse other people under the guise of righteous indignation.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:RTFA you twats by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I dunno where you pee when your plumbing is shot, but my neighbor got really pissed last time I used his door, so please enlighten me what would be a more suitable receptacle for my waste than a bucket.

      Aside of that, what are "these kind of rally groups"? What gives you the goddamn right to assume I'm going to be protesting violently just because someone else has in the past? If I did, ok. It is under some circumstances allright to assume that I may protest violently again if I did in the past. To issue the recommendation back at you, RTFM. Nobody ever had any problem with those college kids whose houses were raided. So what visionary powers give you the idea that they would be?

      Oh. Right. "these kinds of rally groups" are always like that. Ain't stereotyping fun? It saves the thinking.

      IF they get violent, arrest them. Until then, I cannot see any good reason to use the force that was used.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:RTFA you twats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you can explain away the other items (depending if they were "stockpiled") but buckets of urine? that shit was going to be flung at someone monkey style.

      No, they weren't. That's some good conservative propaganda, but they were really "gray water." There are posts about it elsewhere here.

    7. Re:RTFA you twats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "We know these things were going to be used as weapons," "

      maybe you can explain away the other items (depending if they were "stockpiled") but buckets of urine? that shit was going to be flung at someone monkey style. given the track record of these kind of rally groups i'd say the cops were rightfully concerned, remember they planned on disrupting someone elses right to free speech, possibly in a violent manner. Or isn't that a problem because their republican?

      iirc, a recent judgement affirming the right to bear arms was recently reached in Washington DC. They raided houses, if mine were raided, they would likely also find a gun, knives, flammable liquids, paint, slingshot with rocks, etc. These items are well withing my rights to have. Suspicious or not, no crime has been committed with them, and (depending on the context in which they were found) might have absolutely nothing to do with the protests (I highly doubt the gun would be used..). Yes, the urine buckets are quite suspect, but unless they have hard evidence it was going to be used in an illegal way, its well within their rights to have it (religious ceremony?).

      As to excessive, I am holding my final opinion until more details come out, though my thoughts are it was a bit over the top. Six houses and several public spaces raided and they got A gun, A bow and arrows, other common household goods, etc. The only suspicious thing is the buckets of urine, which could have been one person's demented/stupid idea. The tactics described are also seemingly to spread fear and harass rather than to quell an actual threat. If it were a true threat, they would have been brought in on more serious charges than "firecode violation". Since when do people get booked for that?? Seriously, in todays post 9/11 police state, they would have been booked on some sort of terroristic threat charge.

    8. Re:RTFA you twats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Considering the weight of a bucket of urine and the amount of security that's going to be at the RNC, wouldn't it have been better to fill a bunch of super soakers with urine instead of buckets? Seems the would-be protesters have a better explanation than the police "thrown on people" or you "flung at someone monkey style." How do you throw urine with your hands exactly? Besides, it was one bucket of urine from a nonassociated third party (he just lived in the illegal apt) and two buckets of gray water. Spend some time in the southwest if you don't know what it is.

    9. Re:RTFA you twats by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      30+ People and a house with dysfunctional plumbing. That's why they had buckets of piss.

    10. Re:RTFA you twats by sophoclesdrf · · Score: 1

      We've been tested over the last 8 years to see how much of our freedoms we are willing to give up, and unfortunately all of us this demonstrates that too many of us have given up far too much. If the police were to break into my home they might find items that could with a little spin be considered weapons. Who in this country has never owned a baseball bat? I keep pepper spray next to my bed in case of a house break in, because I don't won a gun and don't want one. I have a large smoker for barbecue and smoke cooking which I use a liquid flammable propellant to ignite, and I have long skewers and pointed objects that I use as well. Never mind the chefs knives in my kitchen.;D

    11. Re:RTFA you twats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This makes you stupid.

      Note that legitimate protesters aren't being stopped -- because I've seen legitimate protests at the RNC. I've also heard reports of people throwing bleach on delegates (which can blind) and dropping sand bags on their buses from overpasses (which can kill).

      That aint free speech, asshole.

      After all the talk about buckets of piss and shit from the DNC, I'd say being wearisome in this case is justified. Maybe if you motherfuckers would act right it wouldn't be a problem.

      Also, fuck you for making me have to respond almost in defense of the asshole shitstain that is timmarhy.

  60. i call BS by globaljustin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You, sir are full of shit.

    First, the RNC isn't "the government."

    No, but the police, FBI, sheriff, etc. ARE part of the government. I didn't mention the RNC once in my post.

    Second, yes they are anarchists

    So what? Being an anarchist is not a crime. If you read TFA, you'd note that no search warrants were given, and that they were charged with 'conspiracy to riot.' I said they were not violent anarchists, in the sense that they were NOT planning violence or rioting.

    "red zones" (prepared for "self-defense"), "yellow zones" (peaceful but assertive), and "green zones" (aiming to avoid risk of arrest.) I don't see how holding public property by force is at all non-violent.

    I know that's not in TFA. Please cite a source. If you do not, then, well...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:i call BS by Score+Whore · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, but the police, FBI, sheriff, etc. ARE part of the government. I didn't mention the RNC once in my post.

      Their protests were not planned against the police, the FBI, the sheriff or any other representative of the government. Their goal was to disrupt the Republican National Convention and prevent free speech and political discourse.

      So what? Being an anarchist is not a crime. If you read TFA, you'd note that no search warrants were given, and that they were charged with 'conspiracy to riot.' I said they were not violent anarchists, in the sense that they were NOT planning violence or rioting.

      ... [ snip ] ...

      I know that's not in TFA. Please cite a source. If you do not, then, well...

      Maybe you should spend more than a fraction of a second glancing at TFA? I mean if you'd tried at all you would have seen this page:

      Those plugging into this strategy will be free to shape their actions as they see fit, using the tactics they consider appropriate. As the specific blockade sites are established, there may be a system of delegating some sites as "red zones" (prepared for self-defense), "yellow zones" (peaceful but assertive), and "green zones" (aiming to avoid any risk of arrest) so as to accommodate a wide variety of creative tactics and involve individuals with differing needs and talents.

      Or you could have found this page titled "Anarchy and the RNC: Protesters Won't Rule Out 2008 Violence". Sounds peaceful.

      And if you tried at all you'd be able to locate one of the warrants.

      Well, I showed mine. Now you show yours indicating (quoting from your original post) "these people aren't violent anarchists, they are citizens protesting the government." I mean, their website is titled "NORNC" and they have page after page detailing how they intend to disrupt the Republican National Convention. But maybe I misunderstood and they aren't actually intending to disrupt peaceful political assembly or to interfere with the representatives of millions of Americans getting together. Please, show me where I'm wrong and you're right. Otherwise acknowledge that you were wrong and speaking completely without basis.

    2. Re:i call BS by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Their protests were not planned against the police, the FBI, the sheriff or any other representative of the government. Their goal was to disrupt the Republican National Convention and prevent free speech and political discourse.

      That's an interesting motive for suppressing political speech.

    3. Re:i call BS by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      First...

      Now you show yours indicating (quoting from your original post) "these people aren't violent anarchists, they are citizens protesting the government."

      From this link Although the protesters say they won't take the first swing, they vow to protect themselves The were preparing for self-defense only. Your original quote about 'red zones' even said as much. By the way, that link, which you quoted from liberally, was from a Minnesota Monitor article about the group, not from the group themselves. It was just put up on their site.

      Everything from the actual group indicates civil disobedience that pledged not to be violent, only to defend themselves if/when the police started to violate their rights. Every citizen has the right to do these things. Nothing wrong...

      I didn't bother to read your link to the 'search warrants' because TFA reported that these warrants were not served when the police searched the house. Sure they can whip up a warrant AFTER the fact, but that's not how the law works. To search a residence you need probable cause AND you have to serve the warrant when you go.

      They were planning civil disobedience. Same asRosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus.

      Lastly, they are protesting the RNC, yes...but their rights are being violated by the police. Don't try to obfuscate the issue. They were planning civil disobedience, not a 'riot' and the cops searched their houses without serving a warrant.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    4. Re:i call BS by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      From this link Although the protesters say they won't take the first swing, they vow to protect themselves The were preparing for self-defense only.

      Yeah. Also from that link:

      Will anarchists and anti-authoritarians attempting to disrupt the convention use violence as a tactic? The answer: Maybe.

      "As the Welcoming Committee, we refuse to condemn the defense of individuals, communities, and the Earth.

      ...

      "What is your stance on violence and property destruction? Destruction bad. Property bad. The concept of property is used to deprive people of the basic necessities of life.

      ...

      In a press conference in late August, Welcoming Committee spokester Bea Bridges said, "The State asks that we only resist in ways it finds convenient and easy to contain, promising repression of those who act outside the parameters it sets. This is a threat -- a violent threat with which the State hopes to terrorize us into submission. Therefore, there exists no 'peaceful' option. Some among us may choose to resist State violence using pacifist tactics, while others use whatever methods they deem necessary and appropriate. But, no matter how we respond to it, violence is already present at the protests through no fault of our own."

      Yeah. Too bad The State (oooh! the scary scary state) expects people to act civilly and respect the rights and property of others. And check out that "defense of communities, and the Earth." Yeah! Defend the Earth! That guy over there works in a lumber yard! Kill him! That woman there, she's curing diseases using strict protocols to minimize the pain and suffering of something furry. Get her! Defend the Earth.

      But wow. You've discovered an excellent new defense in so many criminal cases: "Your honor, it was self defense. I had to shoot the clerk of the liquor store I was robbing, because the police repress me by trying to prevent my taking the fruit of other people's labors." Oh, wait. You almost had me convinced. Alas no, everyone with a smidgen of sense understands that it's not self defense when you initiate the conflict. And that's exactly what they were planning.

      I didn't bother to read your link to the 'search warrants' because TFA reported that these warrants were not served when the police searched the house. Sure they can whip up a warrant AFTER the fact, but that's not how the law works. To search a residence you need probable cause AND you have to serve the warrant when you go.

      They had warrants. It was one of the warrants that I linked to. There is only mention of one location where they didn't have a warrant and the police stood around outside while a warrant was issued.

      As far as making up facts ("Sure they can whip up a warrant AFTER the fact"), we can both do that but what purpose does it serve? Stick to the facts in evidence, don't make shit up and we can have a discussion.

      They were planning civil disobedience. Same asRosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus.

      Nice that you link to a definition of the phrase and yet don't manage to understand it at all. What unjust law is being defied by violating the civil rights of another? Are they trying to get that pesky First Amendment done away with? "We don't want private individuals to have the right of association, free speech or assembly. And freedom of religion? That's next!" Nice.

      The most impressive part of all this is how outraged people are at the actions of the police. Act with hypocrisy much? Think of it this way: All the police did was do exactly what the NORNC people had planned. So what's with all the uproar? A little disruption of a meeting. A little blockade. And wow, everybody is shocked. The only people in this conversation who even have a world view that incorporates free speech are the ones who think that what the police did was legal. The other side, your side, apparently thinks it's OK to violate other's civil rights.

    5. Re:i call BS by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      All the police did was do exactly what the NORNC people had planned.

      I call bullshit. Where's your evidence the protesters planned anything that would violate others' rights? Information from informants who only got paid if there was an arrest?

      Falcon

  61. disruption!=violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disruption of someones commute != violence. If a group did that the police has every right to put them into a wagon bring them downtown and give them a ticket for some minor traffic offense.

    There is nothing here to warrant armed invasion of your house and thinly veiled threats.

  62. Welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To a world run by Republicans.

  63. A symbol requires interpretation. by khasim · · Score: 1

    If the police had treated them as any other vandals, there would not have been a problem.

    The problem with symbols is that they depend upon interpretation.

    And the interpretation depends upon the viewpoint of the person doing the interpretation.

    Like I said, there have been broken bottles and windows ever since. And not once has it resulted in a riot.

    That is because it is interpreted as plain old "vandalism" rather than "inciting a crowd to riot".

    And it is handled correctly.

    1. Re:A symbol requires interpretation. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      No. A symbol is something for which everyone knows the meaning.

      Everyone knows that throwing bottles and breaking windows is a signal to escalate a protest to a riot.

      Everyone but you that is.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:A symbol requires interpretation. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that throwing bottles and breaking windows is a signal to escalate a protest to a riot.

      No I don't. Without knowing the broader context I'd think it was vandalism.

      Falcon

  64. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bunch of overly violent hippies decide to take the law into their own hands instead of letting our cherished democracy prevail, and this is something to be worried about? It just shows that the system of checks and balances works as it should to protect the innocent.

  65. Sturmabteilung by Mansing · · Score: 1, Informative

    "From April 1924 until late February 1925 the SA was known as the Frontbann to avoid the temporary ban on the Nazi party. The SA carried out numerous acts of violence against socialist groups throughout the 1920s, typically in minor street-fights called Zusammenstöße ('collisions')."

  66. Re:Where were the raids on Repulbican demonstrator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because protesting and disrupting, with slingshots and throwing knives (not to mention buckets of piss), are two completely different things.

    Moron.

  67. didn't Howard Hughes keep his urine? by purpleraison · · Score: 1

    Clearly keeping your urine is a federal offense!! Damn those citizens to hell for that!! And they had an Army helmet (gasp)-- oh my god!! Clearly they were up to some seriously evil shenanigans.

    Oh yeah, and all the things listed are perfectly legal to own.

    If that list had any of the following items I might take it seriously:
    - 500 assault rifles
    - 50 pounds of C4
    - 5 tons of fertilizer
    - 20 boxes of hand grenades

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
  68. Gustav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    And who's this mysterious "Gustav" character? An old-school anarchist's name if I ever heard one. Where're the feds when you need them for that kind of violent protest?

  69. What a bad comparason by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Look at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

    With USA supposedly being "leader of the free world", you'd hope that the USA (48th) would be comparing itself to the top free countries, (Iceland, Norway, Estonia) not China (163), Russia (144) etc.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:What a bad comparason by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say comparison.

      I wasn't comparing Russia & the US, but noting that in the US, some are accepting loss of freedoms that were typical of the Authoritarian Soviet State in the 80s.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  70. Re:Rock bottom by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SO you are saying we should simply ignore a foundation of our government?

    --
    Good-bye
  71. Owning things is illegal now? by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1

    Is owning any one of those things or all of them together illegal? The only one I see is the "homemade device to disable buses", but I'm gonna have to know what that is before I can comment. You can disable a bus with sufficient wads of paper stuffed into the gas tank if you so desired.

    As far as I know, on the books, thoughtcrime is not actually a crime yet.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Owning things is illegal now? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming a bunch of boards with nails sticking out to pop the tires.

    2. Re:Owning things is illegal now? by mweather · · Score: 1

      It was caltrops.

  72. Re:Rock bottom by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your comment made me laugh, it really did. Go look at the civil liberties raped over and over by both sides during the American Civil War or during the First World War in the US, then compare/contrast to the current "erosion" of civil liberties.

    You're a tool in every sense of the word. It's 'enablers' like you that try to justify every wrongful action. Who cares if it was worse a century ago, who cares if Mexico is worse. The only reason we're better NOW is because we iterated towards a better society.

    How exactly is defending this going to make the world a better place? Indifference is the enemy of progress and you're worse. You're a piece of garbage weighted around the ankle of positive change.

  73. Re:Rock bottom by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm talking about the political and legal history of the United States since 1860. Compared to the American Civil War, the First World War and the Second World War, the crackdown on civil rights has been tame, compared to the dangerous faced with new asymmetrical weapons and tactics.

    Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because what happened before was worse doesn't make this ok.

    Falcon

  74. If the anarchists were smart... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

    ...one of those locations would have been an ambush, and which one wouldn't have been decided until the last minute.

  75. Do you get mad at the bat that hit you? by spineboy · · Score: 1

    If you are hit by a bat, do you get mad at the bat? No, you get mad at the person who swung it at you. The police aren't totally innocent, but there is someone out there "motivating" them to behave in this way.

    Just following orders is stupid, and not worthy of being a citizen in a democracy. Giving out these types of orders speaks of fascism

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  76. Amazing! by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 0, Troll

    Amazing you can actually talk with your head so far up your own ass.

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    1. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Amazing you can actually talk with your head so far up your own ass.

      What's really amazing is that you don't know the difference between talking and writing.

  77. Any eye witnesses among the /. posters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just wondering if anyone among the posters to this article was at the scene of the raid when it took place (and can prove it) or is everyone reacting to what may be inaccurate press reports? We all know how precise the press has been in the past many years.

    1. Re:Any eye witnesses among the /. posters? by kimqueg · · Score: 1

      I have been a slashdot lurker for a long time now and now i have to actually post. I live right around the corner from the building that the "RNC Welcoming Committee" is using as a staging ground for their protests. There were over 500 people in this small former theater, many of them with, oddly enough, bicycles, multiple bags of apples, and camping gear. I did not see any other "instruments of disruption" but there was and is a very odd vibe coming from these people. I was very thankful for the police's presence Friday night. There were cars double parked gridlocking the street in front of my house and double parked down our alley making it difficult to even walk. If they are simply planning to protest peacefully then I support what they are doing but the MOMENT they decide to bring harm to another person they forfeit their rights to protest peacefully. I am not looking forward to this next week. I am not looking forward to the hundreds of hippies wandering across my front and back lawns uninvited . If the police decide to "quash" the protests I fear this crowd will turn ugly and riot literally on my doorstep. As for the people who said they were not planning anything questionable, out of the ordinary or saying that the police are infringing on the protesters civil liberties, I sincerely hope this is the case and that the police use more discretion. I do however fear for the worst. p.s. The best part of the night was around 1am when these "kid's" parents drove up groggily and pissed off to pick up a car full of hippies. -J

  78. Old Story by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First they came for the protestors. Then they came for the hackers. Then they came for the geeks. Then they came for the engineers.

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    1. Re:Old Story by jguthrie · · Score: 1

      My experience has been that when they come for the engineers, it's usually to offer them bucketloads of money to come out of retirement because said engineer has some skill that is no longer common.

    2. Re:Old Story by kylben · · Score: 1

      First they came for the protestors....

      First they came for Jane Hamsher, and I didn't..... Ahh, what the hell, she deserves it... Woot! Go Pigs!!!! Sueieeeeeeeeee!

      --
      Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
    3. Re:Old Story by wellingj · · Score: 1

      Steve Franklin for President!

    4. Re:Old Story by rootooftheworld · · Score: 0

      Then nobody could service their ignorant asses and they all died a miserable and painfull death. I loves me a happy ending!

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    5. Re:Old Story by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      The only way I would serve is if I had my own private intelligence service I could field against the established agencies.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
  79. Re:sorry... by juan+large+moose · · Score: 1

    What they had was greywater—wastewater that is undrinkable but perfectly useful for simple jobs like filling the toilet tank for flushing. Re-use of greywater is a well-known practice among conservationists and environmentalists and anyone concerned about fresh water usage. I'm in Saint Paul, and I know folks hosting protesters. I'm not making this up.

    Think for a second... How practical would it be—even for a so-called "anarchist"—to store and tote buckets of urine up the hill to the convention site and fling it at anyone? A five-gallon bucket of water would weigh over 40lbs. If someone were aiming at causing that kind of trouble there are better, easier ways I'm sure.

    The reports I have read from local sources indicate that the raid in Saint Paul was lead by the county sheriff, not by St. Paul police (though St. Paul officers were present). The Saint Paul police have saved my tail more than once and have my respect. I hope they don't get mired in this mess.

  80. Buckets of urine and feces - No Toilet duh by gadlaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do some people continue to believe every bit of crap (ha, a pun) that comes from the police or Prosecutors? I heard the 'buckets' were from a guy who had no plumbing. Oh - you know when they characterize someone as having porn? Often times it's that old Playboy Magazine collection. It's the job of Police and Prosecutors to CYA -Cover your a**. And they are good at it. Some of you folks who call religious people gullible will just sit there and peep like hungry chicks when some authority figure in a suit and tie tells you all manner of BS.

    --
    Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
    1. Re:Buckets of urine and feces - No Toilet duh by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Some people seem to go out of their way to believe anything that goes against the government's side. Natural distrust of government is a good thing, but I don't know how you decided that the police faction was lying and the anti-police faction was telling the truth. I'm pretty confident that you are not personally involved in this and have to get your information from second-hand sources like the rest of us.

    2. Re:Buckets of urine and feces - No Toilet duh by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Funny
      I agree - it's like so totally unfair to take people's word over that of the government. It's like you're PRESUMING people didn't do something. Presumption of innocence - isn't that a kind of prejudice?

      Just like in trials... it's so totally unfair that the government has to PROVE their allegations against people who are arrested, but those people don't have to PROVE that they are innocent!

      Why can't we just TRUST the government, and when they say someone did something, that means they did it unless they have ironclad proof that they didn't?

      Guilty until proven innocent - that's what we need. How else will the government ever be able to be safe from the people?

      --
      This space available.
    3. Re:Buckets of urine and feces - No Toilet duh by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Way to totally miss what my post was about. I'm not siding with anybody, and bringing up "innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with this small facet that we are talking about only in the last couple posts here.

      The only thing I am saying is that it is silly to blindly believe one side's story just because it is taking a counter-government stance.

    4. Re:Buckets of urine and feces - No Toilet duh by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Because the explanations from the people who were attacked by the police and the FBI make more sense.

      What is more reasonable:

      1) That someone was going to lug 40+ lbs of piss (5 gallon bucket) just to pour on the cops
      2) That the water was turned off and they needed a bucket of water in order to manually flush the toilets

      Also, which is more verifiable? Allegations of what someone might do, versus verifiable facts (was the water in the theater turned off, was the contents of the 5 gallon buckets actually water)?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  81. FBI NOT a "Police Organization" by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

    The FBI's own press releases used to say that they were NOT a police organization. I guess the Ministry of Truth changed that while no one was looking.

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
  82. Re:Rock bottom by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    So your comparing this to the civil and world wars in danger?

    I assume that's what "compared to the dangerous faced with new asymmetrical weapons and tactics." means.

    It is hysteria like that which allows the erosion to happen. We had one tragic accident caused by a lazy executive branch, ad then done far more damage to ourselves (financially, and life till wise) in a massive over-reaction.

    That is not including the moral cost of killing tens-hundreds of thousands of people in a country not even involved (Iraq).

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  83. Re:Free speech zones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that there is a zone for free speech implies that all other zones are places where you may not speak freely.

    Chilling.

    When you are at a private function on private property, your presence is at the discretion of the property/function management. They set up these zones specifically to give the protesters a place to congregate near the action, rather than either dealing with them constantly interfering with the function by being mixed in with the non-protesters, or having them be too far away to do anything other than cause more trouble trying to get in. Its a compromise that usually works well for both sides.

    Remember, freedom of speech has limits, its not freedom to interrupt and harass.

  84. let freedumb ring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fear is unprecedented evile's primary weapon. that, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' greed/fear/ego based hired goons' agenda. Most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'war', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid scheme. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

    http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
    http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE

    is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
    http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

    dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

    the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real

  85. Right. They should let Ayer's heirs run free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the whole world see what Obama's leftist base is really all about.

  86. Sad by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

    Unless, of course, it's Faux News telling you it walks like a duck, and it's the Wall Street Journal telling you it quacks like a duck, and it's Katie Couric telling you it looks like a duck. They could tell you a hippopotamus was a duck and you'd believe them. Sad what suckers Americans have become.

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
  87. Re:All officers who participated are enemies of U. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't give the police officers all the blame... keep going up the chain: Prosecutors Judges who else?

  88. Glenn Greenwald is THE MAN by chainLynx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Everyone should read his blog. It's amazing... covers lots of civil-liberties-related stuff like this. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

  89. The Ministry of Truth by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

    The Democrats are coming! The Democrats are coming! BOO!

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    1. Re:The Ministry of Truth by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      What got in your boxers? This is the second post of mine where you post a useless comment. Don't like the fact that I actually have facts to backup my arguments? Why not make an effort to engage in debate, you might change some minds. All you're accomplishing with your snide bullshit is just getting applause from people who already agree with you.

      You can even get creative and use sarcasm and ridicule. But it really only works when you actually have a point that you can defend with rational thoughts.

      BTW - similar events occurred at the DNC in Denver last week. So don't think it's purely a Republican thing.

  90. Re: f*ck the police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're welcome to try, but please wait until I've sold tickets and have some popcorn to watch.

    I am intrigued how you'll explain away the rather questionable toys that were found. Protest, fine, be my guest, that's a right. Causing damage and injuring people, sorry, no. You have no rights there and I hope they keep those room temperature IQs locked up for a while so they can't cause harm, for instance to those that are planning peaceful protests.

  91. Bread and Circuses = MickeyD's and HD TVs by cc_pirate · · Score: 1

    The government has figured out that as long as we have our "bread and circuses" we mostly can't be bothered to complain about this stuff.

    Especially since they've lowered the living wage to the point that all adults pretty much have to work full time. No more free time for Mommy while the kids are in school.

    The people in charge of this country didn't get where they are by being dumb, and they won't let a piece of paper stop them from crushing anyone who is against the status quo either.

    99% of the people prosecuted through the terror laws since 2001 have been US citizens with no links to any terrorist organization. But of course the government HAD to have these laws to "protect" us. NOT.

    --

    "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

    1. Re:Bread and Circuses = MickeyD's and HD TVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it had been all the union-busting, downsizing, outsourcing and H1B slaves. I suspect that the above must be blond haired, blue eyed, born here, could not serve in the military by reason of medical issues and of course, screwed out of college.

      Downmodding only proves my case all the more.

  92. What the hell is wrong with these governments? by magus_melchior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The right to assembly for redress of grievances is protected in the First Amendment. The right of protection from search and seizure without a warrant* is protected in the 4th. Are they so afraid of these protesters making them look bad to the GOP that they went and preemptively shut them down? Was this a botched strategy to make the Democratic convention look like the Los Angeles riots?

    What are they thinking, that they can nab these people for some arbitrary thought-crime? The most severe crime they will be able to charge them with is conspiracy. Even with a boatload of evidence, I doubt the local or federal prosecutors will be willing to bring this to court now that it's out in the open.

    * I realize they probably had warrants for search and arrest, but planting moles inside groups of your critics gives your critics hundreds of witnesses and evidence. They also are running the risk that some of their moles will become turncoats and whistle-blowers on them-- not likely, since cops look out for their own 99% of the time.

    --
    "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  93. seriously, welcome to the US(a)SR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    W-T-F happened to freedom? How can one be arrested without charge? Detained without accusation or council?

    Stalin did this kind of thing!

    Pride in America and Patriotism are becoming things to be ashamed of.

    The world hates the USA because we press our view of freedom and democracy all around the world and back it up with big guns but we can't even enforce those ideals within our borders.

    Soon it will not be "dirty ragheads" hijacking planes and planing bombs, it will be white kids from Indiana and Iowa. Oppression requires revolution.

    excuse the anonymous posting. id just rather post this from stolen wifi on TOR anonymously than get on the express bus to gitmo(which is also completely criminal and wrong!).

    1. Re:seriously, welcome to the US(a)SR by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Like the anarchists care? They only care because they were busted before they could riot and loot.

      You only care because you think they should be allowed to riot and loot.

      Personally, I think they should be shot when they riot and loot.

      Oh, and you would pitch a fit if some conservative protesters did to the DNC what these shits are planning for the RNC, so that makes you a hypocrite as well.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:seriously, welcome to the US(a)SR by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Oppression requires revolution.

      HOW MANY GOD-DAMN YEARS HAS THIS TAKEN TO GET THROUGH TO YOU!?

      Damn stupid country. This text inserted to bypass the Slashdot lameness filter.

  94. Sorry for you by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, once the oh so dense population finally gets it through their think little heads that they have been lied to and generally fucked in the ass by you right-wing buffoons, they will not restrict their wrath to the elite who rule them but will seek out all those who have supported their oppressors, including the pawns like you who just parrot the talking points of the Party of Exxon and the General Armaments and Bombs Corporation in all its many forms. You might want to rethink what you post in public.

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    1. Re:Sorry for you by mi · · Score: 1

      once the oh so dense population finally gets it through their think [sic] little

      Start holding your breath now. No cheating... Thank you very much.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  95. Great, I approve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't support anarchists in anyway shape or form. They by definition would never be pleased and only "protest" as an excuse to destroy property (public/private). After what they did in Seattle the City of Miami took steps to stop them at a latin American summit some years ago. The babies cried, but Miami was spared damage by these hooligans who aren't even from here. I support the Twin Cities and their efforts to shut down these groups. Peaceful protests is one thing, using any excuse to wreck havoc is another.

    FUCK YOU anarchists, fuck your own home and not mine!

  96. good deal by skoony · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    good,great, arrest all these villianess scum. protesters?free speach? there own press releases state that they only intend to disrupt and prevent law abibing citezens from cunducting lawful activities. if any of these save the world from the evil republican types had a ounce of intestinal fortitude they'ed be in iraq building houses and teaching children. and when they were done there the could do the whole world a favor and stop off in the former soviet union,china and india and clean up some landfills,and create some nature reserves. yes i protested the vietnam war and had my hair down to my ass regards mike 53 year life long resisdent of saint paul,minnesnowda uffda!

    1. Re:good deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "asshat" comes to mind, Mike. First, and I realize you are 53 and evidently a little senile, it's never too late to learn some punctuation. Second, what the hell does building housing in Iraq have to do with "sav[ing] the world from the evil republican types"? The problem here is government, not a lack of nature reserves. Anyway, thanks for the comments.

      -Brad

    2. Re:good deal by skoony · · Score: 1

      hi brad,
      if they were here to make a political statement fine.
      they have allready stated there aim is to disrupt the convention.
      thats not protesting in my book.
      i live here and have to put up with this crap.
      they are hoping for a overreaction from the authorities
      so as they can make some news headlines with the sole
      reason to discredit the current administration.
      read there websites.
      if they really wanted to do something that would have
      tangible political results,there are other parts of the
      world that really neen there help.
      the magority of them are even getting paid for crying out loud.
      get to sit around chanting slogans,smoking pot with there
      buddies,causing a little caos,um,wait a minut,
      i use to do the same thing.BUT I DID'NT GET PAID TO DO IT.
      anyway i feel there are better ways to make some positive
      change in this world.

      please exscuse my auful spelding and syntax regards,
      mike

  97. This is a copy of one of the search warrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It lists reasons for going in and what was seized.
    http://twincities.indymedia.org/2008/aug/tc-imc-exclusive-complete-search-warrant-minneapolis-raid-today

  98. right, hes thinking of old south africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which had a great deal of 'security laws' which required constant paper checking, no habeas, no privacy or property rights, no 4th amendment... all in the name of 'security'.

    the same south africa that reagan wanted to appease.

  99. No, it is not. by khasim · · Score: 0, Troll

    Everyone knows that throwing bottles and breaking windows is a signal to escalate a protest to a riot.

    Then why has there not been a riot in Seattle when those other windows were broken?

    Everyone but you that is.

    Well I am glad to excluded from your "everyone" in that case.

    The fact is that there are MANY symbols that you would have no idea what they meant.

    Argue that point if you want to. But it's a fact.

    Looks like you lose.

    1. Re:No, it is not. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Then why has there not been a riot in Seattle when those other windows were broken?

      Because although everyone knew what it meant they still chose not to riot.

      Argue that point if you want to. But it's a fact.

      I know what you mean by a fact, but I disagree.

      Looks like you lose.

      Looks like you can't make an argument.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:No, it is not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off cunt authoritarian motherfucker. Go stomp on your own dick whenever you feel like like hurting someone else.

  100. Re:All officers who participated are enemies of U. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did say "every officer at every level".. that includes offices such as POTUS, and SCOTUS, as well as the FBI, CIA, NSA etc..

    Any member of the government who actively works to deny citizens their rights under the Constitution of the United States of America (Hereafter referred to as "the states") should be considered an enemy of the state, and be tried for sedition and/or civil rights violations, and then executed.

    Abuse of power by public officials such as police officers should be THE ONLY crime punishable by death.

    These people work hard to get themselves into positions of authority over others, and are entrusted with powers that "ordinary citizens" do not have.. tolerance for abuse of that authority should be zero.

  101. Re:Rock bottom by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    I'm not justifying anything, simply point out that most folks have no sense of how laws and rights change during war times.

  102. In other news... by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Funny

    The "Free Speech Zone" has been moved to somewhere on the Michigan-Wisconsin border.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  103. For a better take on this... by Max+Night · · Score: 1

    For those who were talking about the mainstream media covering this adequately...Go listen to the 2600 recordings of Emmanuel Goldstein being rounded up during the NY RNC convention. You'll get an entirely different feel for what's it's like to be detained for just being on the street. What planet did they land us on, anyway?

  104. Re:Rock bottom by celle · · Score: 1

    The civil war was definitely not worse than WWI(poison gas, trench warfare, crappy leadership) or WWII(concentration camps - both sides, atomic weapons, large scale bombardments of civilian targets) in the way or numbers that died and are still dying. Even slashdot has some damn fools.

  105. The facts seem to contradict you. by khasim · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.seattle.gov/wtocommittee/history.htm

    That's what happened in Seattle. I was there.

    And the facts contradict your claimed experience.

    The videos are still available. Check YouTube for them.

  106. My weird similar experience in NYC in 2002 by br00tus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In February 2002, the World Economic Forum was held in New York City, and I planned to (and did) protest it. The alter-globalization movement had been protesting these things for years. New York newspaper headlines screamed that "anarchists" had better not come to NYC and cause trouble with the WTC still smoking and all of the claptrap. What made it even more nonsensical is it hadn't been planned for an NYC meeting, Giuliani had convinced them to move the meeting to NYC after 9/11/01, despite knowing the WEF always brought out massive demonstrations since evil types like Bill Gates always hobnobbed at such events. So working to bring a demonstration magnet to NYC after 9/11, and then decrying that there demonstrators would bother New Yorkers still grieving from 9/11 sounded a little hollow.

    Anyhow, a friend of mine suggested we go to a building in New York called ABC No Rio. They are a "progressive community space" type of place they have art shows there, live bands, a progressive/zine library, a feed the poor group Food Not Bombs and that type of thing. Anyhow we went in and they were organizing a demonstration. I should point out I had never been there and my friend had rarely been there, we were just nearby and at the spur of the moment he wanted to see if a friend of his was there.

    I should also point out that of all the progressive demonstrations in the US in the past twenty years, I can't recall an instance of physical violence against someone. There may have been one or more cases, but I can't think of any. A handful of way-out folks smashed windows in Seattle, burned down some new unoccupied houses in a new housing development somewhere out west and the like, and in the case of the latter a massive federal investigation sent some of those people to jail. So one has to question the need for a massive federal "monitoring" of progressive groups is needed for. Especially considering the history of these things - Nixon had a bunch of burglars break into the Democratic Party election headquarters, the FBI used these extraordinary powers granted to it to interfere in the political sphere - stating as a goal the need to stop a "black messiah" from arising, which including bugging Martin Luther King Jr. and leaking tapes they made of him to the press, particularly extra-marital affairs. When Warsaw Pact secret police did such things in their countries, it was decried as tyranny here - when our secret police work to dismantle organization of African-American and progressive people (as the FBI did, Google COINTELPRO), it is soon forgotten and you hear the need for the PATRIOT Act and the like giving power to the same people who abused it for political purposes before.

    Anyhow me and my friend leave ABC No Rio. We hail a taxi and go about half a mile to Greenwich Village. My friend wants to go to a bar he went to a few months before, but can't find it. Anyhow, he realizes we are headed in the exact opposite direction than we should be, so we both do a 180 degree turn and start walking the way we had been coming. A man in his late 40s who looks very out of place for Greenwich Village on a Friday night was about 10 meters behind us. He sees us loop around and then has a look in his eye for a second, and then he also spins around and walks the other way. All things considered, especially his facial reaction when we both did a sudden 180 and began walking towards him, I know as sure as the sky is blue that he was following us, and that he was following us because we had gone into ABC No Rio. ACLU lawsuits and that type of thing after the WEF protests, and after the Republican National Convention talked about the extent of the surveillance, and fortified in my mind what I already instinctively knew was true. What scared me was the extent of the surveillance. I would dislike, but would not be as alarmed by them monitoring who went in and out of that building (where nothing was even happening! Except for planning a legal political demonstration that even the AFL-CIO was protesting in). But to follow two guys across New York City, through cab rides, on foot, who had very little to do with even organizing the demonstration much less doing anything violent during it, spooked me.

    1. Re:My weird similar experience in NYC in 2002 by rhomp2002 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about discussing the conference in Miami. The crowds there smashed windows all up and down the street, set fires in the street, threw rocks at the cops protecting the citizens. Don't you think that maybe the citizens of St Paul and Minneapolis are entitled to have the lives and property guarded and the right to be safe. It seems their rights should trump the rights of those protesting and throwing bottles and smashing windows. I know if it were my property and I was at home in my living room and some protesters threw rocks at the cops and broke my windows I would want some recourse and protection. The right to protest does not automatically the rights of the citizens of the city. They have the right to move around doing their business and living their lives too. That is what the protesters seem to forget.

    2. Re:My weird similar experience in NYC in 2002 by martinw89 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      All right, this is a complete straw man. The citizens in MN had not done anything yet. If they had started violence, than yes, it's the police's job to protect the other citizens. At the moment though, they were innocent. Innocent until proven guilty or intimidated until proven guilty?

      As someone mentioned above, it's enablers like you who keep this sort of thing hush hush. So in conclusion, sir: fuck you.

    3. Re:My weird similar experience in NYC in 2002 by rhomp2002 · · Score: 1

      So I as a citizen of a community have to wait until someone breaks my window or sets fire to my home before I can have any recourse. I just have to sit there while people plot to destroy my city to make their political points and then once they have destroyed the city I can do what to them. I can sue them at their parents' home for their computer and other possessions? The groups are there plotting to subvert the lives of the regular citizens. Who gave them the right to do what they want without regard to my rights. On top of that there were informants who knew what the plans were. Would you, knowing that people were planning to destroy the fabric of a city and disrupt the livelihood and peace of mind of the citizens, not do anything at all? Actually it is the enablers like you who destroy the lives of the rest of the citizens. Who will pay for the damages to the buildings and businesses and cars. Who will pay for the cleanup of the messes that the protesters will leave - and they will leave a mess unless you think they will come back after the convention and clean up all the crap they throw in the streets and the garbage they strew around the place. It is the people like me, the ones you call enablers, who will have to pay the price for picking up all the garbage and repairing all the damages so the city can function again. It is the people like me who just want to go to work and find instead that some punk schmucks are there throwing bottles and rocks at cops and shouting slogans about the supposed rights that they have lost. If you want to protest go protest in an area that does not interfere with the lives of the people who live there. We also have lives and we are the ones who have to pay for all the crap you idiots do. I sure don't see the ANSWER people or the Code Pink people or the Anarchists ponying up the money to clean up the area and fix the broken windows and disrupted businesses. Those groups are just happy to show up and make a bunch of noise and get photographed and then go on to the next place to show their asses. Meanwhile the working people, the ones you supposedly support, are losing their jobs and work places due to the antics of these creeps. I am old enough to have seen it the first time around and it was funny then. You would see the leaders up there urging the people on and they would lead the parade for about half a block. Then they would disappear and be taken away by friends. The ones arrested would be the proles. Once in awhile just to make a point the leaders would be arrested but their parents or their handlers would bail them out right away and help them hide. This crew is trying to do the same thing. It is party time for a few hours and then when it comes time to pay the bill we will hear all about police brutality and how your rights have been taken away. In the meantime you have taken away the rights of all the citizens who live there and pay the taxes and the other bills. No skin off your ass, is there.

    4. Re:My weird similar experience in NYC in 2002 by michaelmuffin · · Score: 2, Funny

      "get off my lawn!"

    5. Re:My weird similar experience in NYC in 2002 by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      And you two marked yourself as real counter-intelligence "pros" by doing that 180. They're probably still tapping your phone lines to this day.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    6. Re:My weird similar experience in NYC in 2002 by dubl-u · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just have to sit there while people plot to destroy my city to make their political points and then once they have destroyed the city I can do what to them.

      Conspiracy to commit a crime is in many cases a crime. When you have proof of that, you can arrest people. Until that point, they're just citizens.

      It is the people like me, the ones you call enablers, who will have to pay the price for picking up all the garbage and repairing all the damages so the city can function again.

      Your notion is that the financial costs of cleaning up after a protest are so high that it justifies preemptively arresting a wide variety of people who haven't committed crimes and most of whom won't?

      By that logic, we should certainly arrest the VFW, as their memorial parade makes more of a mess than any three protests I've seen.

    7. Re:My weird similar experience in NYC in 2002 by rhomp2002 · · Score: 1

      Take a look at what the Code Pink and ANSWER and Anarchists leave behind. Why should they just think that it is their right to mess up everyone else's home and then go away as if it had nothing to do with them. Those same people have a conniption if someone tries to do something in their own area. Check out the yells in the western suburbs (totally blue and very liberal) of Boston when the state tried to force them to build low cost housing. How about when they tried to open a methadone clinic in the Needle Park area. They almost had a riot over that one. All your big Bway stars from the UWS were out in force. The same people had no problem with protesters messing up the other parts of the city. Same with the commenters here too, I guess. We just have to sit back and think of England while they mess up the area.

    8. Re:My weird similar experience in NYC in 2002 by rhomp2002 · · Score: 1

      Check out what the wonderful protesters in MN are up to now: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bus-attack-in-st-paul-anarchists-attack.html Just wonderful. The peaceful innocents throw bags of cement from overpasses on buses taking people to the convention. It is so bad for the cops to try to interfere with them in their endeavors. These protesters are such wonderful role models for the yoot of today. And just look at all the supporters they have here.

  107. Re:Rock bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and if you reply to an obvious joke to clarify factual information, you might be a pedant.

  108. Re:Rock bottom by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

    How exactly is defending this going to make the world a better place? Indifference is the enemy of progress and you're worse. You're a piece of garbage weighted around the ankle of positive change.
    Well your chicken little hysterics aren't conducive to progress either. Now, these actions appear to be a gross violation of civil liberties, and as such should be investigated and dealt with, but running around claiming this is as bad as the really bad shit that happened in our nation's history just makes you look like a tool. As is calling anyone who lacks your zeal for going batshit crazy an enabler. Btw the reason we are better NOW is b/c we behaved liked rational beings not frenzied animals.

    --
    I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
  109. Re:Rock bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Well they DID ban French fries for a while.

    Yes, but wasn't that just to break our addiction to oil?

  110. Re:Rock bottom by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But this isn't a war time, we're fighting an idea. You can't have a war against terrorism more than you can have a war against the dark. What do you fight?

    You can't justify this as war time on the scale of the civil war or WWII

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  111. Re:Rock bottom by Toonol · · Score: 1

    You're a tool in every sense of the word.

    First off, please don't ever utter that nonsensical phrase again.

    Who cares if it was worse a century ago, who cares if Mexico is worse. The only reason we're better NOW is because we iterated towards a better society. How exactly is defending this going to make the world a better place? Indifference is the enemy of progress and you're worse. You're a piece of garbage weighted around the ankle of positive change.

    Stopping to congratulate ourselves is something I think we should do more. Racism and sexism have been damn near erased. Politics and civil liberties are at one of the cleanest points in history. We can recognize that, while still admitting that there is a lot more work to be done. Yes, we need to stop all instances of feds cracking down on free speech. Yes, this may have been excessive (although maybe not; the ALLEGED crimes of the Republicans tend to get more coverage). Yes, it needs to be scrutinized publicly, and if civil rights are violated, people need to be fined or otherwise punished.

    You know what? That WILL HAPPEN. It's already happening.

  112. Its NOT the police, its who herding them by unity100 · · Score: 1

    and in this case, republican puppet local administration. its as simple as that.

    im sure there are republican zealots among you to the extent that they would STILL insist that republicans are not causing this, all parties are bad and whatnot.

    keep that crap to yourself. in this world, everything comes in degrees. there are better ones, and worse ones of everything, and from last 8 years and this, republicans are the worse among what's there in u.s.

    its as simple as that. now mod this troll in all your zealotry. people using mod points to suppress truth you dont want to face doesnt bother me, the ones who bother me are the ones who let it happen by remaining silent or 'sarcastically aloof'.

    life doesnt care whether you are sarcastically aloof or not, you have to choose better of the choices you have among your hands in every choice.

  113. You witless moron by unity100 · · Score: 1

    next time you are on /., take time to read the goddamn article, before spurting your brainwashed rant around.

    those people were arrested for attempting to use their LEGITIMATE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.

    now go get some brain cells.

    1. Re:You witless moron by kimqueg · · Score: 1

      This happened in my neighborhood. They spread their literature all over. They were arrested for the planning of acts of civil unrest and plotting to infringe on the freedoms and safety of other citizens. This group specifically and publicly stated their intentions to physically disrupt the convention and made allusions to harming property and personnel at the Civic Center. THIS is why they were "targeted" by the police not because they just wanted to protest the RNC. Literally hundreds of other groups are planning to publicly protest here in St. Paul that were not "harassed" because they did not plan to harm others. The second you intend to deprive someone of their rights you lose yours.

    2. Re:You witless moron by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Mind you the convention is a massive disruption to everyone else, and this disruption is supported by people carrying actual kill-you-dead weapons and air support.

      Blocking off all traffic, including pedestrian, and requiring papers for passing through formerly public property sure sounds like harassment and infringing of rights to me. Just because the RNC has the most money of all the people protesting doesn't make them right.

    3. Re:You witless moron by kimqueg · · Score: 1

      Mind you that this convention is pouring millions into our local economy. As a person that lives less than a few miles from where this convention is taking place the general feeling around here is to just avoid the civic center for a week. not really that hard.

      I also think you have your lines crossed... the "RNC welcoming committee" is not FOR the republicans... they are adamantly against them thus making it a slightly ironic name.

      You also seem to be seeing zebras where only horses run.

  114. Can they take a page from the Secret Service... by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    ...and show some class? Or is that in limited supply at RNC conventions?

    While the event in Dayton wasn't something that would attract a ton of protests, they handled it well. They gave the only one quite a bit of room to decide how they wanted to leave. Also, they did so in a manner that didn't necessarily cause others to join in.

    While this may not be typical of all of their conduct, they exercised restraint(versus creating a case for force out of nowhere) where things could have gotten worse.

    I'd wonder how much of the protest is derived out of the convention reaction over novel threat. Another thing would be to find out what part of the law enforcement detail is responsible for the overreactions.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  115. Republican bashing??? It's ILLEGAL!!! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How in the hell can you say it's "Republican bashing"?? This is illegal activity by the authorities! No matter whose "side" it is on!

    What the hell is wrong with you?

    1. Re:Republican bashing??? It's ILLEGAL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the entire post. Only calling out these tactics when the Republicans are doing it is Republican bashing.

      The Democrats did the same things at the DNC - but no news story about it, no Slashdot story, no outrage. Only calling out the Republicans for activities that both parties does is blatant Republican bashing. Both should be called out for their sins!

      You know the whole "Free Speech Zone" concept? Those were started by the DNC some 30 years ago.

      In other words, I agree with you. I wish people were more outraged at these things, because they happen all the freaking time, and not just during Republican or Democratic events. During just about any event where anyone might be expected to protest, you can guarantee that the police will round up "the usual suspects" and hold them in jail for the duration to ensure no one has to be exposed to their speech.

      Sadly, the media only seems to report on the ones that involve Republican events. I wonder why that might be?

    2. Re:Republican bashing??? It's ILLEGAL!!! by jlarocco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're a dumbass. The OP clearly said he thought it was wrong regardless of who was doing it.

      He was merely pointing out that somebody is pushing an agenda. The story submitter could have just as easily linked to *both* stories about illegal arrests before both conventions. Instead, they linked to the single story and spun it as "look what Republicans are doing."

    3. Re:Republican bashing??? It's ILLEGAL!!! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The story submitter could have just as easily linked to *both* stories about illegal arrests before both conventions.

      Anyone who RTFA would see the author's observation that "...Denver was the site of several quite ugly incidents where law enforcement acted on behalf of Democratic Party officials and the corporate elite that funded the Convention to keep the media and protesters from doing anything remotely off-script. But the massive and plainly excessive preemptive police raids in Minnesota are of a different order altogether."

      So if the submitter had an agenda to conceal that abuses happened in Denver, he did a crappy job of it.

      However, the Denver abuses seem to have been mostly garden-variety police thuggery; these Minnesota raids involved the FBI and included months-long espionage and infiltration. One of the groups specifically targeted is "I-Witness Video", a group that did a great job capturing exposing thuggery and perjury by police during the 2004 Republican convention.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Republican bashing??? It's ILLEGAL!!! by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure no intelligent people are blaming this on Republicans because Minneapolis is a very liberal city. That would be silly, wouldn't it?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Republican bashing??? It's ILLEGAL!!! by bwcbwc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact Salon was the same site that broke the story of the AT&T reward dinner for all the democrats that voted for telecomm immunity, and the story of how they were removed from the vicinity of the event by Denver police.

      Second, since the president and vice-president were originally scheduled to appear at the convention, it's likely that the Secret Service was behind it all, with the FBI as middle-men. This wouldn't be a republican or democrat thing. The sweep and how it was done would have been dependent on the information provided by the "informants".

      On the other hand, if there truly was a perceived danger to the president, it would've been the Feds doing the arrests, not the local police.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    6. Re:Republican bashing??? It's ILLEGAL!!! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      I think it was put best above.

      Right. Instead of blaming the Republicans, these widespread police state tactics should be blamed on whatever fuckwit party is currently running the country.

      The fact this sort of shit is not entirely the republican parties fault, but the fact their party has been in control while police ignore peoples rights again (LA riots under bush were indicative of widespread police doing exactly the same shit) and the FBI may have been involved in this fuck up is no coincidence.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    7. Re:Republican bashing??? It's ILLEGAL!!! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Salon's no friend of the Democrats. They're where I learned that a reporter was arrested for apparently taking pictures of Democratic politicians and businessmen coming out of a hotel together.

      Which is, of course, a horrible abuse of power.

      Along with a few other petty abuses of power, like arrests of protesters that were blocking a road, along with plenty of them that weren't. OTOH, they appears to treat other protesters with respect, so it appears to be a case of police tight-assery.

      That doesn't begin to compare to what happened in Minnesota, where there was orchestrated preemptive raids of rented warehouses and houses, citing them for magically disappearing 'fire code violations' and people being imprisoned until, apparently, Wednesday with no charges, at which point I'm sure they'll all just be quietly released. With Federal involvement.

      It's one thing for the police to get out of hand a protest, and start arresting random people at the first sign of any lawbreaking. It's not a good thing, and the police should be punished for their behavior, but it's not even in the same class as 'Hello, we're federal agents, and we've decided to impound all your stuff and throw you in jail because you're planning to protest later.'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:Republican bashing??? It's ILLEGAL!!! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It may be a liberal city, but it also has a Republican sheriff. Guess which department the FBI is working with on it's bogus raids?

  116. This is private property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bucket of piss? A gun? This is private property, why can't one keep a bucket of piss and a gun? They broke in on private property without a warrant with a swat team. It doesn't matter if they found Jesus there, otherwise this means that any search and seizer can be done without a warrant as long as it gets a blessing from the FBI.

    I don't know what's worse, the act itself or that this isn't being picked up by the news media.

  117. Democrat ticket seems to be only solution by unity100 · · Score: 1

    those people didnt refrain from inflammatory and very dangerous speeches to give on national television, like 'repressive elite', 'challenging established order' and whatnot, and now ALL major networks ceased broadcasting anything about democrats, since all of them belong to time-warner or other interest groups.

    all of them, not even withholding hillary or bill or gore, made speeches that were almost half 1968. or half 1964. the seal in the deal was when they pumped 'let the sunshine in' from the loudspeakers into the 75.000 crowded stadium.

    guess what happened - even cnn cut the broadcast immediately at that point. its clear that both parties have determined clear lines as both sides have grown increasingly hardliner, and at current duality, democrat party seems to be sitting on top of the line nearest to 1968 line.

    stop being 'sarcastically aloof' and bantering about how 'both parties are bad' or 'there isnt any decent party to vote for' and how you will abstain from voting.

    the people who turned your last 8 years (and consequently world's) to hell do not care whether you vote or not, its even better for them if you dont vote, or go 'sarcastically aloof' and not vote for or support the party that can put out any challenge to them or revert what they did.

    yes im talking about republicans. just like any conservative party around the world these days, they have gone from being a conservative party for moral values to being a control freak, repressive bunch. its happening all over the world, for god knows why, and your country, usa is no exception.

    see at what point you are. your homes are being raided by your own police so that you wont be enjoying your legitimate rights. how do you think you came to this point ? with what republican administration did in the last 8 years.

    do you think it will be ANY different, IF they ever get the chance for 4 more years ? if there was any chance of that, do you think those raids would have happened ?

    so please cut the sarcastically aloof shit, and vote for their opponent.

    and yes, democrats are their opponent. and as of now your only chance for returning to pre-2001.

    yes, they are.

  118. Until they actually move to use it... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    then they aren't even guilty of "conspiracy" to disrupt the conference.

    Dude... you have to have a legitimate CHARGE to detain people... otherwise you are guilty of Prior Restraint.

    And when it comes to speech and protests, they had better have a damned good charge. Otherwise THEY are acting criminally.

  119. Call the sheriff, ask why! (612) 348-3744 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone should call the Hennepin County Sheriff's department and ask them why they are practicing preventative detention.

    (612) 348-3744

  120. Re:It's not that simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You are correct, but it is still over simplified. For police to have the moral authority to do thier work, they must be perceived to be fair and impartial. Appearing to round up the usual suspects prior to a convention of people who appear to depend on such things harms the pecption of fair and impartial, and limits the ability of such fine folks to do their work. I could be misconstrued as harassment.

    I is good for the authorites to watch such things. for instance the President Bushed pushed the death penalty in texas and in the US. Yet when faced with a terrorist who killed a woman in cold blood and a police officer, justice caved and gave the man sequential life terms. this might make people think that bush only likes to kill people he does not like, while good white christian men who kill for the lord will be spared? I is valid? No, but it is perception.

  121. civil war by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The US civil war had concentration camps (both sides equally and wretchedly, little to no rations meaning starvation, no clothes or shelter winter or summer,just whatever uniforms they were caught in that soon turned to rags, and that's it, disease was rampant, etc) and a lot of generic genocide involved with it, especially the rape of the south, Sherman burned everything, farms, cities, he didn't care, total war as he went, he burned and hung. And both sides used what weapons they had extensively. The only reason they didn't use poison gas is it wasn't invented yet. The weaponry though was still horrific, and medical care started out with no pain killers and went downhill from there. Causalities, direct battle deaths or later on from injuries and disease, was around 600,000 for a combined around 4.5 million soldiers. For comparison, WW1 - 115,000 US deaths, WW2 400,000.

    The US civil war was a *big deal* not to be discounted as some little popgun war.

  122. FEAR does not trump civil rights! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    The fear of a police force, or a politician, do NOT trump civil rights. They can be as "afraid" of some event happening all they want... that does NOT mean they get to do things that are illegal! The very concept is ludicrous.

    Police -- and politicians -- knew the jobs can be dangerous when they took them. If they dislike the danger, then they can fucking well quit their goddamned jobs. Pushing around "innocent" people is not excusable for these reasons!

  123. Police planted fakes that did the rioting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was proved that the police placed plants in the groups who in turn did the breaking and hitting other people. The cops then arrest the 'fake anarchists' who then later got released. They were spotted by their official police boots with the yellow tag/logo on the back of them.

    I have to wonder if any of todays cops have grand parents/parents who came from WW2 who would detest their own childrens behaviours as SS style.

  124. Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem comes in where protesters make a disruption at the event (usually during the middle of a speech). This seems to be an effort to stop that kind of activity.

    Where is there any evidence anything illegal was planned? Or is this going to be an "oops, we made a mistake" after the convention is over?

    Falcon

    1. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by jlarocco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From TFA:

      Deputies seized a variety of items that they believed were tools of civil disobedience: a gas mask, bolt cutters, axes, slingshots, homemade "caltrops" for disabling buses, even buckets of urine.

      I'm not saying it's right to raid their houses and arrest them just for having it, but I'm having a hard time coming up with legal ways to protest using buckets of urine and equipment for disabling buses.

    2. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by KORfan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The StarTribune article said the warrant included seizing MP3 players. How can these be used to break the law? Okay, you can throw it at someone, but that covers plates as well. For that matter, is it illegal to own a gun in the twin cities? Article said someone was arrested for having a gun. And hey, what's wrong with having boltcutters?

      I'll agree with you on the buckets of urine and caltrops. Then again, buckets of urine and feces sitting around is probably a health department issue, not an intent to commit crime issue.

      Since when do people get arrested for fire-code violations? It's usually "disperse and leave the premises", isn't it?

    3. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      From TFA:

      Deputies seized a variety of items that they believed were tools of civil disobedience: a gas mask, bolt cutters, axes, slingshots, homemade "caltrops" for disabling buses, even buckets of urine.

      From another article by the same newspaper, the Star-Tribune:

      "The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."

      As for the rest you list, when were they made illegal?

      I'm not saying it's right to raid their houses and arrest them just for having it, but I'm having a hard time coming up with legal ways to protest using buckets of urine and equipment for disabling buses.

      One bucket of urine in an illegally occupied apartment, the occupant of which had nothing to do with the protest group. And again, when was the other stuff made illegal?

      Falcon

    4. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by Chas · · Score: 2, Informative

      In 2004, they had assholes H^H^H^H, sorry, PEACEFUL ACTIVISTS at the RNC who were throwing bricks through windows, deflating tires, pulling fire alarms, vandalizing property, stealing, harassing convention attendees after-hours, trying to sneak into the convention just to cause disruptions, etc, etc.

      I can see, quite easily, why there'd be a reason to not want a repeat.

      Do I think pre-emptive raids and confiscation of private property is a Good Thing? No. This kind of thing shouldn't happen. Before ANY party's political convention.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    5. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      The StarTribune article said the warrant included seizing MP3 players. How can these be used to break the law?

      I wonder if the thinking is that the protesters were going to use them the way flashmobs have in N.Y.C..
      Improve Everywhere does a thing with MP3s where everyone downloads an mp3, and at a predetermined time starts playing it to get instructions on what to do. I suppose that could be used as a strategy to get instructions out to be followed at certain times while guaranteeing that there are no radio transmissions for the police to overhear.
      I'm not saying this justifies taking the MP3 players, but it might make a little more sense as to why they were targeting them.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    6. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by turgid · · Score: 1

      The StarTribune article said the warrant included seizing MP3 players. How can these be used to break the law?

      Copyright infringement? I hear you can get 10 years for that nowadays (if it's top quality stuff like Madonna or Britney Spears).

      /me ducks.

    7. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by falconwolf · · Score: 0, Redundant

      From TFA:
      Deputies seized a variety of items that they believed were tools of civil disobedience: a gas mask, bolt cutters, axes, slingshots, homemade "caltrops" for disabling buses, even buckets of urine.

      From another article by the same newspaper:

      "The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."

      When was all the rest of those items outlawed?

      Falcon

    8. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by LocalAreaMan · · Score: 1

      What scares me is this line from the NYT article:

      "A copy of a warrant at one house said the police were authorized to look for a laundry list of items, including fire bombs, Molotov cocktails, brake fluid, photographs and maps of St. Paul, paint, computers and camera equipment, and documents and other communications."

      Fire bombs and Molotov cocktails are obvious enough; but the rest of those things on the list can be found in any household of someone living in St. Paul.

    9. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by tweek · · Score: 1

      http://www.nypost.com/seven/09022008/news/nationalnews/protest_turns_into_mini_riot_127101.htm

      Same thing happened this year. I have no intention of voting for McCain and I'm no supporter of the Republican party but it's obvious that the crackdown wasn't ENTIRELY unwarranted (pun intended).

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    10. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by pluther · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Molotov cocktails are even more common than most of the other items on the list.

      I have all the ingredients in the back seat of my car right now. A few empty glass bottles (used to contain iced coffee), two pints of motor oil (gee, why would anyone carry *that* in their car?), and a couple of old T-shirts that have been sitting in the back seat for a month or two because I never get around to bringing them back inside when I'm home.

      According to the videos that have been posted, the search warrants included such things as "cloth, flammable liquids, glass bottles" and "metal, plastic, or cardboard boxes."

      The hard part would be to find a house in America that doesn't have all of those in it.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    11. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by pluther · · Score: 1

      And, if you'll recall, many of those stories of vandalism and attacks were based on police reports which were later proven to be perjury by evidence supplied by amateur videographers, causing charges to be dropped, and millions of dollars lost in lawsuits.

      Fortunately, they've confiscated lots of video equipment this year, including all the computers, cameras, and cell phones belonging to one of the larger groups, so that shouldn't happen this year.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    12. Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      So police in the U.S. are free to use tactics we were afraid China was going to use in the Olympics, because out of thousands of people there are a few actual bad apples - which was China's justification as well. But IOKIYAR.

  125. People misunderstand search warrant laws by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although the police are required to _have_ a search warrant, they are not required to show it to you. See this article I agree this sucks, but such is the current state of US law.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  126. Re:Rock bottom by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

    You're a tool in every sense of the word. It's 'enablers' like you that try to justify every wrongful action

    And it's ad hominem attacks like that that give the internet a bad name.

    Mod parent down because:

    1. at least half of it is just name calling and
    2. it misrepresents the GP's point because the GP was countering the GGP's claim that we have hit rock bottom. As the GP has pointed out we still have a lot longer that we can go.
  127. Huh? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Quote: "Personally I'd love to join the protests but I seriously fear for my freedom and my life."

    Uh... I hate to break the news to you, but that is EXACTLY the reaction they are hoping for, and you are lying down and letting them do it to you.

    Resisting this kind of bullshit takes the kind of person with the guts to stand up anyway!

    Wimp. Sheep. I will stop short of "traitor" but you and your tirade disgust me. YOU are the cause of the problem.

    1. Re:Huh? by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

      So, tell me, how many times have YOU gone out at high risk of arrest to do something selfless? Easy to call names from a distance. Harder when reality can call your bluff.

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    2. Re:Huh? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      More than once. But that is all I shall say about it, for obvious reasons.

  128. Re:That will never pass Constitutional muster and by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Dude, it's a joke... he's referring to the movie "Minority Report".

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  129. This is not the American way by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    This isn't how we do things here, rounding people up for political reasons ahead of time like Russia or how we hated China for before the Olympics. Let them protest and make complete asses of themselves and show everyone how ridiculous and consumed with vitriol they are.

    Then let those that disagree fight it out in the streets. That's the American way.

    FISTICUFFS!

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  130. Bullshit by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. You know very well that many downtown businesses suffered major physical damage. Your cherry-picked YouTube propaganda do not change the reality that was documented by numerous major news organizations.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Bullshit by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      What's bullshit is you, then again maybe you're an authoritarian who wants a police state.

      Let's make this a short dance: Call me a "fascist", run away and brag to your comrades about "standing up to a pig."

      Falcon

      Dodo would be more accurate.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    2. Re:Bullshit by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Let's make this a short dance: Call me a "fascist", run away and brag to your comrades about "standing up to a pig."

      That's a short dance, I don't have comrades.

      Dodo would be more accurate.

      Don't you mean you're the dodo? But don't let that stop you.

      Try this another way, here you said "We had college-aged, playtime anarchists" however only two of the articles linked to says anything about anarchists, and that was the sheriff calling them "self-styled anarchists". Nowhere does it say the protesters themselves call themselves anarchists. However at least one of them says "both journalists and lawyers -- in addition to protesters -- have been detained and arrested even though not a single violent or criminal act has occurred."

      So, who's talking shit?

      Falcon

    3. Re:Bullshit by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean you're the dodo? But don't let that stop you.

      Roe effect.

      So, who's talking shit?

      We learned a lot from 9/11. Deal with the threat before it can strike.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  131. Re:It's not that simple... by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

    And, about the the fire violation arrest: if you don't want to get arrested for fire violations, don't violate the building codes. It's pretty easy. If the cops invade a room (with a warrant) to search for counterfeit money but only get a room filled with countefeit checks, do you expect the cops to say "Ohh damn, we came here just for the money, not checks! Let's go home!"? A crime is a crime.

    First: according to several of the sources, the police did not produce warrants at some of the sites raided, and at other sites ignored several requests to produce a warrant, but did do so eventually.

    Second: when you have a search warrant, and you use it to search a private apartment, you can't just arrest a person for everything wrong in the place. You need to get them on something related - so yes, you could bust them for counterfeiting checks, but if all you found was that they were stealing cable, you can't arrest them for that. There are certain exceptions - e.g. if you were looking for stolen goods, and you find a meth lab - but they are exceptions, not the rule. Fire code violations are way out.

    The fact that the cops couldn't even pull out charges of "resisting arrest" or "interfering with an officer in the course of his duty" shows how much the protesters went out of their way to avoid doing anything wrong. When fire-code violations are all that get applied, it's very clear to see that the cops over-reacted.

    --
    "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
  132. Re:Rock bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's not saying it's ok, he's just saying that evil people aren't getting more evil, they're actually getting better. You people are wrong in thinking that we're headed towards fascism when in fact the trend points in the other direction.

  133. What the heck happened to this country? by sfbill · · Score: 1

    Can somebody please put these police thugs in prison? Wait, they are the police? F.U. Minnesota police. Come and get me.

  134. Only in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are the police stupid enough to both do this and allow reporters to report on it. It should follow the examples of China, etc where they do a full job and control the reporters as well as protesters.

  135. Ba'athist Party in Iraq by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Ba'athist parties are about all thats left of that classical Socialist-Fascism

    And guess who supported Saddam and the Ba'athists in Iraq in the 1980s? Republican presidents Reason and Bush Sr. Guess who was on Bush's staff or is now on Jr's staff who helped Saddam? Here are some photos of Rumsfeld and Saddam together. They're shaking hand like old pals. At first Secretary of State Cheney also supported Saddam during Bush Sr's term in office. Support for Saddam only ended after he invaded Kuwait who, Saddam had accused of and was later verified, was slant drilling into Iraq to pump Iraqi oil as if it was Kuwaiti oil. Before his invasion of Kuwait Saddam could do no wrong no matter how many people he used chemical weapons against.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Ba'athist Party in Iraq by nitroamos · · Score: 1

      And guess who supported Saddam and the Ba'athists in Iraq in the 1980s?

      I think governments retain the right to change their political relationships with countries.

    2. Re:Ba'athist Party in Iraq by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And guess who supported Saddam and the Ba'athists in Iraq in the 1980s?

      I think governments retain the right to change their political relationships with countries.

      With better information I'd hope a government would changes it's mind if that's what the data suggests. However in the case of Reagan and Bush Sr supporting Saddam, they both kept supporting him even after it came out he was using chemical weapons. Inside Iraq itself. Chemical weapons were used against the Kurds in 1988. At that tyme congress tried to pass a bill that would impose economic sanctions against Iraq for using chemical weapons against the Kurds. Reagan's admin tried to stop those sanctions. Read TFA I linked to above, it might open your eyes.

      Falcon

    3. Re:Ba'athist Party in Iraq by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      so what your trying to say is its all bush's fault?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    4. Re:Ba'athist Party in Iraq by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      In other words, you are saying governments retain the right to further their own power at the expense of every single other person on the planet.

    5. Re:Ba'athist Party in Iraq by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I believe you misinterpret here. I don't think it was the like for him, but the need for him to remain to protect the stability of the region.

      you topple a leader, even an evil one, and there are a lot of ramifications. In this case, our leaders felt it was the lesser evil and had to play politics with him for the greater good.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:Ba'athist Party in Iraq by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      you topple a leader, even an evil one, and there are a lot of ramifications. In this case, our leaders felt it was the lesser evil and had to play politics with him for the greater good.

      As if there was no one who believed in democracy and human rights perhaps?

      As regards the Kurds, during World War I in return for helping the Allies the fight against the Germans and Ottoman Empire the Kurds were promised their own country, homeland, in the Treaty of Sevres. But once the war was over the West reneged on the pledge. The west allowed Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the Father of Turkey to reject the treaty and crush Kurdish uprisings. Kurdistan would have constituted a good chunk of Turkey, and parts of Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Armenia. That same treaty also created Iraq, Syria and Kuwait though. Looking at Iraq today, Iraqi Kurdistan is the most stable part of Iraq. The Ba'athists and Saddam weren't any friendlier to the Marsh Arabs. "Numbering some 250,000 people as recently as 1991, the Marsh Arabs today are believed to number fewer than 40,000 in their ancestral homeland." So much for a stable Iraq under Saddam.

      Falcon

  136. Comparison. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    I made the mistake of comparing Slashdot's responses to this article and to the one about the German tradeshow IP busts.

    FFS, what have we come to when people are more willing to denounce patent dickery in the consumer electronics space than blatant misuse of police power and suppression of political expression.

  137. Re:Rock bottom by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    By that reasoning, we have always been at war. The Germans (pre-WWII), the Communists, China, North Korea... No country has invaded us. No country is even remotely poised to invade us. A few rouges acting generally on their own accord (it was not espionage by any other country, that has been more or less proven) does not constitute a war. If it did, every country would be at war. The most ironic part is how all the terrorists who took part in 9/11 were more or less American citizens. It was more equatable to an act of dissent than a hostile action by any other country. Does that mean we are at war with ourselves? Judging by your rhetoric and acceptance of these actions, which are echoed by the GOP-loving Bible-belt, I think we in fact /are/. If we are at war with "terrorism", we may as well declare war upon people wearing blue hats. At least that one we could win. Terrorism is not only a non-physical entity, but not even a strict idea. The founders of the country you live in committed terrorism. As did those of just about every other country on the planet. It is also arguable that the fear-mongering the government does on a daily basis is more along the lines of terrorism than blowing up a building. Maybe we should send Bush to gitmo?

  138. Faggotry and set theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to see some real oppression I suggest you visit some of the countries that are actually OUTSIDE the US sometime.

    This accomplishes nothing. No intelligent person responds to this kind of argument. Even the crowd on Jerry Springer is coached to shout "USA! USA!" The best you might do is get some thugs aroused.

    In this country we have been told by the founding fathers to guard our freedoms very carefully. They didn't warn us about other countries. They warned us about our own government, and fucktard faggots like you that will just hand over your freedoms like a sissy queer and call it patriotism.

    By the way, conservative!=not gay. So the next time you are sucking some cock why don't you read a book on set theory too.

    cheers

  139. I have some news for you. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First, the Democratic and Republican National Conventions this year are in VERY different places. Did you consider that perhaps the attitude of the police in Minneapolis might be just a LITTLE different than that of the police in Denver? In fact, I can just about guarantee that they are.

    Not to mention the attitude of the FBI. The FBI, after all, has demonstrably adopted the attitude of the governing administration over the last 8 years. It is to be expected that if the FBI overreact, it will be in regard to the Republican convention, not the Democratic. Thus, bias is built into the system by the very people who complain about the "offenses".

    Second, if you really, honestly, wonder why Republicans have been bashed so much lately, maybe you should consider the fact that a great many (a majority, in fact) of the American people are PISSED OFF at the Republican Party over the outrageous botch job they have made of our government over that same 8 years.

    Do not misunderstand me! I am NOT a Democrat! But any person who pretends to possess some objectivity about the matter MUST admit that the Republicans have gone a very long way to make a hash out of what used to honestly be a perfectly decent democratic republic form of government. They have botched literally everything: foreign policy; domestic social policy; privacy; "the war on terrorism" (what a joke); "the war on drugs" -- an even bigger joke; fiscal policy; education; the economy; taxes; and the personal freedoms of the citizens of this country. Not ONE of those areas is better off today than it was when Bush took office. Not one. And during most of those 8 years they were IN CONTROL over not only the white house but Congress as well.

    THERE IS NO EXCUSE. There is nobody to blame. The Republicans have f*cked things up so badly that I despair of things returning to normal within my lifetime.

    Once again: I am not a Democrat, and I do NOT trust Democrats to fix everything. But that has NO bearing on whether the Republicans messed things up. They did. Badly, and big time.

    The argument that things have been worse at other times in our history won't wash. All of those things were BETTER, 8 years ago. Period. And the Republicans literally have nobody to blame.

    So before you go accusing people of discriminating or acting preferentially against Republicans, you should ask yourself: "Do they have legitimate REASONS for doing what they do?"

    You might find, if you are honest with yourself, that the answer is "yes".

    1. Re:I have some news for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      The Republicans have f*cked things up so badly that I despair of things returning to normal within my lifetime.

      And yet ignorant people like you continue to drink your own coolaid. Republican's fucked thing up over the last 8 years? Least you forget, there where plenty of Democrats involved in and stopping and starting the exact same shit you're trying to pin on the Republicans.

      Yeah, right. That's what I thought. Yet another stupid idiot who has no true f*cking clue what they're talking about. Sorry, but the "Republicans" couldn't have done it alone. In fact, if you had have a brain, you'd already know the reason civilians who call themselves "conservative" or "Republicans" are angry at the Republicans in office over the last 8 years isn't because of what they where doing, but the fact they didn't do jack shit despite control of the White House and Congress. Those who call themselves "Democrats" or "Liberals" simply hate Republicans because it's not "their team".

      They have botched literally everything: foreign policy

      *sigh* You're smoking crack. They got North Korea to stop nuclear weapons testing (though I guess they're going to start again). They condemned the mess in Darfur and have sent lots of aid to the region. They condemned Burma's military rules and tried hard to get aid to their suffering. The fucked a lot of stuff up in Iraq, but at the same time overthrew a regiem that thought raping and murdering it's people as "punishment" was a reasonable thing. They've taken hard lines against Russia and it's action in Georgia (like the rest of the EU). They worked unilaterally with the Japanese as they felt threatened from N.Korea. Of course, the list goes on. Yes, there have been some majorly bad policies, but as if they the American government somehow failed all foreign policy is just asinine and showing, again, you idiocy.

      domestic social policy;

      Er... Not sure what you're talking about. WTF changed about social policy? Society in general has done nothing but open up ever more. And lest you forget, there's a big difference between state and federal governments. Social policy is governed mostly by the state level. So, this whole statement is just bloviated bullshit.

      privacy;

      This is definitely true when looking at the books. But you can thank both sides of the isle whom created and signed into law such things after 9/11.

      "the war on terrorism" (what a joke);

      Joke? The only "joke" is you, who clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what those wars really mean. Sure, it's a stupid marketing phrase, but I assure you the treat is real. *sigh* But WTF? I you don't believe are are some terrorists out there that just want to blow up innocent American's in a goal to kill as many as possible, then there's just no hope for you.

      "the war on drugs" -- an even bigger joke;

      I can mostly agree to this.

      fiscal policy;

      Again, you think this is only Republicans? You know how congress works right? It requires Democrats to vote, and yes, they're responsible too. Hell, Democrats have been pushing throw just as many, if not more, ear marked money to their campaign contributors as the Republican's "bridge to no-where" have. WTF do you think that War spending is so fucking high? Because have the money is Democratic voter pay-offs to spinach farms and peanut growers, to name a few.

      education;

      Really? Because the current Republican administration created more funding for schools? Because they gave more loan and grant money to college students? Please enlighten me. Was "No Child Left Behind" a success? Not really, but it was an honest attempt to try to make a change. The schools certainly love it, considering how much they want to bitch about it, but when faced with it being pulled away (and

    2. Re:I have some news for you. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (In reply to a low-scored comment many may not see:)

      One more time: MOST of these last 8 years, the Republicans were in charge of both the White House and Congress. Trying to say that the Democrats are to blame "too" just doesn't hold water. THEY had the controls; it does not do any good to try to blame someone else.

      And despite "rebate" checks, if you are an average American your taxes went UP during this Republican administration, not down.

      "Pesonal citizen freedoms have not changed." ??? How do you try to justify this outrageous claim??? I am not the one smoking crack here, dude. It's easy enough to say (as you do more than once) that someone else does not have a clue, but you are supplying no clues of your own. In fact I really don't think it is me who is demonstrating lack of clues here. Please come back and chime in some day, AFTER you have done your research.

    3. Re:I have some news for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAFM (I am from Minneapolis)

      The police in Minneapolis, as well as the entire city are very liberal. Minnesota is a blue state, the only reason it has begun to lean towards a swing state is that the rest of the state, (outlying rural communities) are conservative. While I am not condoning the police action in any way, nor am I claiming it was not political, I am surprised Minneapolis police would thug for the Republicans.

      Had you asked me yesterday if the police would keep McCain from being mugged, I would have had to think about my answer.

    4. Re:I have some news for you. by F34nor · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't bother I am sure that AC was a paid troll by the RNC.

      My favorite was the unfounded assertion that "...schools love no child left behind..." what an ass-clown.

    5. Re:I have some news for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To amplify your comments, I *AM* a Republican and I am absolutely appalled and disgusted by the GOP and this Presidency (I never voted for Bush). The GOP has completely lost its conservative principles and is only about corruption and grabbing raw power. McCain has so far shown himself to be of substantially the same type. (Did the McCain of 8 years ago even exist? I'm thinking he was a figment of my imagination).

      The best thing that can happen for the GOP and for the country at this point is for the GOP to get a royal ass whooping for the next couple of election cycles. If it can survive that, maybe it can rebuild. Honestly, I'd rather see the GOP play the part of a loyal opposition and never regain power again than see it continue down the road it is on.

    6. Re:I have some news for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They have botched literally everything: foreign policy

      *sigh* You're smoking crack. They got North Korea to stop nuclear weapons testing (though I guess they're going to start again). They condemned the mess in Darfur and have sent lots of aid to the region.

      The Chinese got North Korea to stop nuclear weapons testing, the US just paid the bill. The Bush administration has made clear that having a nuclear weapon will get you off of the Invadeable Countries list. They also made clear that genocidal maniacs are real poopyheads and best avoided.

      "the war on terrorism" (what a joke);

      Joke? The only "joke" is you, who clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what those wars really mean. Sure, it's a stupid marketing phrase, but I assure you the threat is real. *sigh* But WTF? If you don't believe are are some terrorists out there that just want to blow up innocent American's in a goal to kill as many as possible, then there's just no hope for you.

      War is an armed conflict between nations. It may come as a surprise to you, but there have always been people, even thousands of people, who want nothing more than to see the US or [insert random country] devastated. They can't be ignored. There are billions of people who wish us either good or at least no harm. If you let your policies be driven by fear of the infinitesimal minority, then those policies are almost certain to offend the rest of the citizenry and world. No one likes to be considered first a potential terrorist and second a potential friend.

      and the personal freedoms of the citizens of this country

      *yawn* Personal citizen freedoms have not changed. Please take a number and move along.

      If your personal freedoms haven't changed, then you must not frequent libraries, travel by common carriers, communicate by telephone or surf the internet. How exactly you come to be posting on /. without having that communication subject to warrantless search is a bit of a mystery to me, but maybe there's a special internet for creatures living under bridges.

    7. Re:I have some news for you. by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      First, the Democratic and Republican National Conventions this year are in VERY different places. Did you consider that perhaps the attitude of the police in Minneapolis might be just a LITTLE different than that of the police in Denver? In fact, I can just about guarantee that they are.

      Not to mention the attitude of the FBI.

      I grew up in the Twin Cities. This never would have happened if we had a governor who wasn't Bush's lap dog.

    8. Re:I have some news for you. by Kagura · · Score: 1

      North Korea having nuclear weapons or not has nothing to do with us being unable to invade it. Rather, their extensive artillery systems well in range of Seoul, the world's most populous metropolitan city, are the reason we cannot go into North Korea. It's a small-scale MAD scenario.

    9. Re:I have some news for you. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I will not dispute the facts of the Korean situation. I do argue, however, that the Republicans have completely blown most of the rest of our foreign policy. Bush was the first President to blatantly "pre-emptively" attack another nation, and it turned out that his excuses did not really exist. Partly as a result of that, much of the rest of the world has lost respect for the United States... respect that it may take a long while to earn back.

      I do admit that Congress shares some blame in that particular case, for supporting a non-viable "non-war" that they do not have the balls to declare officially. But that just causes US to lose respect for our government, too.

  140. I wasn't replying to the OP!!! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    The person to whom I was replying is not the OP. Maybe you should read the threads, and pay attention to who said what. Then maybe you would not look like such a dumbass yourself.

    1. Re:I wasn't replying to the OP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "OP" he means this: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=949457&cid=24824081

      And the fact that you didn't realize this just shows what an idiot you are.

  141. Re:Rock bottom by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

    So aircraft flying into some of the tallest buildings on Earth, and one flying to the largest office building on Earth and leaving 3,000 dead is an "idea"? No, that is a tacit act of war.

    No, it is an act of mass murder. It's was no more an act of war than the Oklahoma City bombing was.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  142. Re:Shows the disgusting Slashdot and liberal bias. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I hate how this place becomes Slashkos during every election cycle. However, I never understand why these raids happen. What's the harm in letting these people protest? They're not going to affect anything and the media's not going to cover it anyway. Let them feel like they accomplished something. Anyway, while I cringe at the thought of McCain winning the election I secretly hope he does, if for nothing else than to see the reaction on all the liberal forums (Slashdot included). I remember when Kerry lost people were absolutely fucking stunned; it was fucking hilarious. If McCain were to win the reaction would be 10 times as strong, and I would probably bust a nut laughing at all these whiny bitches. However, even though I think Obama is a sellout and a crook and a liar (just as all politicians are), I think he has a much better chance than Kerry did. My only real concern is that he's black; my gut feeling is that people would elect a white woman over a black man, so I don't think they would elect a black man over a white man (even if he is really shitty). I guess time will tell. To be honest I'm not overly concerned with the results; Obama, McCain, in the end what's the difference? Same song, different verse.

  143. Re:Rock bottom by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    I've seen horseshit comments like yours before and they all have one thing in common. I have NEVER seen anybody like you continue to take that attitude when just once those attacks are done to you.
    You can disguise it in fancy language all you want but if "it was okay a hundred and fifty years ago so it's fine now" is truly how you see the world, show us your outhouse, your one set of clothes, your coal oil lanterns and lack of electricity. Show us female friends who see no point in tampons. Or that you can't be bothered with painkillers beyond a pint of rotgut.

    "Wyatt Earp", huh? Show us, do you walk the walk or do you just talk the talk?

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  144. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is nicely written to get knee-jerk reactions from the Slashtards who hang toward the bottom of the gene pool.

    There is a LOT of security around these conventions for obvious reasons. They caught people about to break the law ... period ... that's it.

    They were up to shit and got caught. They will get what they deserve.

    Anyone making the nazi-america comments really needs to step back and think for themselves for a few minutes. You are being fed bullshit sandwiches and loving it.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      They caught people about to break the law ... period ... that's it.

      Which law? Or should that be, "Witch law"?

      -FL

  145. And you're responding to whom, exactly? by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    I'm missing this. Who in this thred said that the Civil War was "some little popgun war"?

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  146. You're full of shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This issue is not just a matter of "cops oppressing people because the man told them to do so".

    Right. It's the cops roughing people up at the direction of political leaders, using trumped up charges to justify their otherwise illegal actions.

    The FBI had a full case going on, including informers and other kinds of information sources. They had info on what the group was planning to DO, but not much info about HOW they were going to do it.

    So, the FBI is in charge of homeland security, and they're busting up people who want to protest and disrupt an RNC convention? Is that how dire the war on terrorism is? One one hand, we have to spend billions of dollars per week to fight these scheming madmen, and on the other hand, we have time enough to make sure that friends of powerful politicians aren't bothered on their way to their parties.

    The FBI is so fucking backwards that as recently as 2006, about thirty out of twelve thousand of them had any proficiency in Arabic. That should be some clue as to who the FBI is afraid of, and as with every totalitarian government, it's any part of the population that opposes them.

    They asked for a warrant so they could search the place and get important (and official) information about who is participating, how, when, and where. And also, if lucky, arrest everyone for having bombs, smoke canisters, molotov cocktails and other kinds of "riot-starting tools". Unfortunately (I think that because I'm not sympathetic with fools who invest their times at those activities) the FBI only managed to get a room full of people and no illegal tools at all.

    Did you just hear yourself? Do you still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? At what point are you going to realize that whatever these goons say is a goddamn lie? How many more times do they have to be 100% wrong?

    Under those circumstances, why not just have a raiding lottery? You could just pick a blue county, roll the dice, and see if you can find anything incriminating about anyone. Oddly enough, even the US Government does not know how many laws there are anymore. This is so they can throw the book at anyone - including you.

    But it's still a victory. If the members of said group act nasty at the RNC and get arrested, it will be pretty easy to form a pretty good criminal case against the said persons. And this time it will not be only a slap in the wrist but a full-blown criminal case that can get them 5 to 10 years in jail.

    Act nasty? Making your views heard and damaging property is not violence, because people aren't hurt. Supporting a party that has propped up an Administration responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths deserves more Freedom Medals? Are you fucking kidding me?

    And, about the the fire violation arrest: if you don't want to get arrested for fire violations, don't violate the building codes. It's pretty easy. If the cops invade a room (with a warrant) to search for counterfeit money but only get a room filled with countefeit checks, do you expect the cops to say "Ohh damn, we came here just for the money, not checks! Let's go home!"? A crime is a crime.

    Is sodomy a crime? Is fornication a crime? Is adultery a crime? Is it a crime to be to buy a beer on Sunday in much of the south? There is no sanctity in law. The law belongs to the people of a country, not to it's enforcers. If policing authorities had their way, it would be illegal for you to do anything they didn't like, and it's virtually like that now.

    If you like uninhibited police states, there are plenty of places in southeast asia that would love to have you, who are already handing out lengthy prison sentences for daring to oppose the establishment.

    PEOPLE, opposing people and institutions that do wrong stuff is A CIVIC DUTY. But unless you're willing to use a lot of violent force (for a pretty good reason)

    1. Re:You're full of shit. by gregorio · · Score: 1

      So, the FBI is in charge of homeland security, and they're busting up people who want to protest and disrupt an RNC convention? Is that how dire the war on terrorism is? One one hand, we have to spend billions of dollars per week to fight these scheming madmen, and on the other hand, we have time enough to make sure that friends of powerful politicians aren't bothered on their way to their parties. The FBI is so fucking backwards that as recently as 2006, about thirty out of twelve thousand of them had any proficiency in Arabic. That should be some clue as to who the FBI is afraid of, and as with every totalitarian government, it's any part of the population that opposes them.

      Sorry, but I don't give a shit to your rant about the FBI. They had a case, with valid suspicions, informers and also an official request from other government agencies. What do you want them to do? Avoid the case, just because you're pissed off because too many agents know Arabic?

      Did you just hear yourself? Do you still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? At what point are you going to realize that whatever these goons say is a goddamn lie? How many more times do they have to be 100% wrong? Under those circumstances, why not just have a raiding lottery? You could just pick a blue county, roll the dice, and see if you can find anything incriminating about anyone. Oddly enough, even the US Government does not know how many laws there are anymore. This is so they can throw the book at anyone - including you.

      What does Iraq has to do with anything related to this context? NOTHING.

      It's just you, again, saying that cops shouldn't proceed with investigations because you're pissed off at them. Wake up, bitch: the government doesn't work that way. Agents can't go and say "Oh man, just let it go. I know it's illegal but, man... Iraq! Do you see? That Iraq thing we did was fsckep up! Let the people protest!". They follow those cases because of THE LAW, you idiot.

      Is sodomy a crime? Is fornication a crime? Is adultery a crime? Is it a crime to be to buy a beer on Sunday in much of the south? There is no sanctity in law. The law belongs to the people of a country, not to it's enforcers. If policing authorities had their way, it would be illegal for you to do anything they didn't like, and it's virtually like that now. If you like uninhibited police states, there are plenty of places in southeast asia that would love to have you, who are already handing out lengthy prison sentences for daring to oppose the establishment.

      If something you want to do is a crime and you think that it shouldn't be, you should fight for it. Not expect 300 million people to bend over to you just because you want something and want it now.

      So they should either have AK47s in their hands or stay home? The responsible thing to do is to ramp up your public protest. First you sue, then you demonstrate, then you protest, then you riot, and then sometimes, under huge public pressure, the establishment will change their tune. At your direction, the civil rights movement would still be begging to have the right to equal education.

      "Establishment"... What a bunch of crap. Go back to the 70's, you fucking craptard.

  147. FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apropos

  148. Re:Rock bottom by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Compared to the American Civil War, the First World War and the Second World War, the crackdown on civil rights has been tame

    And compared to Joe Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer was a piker at murder. Your point?

    I'll also note that WWI and WWII were actual declared wars. We are not in a state of war with any nation at the moment.

    compared to the dangerous faced with new asymmetrical weapons and tactics.

    More people die from drowning every year than were killed on 9/11; to claim that we face a terrorist danger necessitating that we abandon our civil liberties is ridiculous.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  149. Re:Rock bottom by kjots · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your comment made me laugh ... [rambling nonsense omitted] ...

    What makes me laugh is that America still calls itself the "Land of the Free" *snicker* and the "Home of the Brave" *guffaw*. You appear to be neither from over here. I'll probably be modded as flamebait or a troll for this, but really, after reading these types of articles again and again what else are we supposed to think?

    I wouldn't care except that I am a citizen of the "Free World" and America styles itself as the "Leader of the Free World". What the fuck is up with that? Maybe we should vote on it; you Americans are okay with voting, right? Even if it means you might lose?

    That's what I thought.

  150. Bullshit by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. We had college-aged, playtime anarchists that wanted to start some shit. Daddy - in this case, in the body of law enforcement - came in and scared the shit out of them.

    What's bullshit is you, then again maybe you're an authoritarian who wants a police state.

    Falcon

  151. too fucking bad by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Informative

    Their job is to follow procedure and not overstep the bounds of their warrant.

  152. Re:Rock bottom by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    Falcon PUUUUUUNCH

    Fixed that for you.

  153. Re:Rock bottom by RustinHWright · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So aircraft flying into some of the tallest buildings on Earth, and one flying to the largest office building on Earth and leaving 3,000 dead is an "idea"?

    No, that isn't a war. That's a CRIME. Like a bank robbery or somebody going off to kill everybody in the local school or church or post office. Like, for that matter, Timothy McVeigh and his buddies. Oh, make no mistake, it was a horrific crime. One even more effective that the Japanese subway gas attacks. I assure you that I take no pleasure in being in the World Trade Center Health Registry, like all the tens of thousands of us who still don't know how much damage those attacks did to us.
    But it was not an act of war. Especially since even if we want to blame the Taliban, most of the world's governments, including our own, were loudly proclaiming that they weren't the legitimate government of Afghanistan even before 9/11.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  154. no, it wasn't by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    There were people on the street corner selling at least clothes (food was often more regulated) decades before the Berlin wall fell, for the most part perfectly legally (though the exact position of private enterprise, and the rationalizations for why it "wasn't capitalism" varied according to the ideological whims of the day).

    The state aimed for control over large-scale aspects of the economy, but wisely didn't go for all-out confrontation with the petty-bourgeois class, with the partial exception of Stalin's disastrous rule. Their status ranged from officially permitted, to technically illegal but nobody cared.

    The best-known era of legal (promoted, even) private enterprise was during Lenin's New Economic Program, but with ebbs and flows it was quite significant throughout, and extensively so from the 1970s. The right to privately sell small-scale goods and services was even enshrined in the 1977 version of the Soviet constitution, and it was never seriously challenged after Stalin's death.

  155. Re:Rock bottom by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Informative

    Racism and sexism have been damn near erased.

    Really? What country do you live in?

    I live in one where the black prison population per capita is six times higher than for whites, and the poverty rate for black children is more than twice that for white children. Racial profiling ("driving while black") remains a pervasive problem. Women still don't get equal pay for equal work, and efforts to criminalize abortion - and even birth control - continue apace.

    Are things better than they were in this regard 100 years ago? Sure. But that's damning with faint praise.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  156. Anything can be called a "weapon" by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    A tin of lighter fluid the size of a, well, pack of ciggies. Some adhesive. A couple dozen rocks.

    I love that a small pile of bricks was seized and displayed. OMG! They own BRICKS! OMFG! ThE ENTIRE HOUSE IS BUILT OF WEAPONS!!! Kill them all!!!!!!!!

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  157. Nope. Wrong again. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    Dude, count the digits. His ID is in the low six figures. His ID is waaay older than yours.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    1. Re:Nope. Wrong again. by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      1278060

      I count seven.

  158. Please update your sig. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Instead of A PBS mind in a Fox News world, your sig should read A Fox mind in a Fox News world

    You're an archetypal Fox viewer.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:Please update your sig. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You're an archetypal Fox viewer.

      Why is that? Because I don't see disrupting the day to day activities of people unrelated to the object of your protest (the RNC convention) as being an effective method of convincing people that your cause is just?

      Do you live in the Twin Cities? Need to go there on business? How would you feel about people blockading the airport, bridges and intersections? What if it was your hometown that they were planning to disrupt?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Please update your sig. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Why is that? Because I don't see disrupting the day to day activities of people unrelated to the object of your protest

      No, because you believe traffic disruption is not peaceful assembly.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  159. Re:Rock bottom by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

    The US is not fighting a war?

    So aircraft flying into some of the tallest buildings on Earth, and one flying to the largest office building on Earth and leaving 3,000 dead is an "idea"? No, that is a tacit act of war.

    War is between nations, this was a majorly bad criminal act perpetuated by some people with an agenda.

    Saying one can not fight "terrorism", in this case the fight is against Islamic-fascism, is like going back to 1942 and saying there can not be a war against fascism because that is like having a war against the dark.

    The United Nations did have a war against an idea, from 1941-'45, and following that war, there wasn't much Imperial Fascism left in the world was there? National Socialism pretty much went away as did Japanese Imperialism. The Ba'athist parties are about all thats left of that classical Socialist-Fascism, and theres only one state left with that form of ruling government, Syria.

    The United Nations didn't even exist until after the war. It was not a war against an idea. The war was started by Germany invading a sovereign country (Poland) and a good chunk of the world said no and declared war on Germany. Btw this was in 1939. The USA only declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on the USA. Read that again, America went to war because another country formally declared war on it. If the war was against an idea then Spain would of been invaded as they were also fascist yet Franco ruled till his death.
    And the fascists were about as much about socialism as N. Korea is about democracy. Just because they have the word in their name means nothing.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  160. Well hell... by wtansill · · Score: 1

    We don't need no stinkin' free speech anyway, now do we?

    --
    The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
  161. I agree. What about the academies? by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    Without doubt, our law enforcement agencies have been even more throughly subverted and are even more corrupted than they used to be. And as we've seen from early retirements if nothing else, our military services are being subverted, too. Take a look at evangelical pressures on service members, most famously within the Air Force academy, if you don't know about this already.

    So be it. We need to do something. Quite a few somethings, actually.

    Well, speaking as a former workflow consultant, why the frack aren't we looking at our police and service academies with a fine toothed comb? The academies, the promotion system, and the way that duties are assigned are the things that police and military officers cite again and again when asked how to address these problems. They're right.

    Just as we would if they were clients with organizational problems, if you are trying to change how things work, you don't just yell at them, you study how they operate, pass commands, train, and compensate.

    Protesting is fun and all but if we're serious, then we need to turn a few thousand spotlights on how these organizations run, document and share what we find, and change those things that cause problems. Anything else is pretty much just wanking.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  162. Please rtfa. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    The "buckets of urine" are repeatedly addressed above, as they are if you RTFAs to the end. Please do not allow spin to mislead you.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  163. Re:Rock bottom by plasmacutter · · Score: 0

    sexism still exists, most prominently displayed as misandry, in the US right now.

    The laws are heavily slanted against men, and there are fewer than 4 degrees of separation between any living person and someone who has been wrongfully rendered destitute from a sexual harassment lawsuit.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  164. Re:It's not that simple... by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

    This issue is not just a matter of "cops oppressing people because the man told them to do so". The FBI had a full case going on, including informers and other kinds of information sources. They had info on what the group was planning to DO, but not much info about HOW they were going to do it. They asked for a warrant so they could search the place and get important (and official) information about who is participating, how, when, and where. And also, if lucky, arrest everyone for having bombs, smoke canisters, molotov cocktails and other kinds of "riot-starting tools". Unfortunately (I think that because I'm not sympathetic with fools who invest their times at those activities) the FBI only managed to get a room full of people and no illegal tools at all. But it's still a victory.

    Finding nothing is still a victory? A 'victory' for / of what? The WMD gambit.... You cite all sorts of things which were not found. Oh, I forgot. Urine in 1 bucket. Dangerous stuff, that...

  165. Re:Rock bottom by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Women still don't get equal pay for equal work

    and from the other side, men still pay 25% more on average for medical, life, and auto insurance, and are treated in the media like emotionless "things" to be leeched from and divested in divorces of half their assets as a business.

    The sexism cuts both ways.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  166. buckets of urine by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what peaceful demonstrators need with a 5 gallons worth of urine, gas masks and home made caltrop to disable buses.

    I'll see your Star_Tribune link, "The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."

    Falcon

  167. LOL@you and other /.'ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how yourself and other /.'ers decry the loss of 'free speech' from a group that was going to blockade a large urban area and stop others from having free speech.

    Typical far left tactic: Free speech for some, no free speech for others. The totalitarian left and the totalitarian right deserve each other.

    And if you think that this anarchist group was all 'flowers and peace songs' then you got another thing coming. Give that they ordered tasers for members in the past says something about the nature of the group: http://www.nornc.org/2008/03/14/rnc-welcoming-committee-orders-tasers-for-every-protestor/

  168. HUH???? by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    I'm so sorry. Your logic comes from what exactly?
    How can you conclude that the harrassment of possible participants, most of whom, let us note, were planning only to videotape the actions of others, justifies "to make a difference, you need to shed some blood"?

    Explain this to me, please. Because to me you sound just like a police plant.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    1. Re:HUH???? by initialE · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying that when you make free speech an exercise in futility, then only violent people get their say.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
  169. informants by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Informative

    There was an informant inside this organization that told authorities what was planned.

    Here's a link about your informants: "Moles wanted". Informants only get paid if an arrest is made. Let's see, I'm a mole and I know if the info I give doesn't lead to an arrest do I tell the truth or do I lie?

    Falcon

    1. Re:informants by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      lets not forget that in any group people exaggerated a lot.

      proof: 'they were going to throw urine
      mole:"hey where do i piss?"
      person:"use that bucket over there"
      mole:"huh?"
      person:"yeah were going to throw it a bush"
      *laughter*

      reality: they dont have a toilet

      proof: 'they were planing to assasinate bush with bows and arrows'
      mole:"nice bows and arrows"
      person 1:"thanks, some of us are going to dress as native americas"
      person 2:"yeah, and then were gunna fire them at bush"

      I mean those guys that were going to 'assassinate Obama' turned out to just be high and talking shit.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    2. Re:informants by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1

      Just cause someone gets paid for the arrest doesn't mean they'll lie. I doubt someone would risk 5 years jail time for $100-500 or whatever they "compensated" him. Sending a bunch of people to jail just cause you want to get paid isn't something you should expect of people. The system will sort it out and find out what happened. But until then I'm going to suspect if you have 5 buckets of urine, gas masks and a homemade caltrop to disable buses you're probably up to no good. but hey thats just me following logic.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    3. Re:informants by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      One question then. Why only pay an informant if there is an arrest? If the police wanted the trust they would have paid for it whether an arrest was made or not. As far as I'm concerned that invites corruption.

      Falcon

    4. Re:informants by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1

      Right. Its not the way id handle things. It creates incentive for the informant to work, but could cause corruption. But then on the other hand if you pay them a flat rate why dont they just sit down and party? You'd have to pay them more if they caught someone to create incentive then you're back at square one only spent more money for the same result.
      They got people alot more experienced than us figuring this stuff out. i'll leave it up to them until they catch them doing something wrong.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    5. Re:informants by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      They got people alot more experienced than us figuring this stuff out. i'll leave it up to them until they catch them doing something wrong.

      You may want to leave it to informants who only get paid if someone is arrested but I don't. That's corruption of the worst kind. Well, not really the worst is the one who ratted out Anne Frank's family, but then again whoever did may of been paid as well.

      Falcon

  170. Re:That is uncivilised!! by houbou · · Score: 1

    uh flamebait? lol.. me? why? oh boy.. that's too funny :)

  171. Re:Shows the disgusting Slashdot and liberal bias. by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    you sure you're a real AC and not a government plant to incite violence?

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  172. Re:Rock bottom by msimm · · Score: 1

    What has gone on for the last eight years is nothing compared to what happened in the past.

    If we don't respect our own rights who should be expect to respect them for us?

    Part of the brilliance of the American experiment is the enumeration of inalienable rights and if we don't uphold those rights the American experiment fails.

    Jefferson called it eternal vigilance.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  173. serve search warrant by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    To search a residence you need probable cause AND you have to serve the warrant when you go.

    No, to search a residence you have to have probable cause or a search warrant.

    Falcon

    1. Re:serve search warrant by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      I think you might be confusing probable cause with reasonable suspicion.

      If someone punches a cop and runs into a house, the cop doesn't need to get a written warrant to go into the house, b/c a crime has been committed. If they *think* someone is planning a crime, they have to get a written warrant.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    2. Re:serve search warrant by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I think you might be confusing probable cause with reasonable suspicion.

      You're right I did. To get the search warrant you need probable cause.

      Falcon

  174. Re:Rock bottom by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    so this behavior is OK because the government hasn't crossed "X" line yet? We know where this leads, they know where this leads, and they do it anyway. Call them all traitor, while there's fewer of them. After all, that's what THEY'RE doing by singling out people like this! A Dickinson style class war is already started but only one side is making their move.

  175. Not quite. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    Close, but from what I've been reading, they had to "send for" a warrant which arrived a few hours later.

    But I'm quibbling. Fundamentally, the point of a warrant is to serve as a guide to law enforcement officers to limit and define their actions, to explain those same limits to those whose privacy is being cut into, and to require law enforcement to wait for judicial approval before violating somebody's rights. A warrant is supposed to keep a citizen from ever having to just accept an officer saying "trust me" in a position where they are clearly about to do injury. If the warrant shows up so much as a nanosecond *after* an action is taken, then it's absurd to expect citizens to treat it as valid and it has failed.
    It's like giving an officer a bulletproof vest *after* a firefight. When you know that the firefight is about to happen. Such an action is contemptible at best and criminal at worst.

    This was, in most sense that should matter, a warrantless search. Plain and simple.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  176. Attn. moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't mod twitter sockpuppets up, especially not those that are used to troll normal Slashdot users (click on his homepage and look at his sig).

  177. Re:Rock bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I want to know is what the end-goal is with this "war."

    To me it feels like the "War on Drugs." I don't even do drugs other than a couple of legally obtainable drugs, but I know exactly who to go to get "soft" drugs and I know who to ask to get "hard" ones, too.

    Is that what is going to happen with this "War on Terror"? We annihilate a few sects and some new ones take their place?


    Haha, this is so off-topic.

  178. Re:Rock bottom by BoberFett · · Score: 1

    Don't forget women almost always get custody over the children and then rape the father with child support too.

  179. Plenty of us do more than comment on /. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    Many of us already do take actions beyond writing here. I sure do. Hell, I've published political stuff that I already know was on display in places the police have been watching. And I've done plenty more than that, all of it peaceful, for what it's worth. If you had read the comments you would know that several others here have also taken a more active role.
    In no way does bearing witness, which is, by the way, what we're doing here, preclude taking other action. Bearing witness is also a key part of democracy and, for that matter, Christianity.
    If you have some factual grounds for *knowing* that "We're all keyboard corporals here", then please share them. Then again, don't bother since, as I already pointed out, I already know that you're wrong.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  180. in my opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my opinion, this type of thing won't stop until 500 police find them staring at a crowd of 10,000, all armed with rifles and ready to shoot dead any facist who attempts to interfere with their protest.

  181. The end (of freedom) is near by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

    Someone will surely point out that I'm wearing a tinfoil hat for having predicted this to my wife, but here goes anyway.

    Posted Aug 27, 2008 - Police Seize Journalists Notes About RNC Protest Plans

    They obtained the list of contacts and locations by seizing them from an independent journalist, then they put that information to use.

    --


    "Lame" - Galaxar
  182. I had a quick read of the article by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should of read more. For instance here's a good read:

    "The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."

    allowing people to run around with weapons

    Unlike Australia in the USA we have the constitutional right to own and bare firearms.

    Falcon

  183. "dregs of society" as cops? No. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    I've known plenty of cops. Have probably dealt with at least fifty or sixty enough to have some idea of their intelligence. And in my experience they are some little bit smarter than the populations they police. More authoritarian? Yes. Hyped up on their power? Yes. But not dumb or, for that matter, lazy or fundamentally corrupt or most of the other things of which they are so typically accused. The job pays well, provides full retirement at fifty or younger, and has lots of bennies. Plenty of capable people are willing to say yes to that.
    If you want to change the police, look at what I've written above. It's not about some inherent deficiencies of theirs. It's about how they're trained, managed, assigned, promoted, and compensated.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  184. Fear the Dye! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I worked with a group of kids when I was in my teens one Summer. --You know, games and sports and arts & crafts and such. This one day, we made tie-dyed shirts.

    Well the shirt I made turned out pretty good and I wore it for the whole afternoon and kind of forgot it was on me. Then after the kids all went off back home, me and a few of the other 'leaders' decided to head out for a movie and burgers and stuff. At the end of the evening, we all split off and I was on my way back home alone.

    My opinion of humanity then began to plummet.

    Taking public transit, I was getting all these freaked out looks. Everybody was acting as though they were scared of me. --I was used to being totally ignored, but people were really, really nervous. It was baffling. It happened not just with the occupants of one bus, but on another and on a train as well. I didn't work out it was the tie-dye shirt they were all reacting to until this one Stephen Colbert clone actually measured me up and down with an expression of abject, "Small-guy-on-his-first-day-in-prison" and then made a comment about the Grateful Dead being really cool in some kind of weird effort to. . , not get hurt by me? It was utterly unreal. I couldn't believe just how limited a set of lives people must lead in order to react in such a manner. As just a teen-ager, (back when I wasn't aware of politics in the slightest,) even I had worked out that hippies were the last form of political life you needed to back slowly away from.

    I filed the incident away under, "Fear and Ignorance" for later reference and have dusted it off for you today.

    -FL

    1. Re:Fear the Dye! by ildon · · Score: 1

      I don't believe any of this story. People with no affiliation with hippies wear tie-dye shirts all the time and no one ever pays any attention to it. Even fat middle-class tourists wear tie-dye. It hasn't had any symbolism associated with it since like 1985.

    2. Re:Fear the Dye! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      I don't believe any of this story.

      That's your business, hear-say being what it is. I would note that this happened to me in 1988, if that's any use to you. I still find it surprising in retrospect, however. I rather thought tie-dye was a sixties thing.

      -FL

    3. Re:Fear the Dye! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I get it all the time with my hair ( its long ) around here ( the bible belt ). So its believable depending on the area he lives in.

      In general people are afraid of things that are not just like them.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Fear the Dye! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      In the early 90's i remember buying a remade tyedye at the local clothing retailer at the mall. ( sure it was fake and was just screen printed, but it looked real )

      It was so strange seeing it on the shelf i just had to buy one. I still wore real ones back then. Not so much now as im too lazy to keep making them :)

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Fear the Dye! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      At a certain point, with long hair, you go from 'hippy' to 'long hair country boy'.

      I haven't worked out exactly where or how that happens, but it does.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  185. Like I said. by khasim · · Score: 1

    I know what you mean by a fact, but I disagree.

    Like I said, there are many symbols that you do not know how to interpret. Now you are disagreeing with that.

    Fine, if you want to claim that you understand every symbol, you can claim that.

    Because although everyone knew what it meant they still chose not to riot.

    Fascinating.

    So it's always a symbol that everyone understands the same as you do ... but 99.9% of the time everyone just decides not to act as if it were a symbol. And instead they act as if it were just some vandal.

    Yeah, you go with that.

    1. Re:Like I said. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      If everyone doesn't understand it then it's not much of a symbol.

      Why can't Slashdoters have a civilized conversation anymore?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  186. That was www.seattle.gov by khasim · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Your cherry-picked YouTube propaganda do not change the reality that was documented by numerous major news organizations.

    Are those the same news organizations that told us how there were "WMD's" in Iraq?

    I'm linking to the seattle.gov web page.

    Bullshit. You know very well that many downtown businesses suffered major physical damage.

    No, they did not. Most of them lost money because it was the peak shopping season. Some were damaged. Unless you choose to define "major physical damage" as "broken windows".

    I'll just stick to the facts. You can have your claims.

  187. Weird....there are TWO FA's.. by Poingggg · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was going to accuse you of inaccurate quoting, but now I find (while writing my comment) that there are TWO articles: the one you link to and the one the summary links to, which I checked first. In the article I read first I found this:

    Quote
    The alleged urine[...] was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket.
    End quote

    I haven't seen anything about coltraps or equipment for disabling buses in that one either. All I found was that

    Quote
    [The sheriff] displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine.
    End Quote

    I have not enough time to read all of the article you link to (gotta go to work :-( ), but I find this interesting...

    To be clear: I quoted from the linked article.

    The weird thing is that the article you link to is on first sight

    --
    What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    1. Re:Weird....there are TWO FA's.. by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gun - Legal (and quite normal) if you have the papers
      Knife - Legal (in a private residence)
      Bow and arrows - Legal
      Flammable liquids - Legal
      Paint - Legal
      Slingshots - Legal
      Rocks - legal
      Buckets of Urine - Legal (odd, but Legal)

      So they had this stuff in a private residence, all of it legal, and ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    2. Re:Weird....there are TWO FA's.. by kitgerrits · · Score: 1

      Land of the free, eh?

      --
      "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
    3. Re:Weird....there are TWO FA's.. by jmccay · · Score: 1

      Actually, urine can be lethal now-a-days. Urine can contain AIDS or Herpes both of which are not curable. Considering that the next potential President and Vice-President of the United States were in the area at any given moment. It's stupid to have these things around. While the objects may be legal, it's what you intend to do with them that counts--otherwise you'd have to wait for someone to try and murder someone before they arrest someone. Other stories on the internet say that these groups had been infiltrated by informants. I know this little fact may have been overlooked by those of you who are, shall we say, overly zealous to say Bush and, the evil Republicans, are trying to take away you rights. In fact the ones taking away you rights would be the Democrats. The current issue, the freedom of speech. The Democrats want to reinstate the fairness doctrine because all their attempts to create their own talk radio media outlets have fail, so they want to silence conservative talk radio and Christian radio. Take Barak Obama, if you mention his record of supporting infantacide (the only Democrat to do that in the Illinois Legislature), he wines and says it's off limits and unfair. In fact, Barak Obama is really scary in civil rights if you happen to disagree with him and/or point of his record,. Obama's thugs have tried to intimidate media outlets that even just interview people who are trying to point out Obama's history. They are now trying to get the Justice Department to look into it now. This will get even scarier if he becomes President. Think dictatorship squelching the voices of those who disagree...especially those with facts. I am just wondering what Obama will try next. You people are scared of legitimate police action, but you ignore the guy with the knife, who you call friend, that's trying to kill you. An Obama presidency will be a scary one. Obama has more skeletons in his closet than the Kennedy's do, and it appears he will do anything to keep people ignorant of them.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  188. Re:That is uncivilised!! by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    uh flamebait? lol.. me? why? oh boy.. that's too funny :)

    people have a right to protest other peoples' allegiances.

    Since the 60's the republican party has been about protecting corporate america and intolerant nutbags from individualism in any way shape or form, including the suppression of those annoying minorities, those lazy poor, and of course uppity people trying to point out the pools of molten rock formed from the friction of our forefathers spinning in their graves.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  189. Gun control by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

    Might be time to reconsider your stance on the issue, folks on the left.

    --
    Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
  190. Re:In fascist America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh wait, what was the difference between fascist America and Soviet Russia again?

  191. what is your evidence? by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    As I've asked before, what is your evidence that the OP is somebody who needs to "move out of your parents house and see the world" and isn't doing anything? It's just as easy to take your posts as whining as his.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    1. Re:what is your evidence? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Sigh...I am sad for you. You are obviously an idiot, young, or both.

      I'm just ammusing myself by antagonizing the easily antagonized, which is typically anyone under the age of 30 (even easier if they are in college, some intelligence combined with no real world experience).

      I'll give you a hint, just did it again.

  192. and... by Slur · · Score: 1

    When the police stops working as law enforcment and starts working for a political party how far is that from a banana republic?

    And when they work for corporations as well, how far is that from a fascist oligarchy?

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  193. Re:That is uncivilised!! by houbou · · Score: 1

    You can't have it boy ways and call it fair.

    I'm not advocating for the republicans, don't get me wrong here.

    But they have a legitimate right to set up conventions for their party to spread their message.

    Protesting about it, is wrong.

    If you want to show your way of thinking as better than theirs, you don't protest them, instead, you up and do better than them.

    How do you do that?

    Simple, have your own convention.

    In that convention, list the issues and problems and then, give answers and solutions.

    That's how it should be done.

    That's why I say it is uncivilised to protest, because the entire political system is an adversarial one. It is based on conflicts.

    There are rules and one of them is free speech on either side.

    Don't go kicking the other party out, because you don't like their message, instead, be constructive and advertise your own message.

    If you feel they don't have the solutions to the problems at hand, then, you dissiminate their solutions, find the flaws for all to hear and then, you propose your own answers.

    If your party has the right answer, demonstrate it, prove it, and be effective about it. That's what this is all about.

    I firmly believe that if you have the right message to give, if you can prove you have the answers to the solutions, then it doesn't matter what your party is called, people will listen.

    But protesting and cause nuisance to a political convention is juvenile and counter productive.

    It is a reflection on the strength of one's character, which, in this case, not good at all, in my honest opinion.

  194. Re:Rock bottom by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    1. War - War is a political dispute, characterized by organized violence between national military units, Clausewitz calls war the âoecontinuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means" - War is an alternative (and violent) form of political interaction in which two or more militaries have a âoestruggle of wills.â

    AQ and the Taliban, even if they are not National or State actors are still military units, even if its just cellular.

    2. The United Nations was the term used for the Allies in the Second World War following the American entry into the war. The term "United Nations" was first used by Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, in the 1942 Declaration by United Nations, which united the Allied countries of WWII under the Atlantic Charter, and soon became a term widely used to refer to them.

    3. Fascist governments, like Germany, Italy, were pretty damned socialist.

  195. Re:That is uncivilised!! by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you're right, you can't have it both ways and call it fair. You can't grant the republican party the right to hold a convention there, and deny activists the right to stand in the streets and protest it.

    whether it's juvenile or not has nothing to do with it.

    They have every right to piss and moan about their convention in the streets outside.

    whether it's good form or not (a subjective viewpoint) is not in question here.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  196. Have we only seen "one side of the story"? by RustinHWright · · Score: 2, Informative

    How far does something have to be to the right to count for you? Law enforcement is bought and paid for and working for the people in power.

    The FBI says: this.
    ABC says this.
    Do the police there have a history of unjustified assaults into houses and then trying to pretend that it's okay? Yes, they do.
    Are there more police assaults not being mentioned here? Yes, there are. They've been quite busy. Overwhelming force against people who haven't resisted seems to be a constant.
    Now, like all of us, I would love to see a more detailed statement from the police. But I've just been looking and what I'm mostly finding is variations on: "Minneapolis/St. Paul police could not be reached for comment Saturday."

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  197. Title 18, USC, Sections 241, 242 by ReedYoung · · Score: 1
    Unless they have prior felony convictions, the members of the RNC Welcoming Committee all have the right to bear arms.

    On Saturday afternoon, he displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine.

    "We know these things were going to be used as weapons," Fletcher said, a charge protesters and their advocates vigorously disputed.

    Fletcher however, stressed that he and other agencies had informants planted inside this and other groups for "a long period of time."

    Clearly, somebody is guilty of conspiracy here. I wonder whether it's the activists or the fuzz, but after reading the Star Tribune article, the arrests look legit and the anarchists look dirty. I also suspect that they're criminals. Responsible gun owners never store their buckets of urine nearby. Corrosion.

    But then, Salon includes a very important detail that the Star Tribune omitted: the cops never presented a warrant! Because they failed to present a warrant, Title 18, USC, Section 242 says they were "acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S."

    In the house that had just been raided, those inside described how a team of roughly 25 officers had barged into their homes with masks and black swat gear, holding large semi-automatic rifles, and ordered them to lie on the floor, where they were handcuffed and ordered not to move. The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant. They were forced to remain on the floor for 45 minutes while the officers took away the laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the house. One of the individuals renting the house, an 18-year-old woman, was extremely shaken as she and others described how the officers were deliberately making intimidating statements such as "Do you have Terminator ready?" as they lay on the floor in handcuffs.

    I hope that the fraudulent arrests are prosecuted as kidnapping, committed during conspiracy against rights.

    Title 18, USC, Section 241

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

    This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

    It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

    Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

    These jack-booted thugs need to be reminded who they're responsible to protect and serve. If standing trial for a death penalty offense doesn't put them in line, convict and execute.

    --
    "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
  198. MN governor by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    The catch with it all in the US system, is most of the egregious behaviour falls to the State Governor to ensure the principles of law and justice are adhered to within the state excluding of course the political involvement of the FBI which is of course a federal abuse.

    The problem with this is that the state governor is a member of the same political party as the protesters were going to protest against. Before Republican presidential candidate McCain picked his running mate there was even talk about the governor being his running mate. His office is even in the same city.

    Falcon

    1. Re:MN governor by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your making a mountain out of a mole hill just because coincidence supports your opposition.

      I know it is easy and fun to do but your ignoring a lot of things like this isn't the first time something like this has happened. It has happened under Bush, Clinton, and the three presidents before him. It was increased after Reagan was shot and this type of activity was seen as a real threat. When a cop car was torched in California, they became a lot more proactive then reactive. Taking ancillary information and attempting to pursue a point of grand conspiracy is often what makes conspiracy nuts look like the NUT case that lends their name.

      The bottom line is that cops-officials were able to infiltrate these groups and after learning of intended wrong doing, they waited until they started putting plans together and swooped in. It doesn't really matter who the part in power it or who the governor is at this point. Someone's right to protest does not include the ability to disrupt an event or cause physical damage to anyone or their property. "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." does not infer damaging someone's property or attempting to take their free speech away. Something I have never understood is when people claim the speech is such a protected point that they have the right to stop others from using it. The constitution clearly says that no rights inferred or protected by the constitution shall be used to deny others of their rights of the same. But somehow, these groups manage to think their right to free speech means they have a right to stop someone else from their speech and when they are stopped in their tracks, they have people like you buffaloed into thinking some grievous infringement has occurred. It's simply amazing.

    2. Re:MN governor by Matheus · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. speaking as a Minnesotan: Pawlenty has been almost as bad a governor of our state as Bush has been a president. I was **really** hoping McCain would tap him for VP if anything because it might pull him out of our state.. unfortunately life's not that easy.

      The fact of the matter is these raids were a blatant violation of citizen rights. The fact this may be commonplace (IS) does not make it right or make this article Republican bashing. That just makes it that much more sad that we, as citizens, go about our days letting our country slide further and further to the dark side.

      Honestly I'm an independent but I find myself voting against the republican party consistently because they continue to crusade to take away my rights as a human being and a citizen of this country. They also blindly follow certain party politics in ways that hurt me and my fellow man.

      What have we dealt with in MN? Pawlenty made a pledge to *never raise taxes and has worked hard to reduce taxes. Sounds pretty straight forward, right? Well.. to balance the budget while not raising taxes and ALSO cutting taxes and spending state coffers on a small feel-good refund he eliminated several public services from the state responsibility (you know.. the things I pay taxes for like roads, education, snow plowing, public safety)
      The result?
      Roads: 35W Bridge falls into the Mississippi. Statewide inspection of all bridges yields a vast majority are in need of serious work and a large number are just as in danger of critical failure as that one was. The rest of our roads are crumbling.. you just fall into a pothole not a river.
      Education, Snow removal, Public Safety: These activities still had to occur so they fell to the local municipalities. SO my state taxes went down $30 / year. MY PROPERTY TAXES went up by over $1500 / year to compensate!
      It's called blind loyalty to ideals without recognizing the practicality of the real world.

      Anyway.. that went WAY off topic but frankly Mr. P has done as much damage to our state as Bush has done to this country and building up the Police state and taking away my personal freedoms is part of that package.

    3. Re:MN governor by Grim+Beefer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing the point, and focusing on some hypothetical intentions by the victims of these crimes, instead of the crimes themselves. First off, no evidence of relevant criminal wrongdoing has been supplied, thus a grievous infringement has occurred. Your own defense of the cops is self contradictory, since these groups obviously had their rights removed without just cause. No amount of prior or current criminal activity by citizens ever merits stripping the rights of other people based on similarity of the individuals alone. Do you believe that it should be fine to randomly invade the homes of certain racial minorities because they have a higher per capita crime rate? Generalizing people to a political creed, and supporting oppressive measures to restrict that creed, is bigotry. Furthermore, it is wrong to arrest people for crimes before they commit them, based purely on suspicion or hearsay. Again, point me to any hard evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the INDIVIDUALS arrested or otherwise detained, and you might have an argument; otherwise you're just practicing apologetics for fascist tactics.

      By your explanation, we should be A OK with living in a totally preemptive police state, since political figures have been assassinated throughout our national history, and security should demand such precautions to prevent a relapse. Does the gestapo style assassination of Fred Hampton seem like a conspiracy NUT "mountain out of a molehill", because this is a fine, modern, example of what you get when you let legal authority operate unchecked to demolish dissent. People making a "big deal" out of this are doing so in the hopes that we don't become a country where totalitarian practices are tolerated, and you are a fine example of why we should be afraid.

    4. Re:MN governor by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know it is easy and fun to do but your ignoring a lot of things like this isn't the first time something like this has happened.

      Wow, another mind reader. What am I thinking now?

      The bottom line is that cops-officials were able to infiltrate these groups and after learning of intended wrong doing, they waited until they started putting plans together and swooped in.

      Where's your proof anything illegal was being planned? Oh, that's right, you can read minds and don't need proof.

      Falcon

    5. Re:MN governor by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      The proof for anything illegal being planned does not need to be made public in order for an arrest to be made, only for a conviction (generally speaking). Oh, and it turns out you don't need to look any further for evidence. I'm sure now that it's clear how wrong you were you will apologize to the police, FBI, the White House, and anyone else you insulted with your wild accusations.

      Haha just kidding I'm sure you don't care about actual evidence, you just want an excuse to hate.

    6. Re:MN governor by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      it turns out you don't need to look any further for evidence

      Oh but I do have to look further. You had to provide a Fox News link but I didn't see anything in it saying the same people were involved. So you provided no evidence they were planning anything illegal. However the last paragraph does say this, which is the only thing in the article about the raids:
      "On the weekend, authorities seized weapons and devices from a self-described anarchist group called the RNC Welcoming Committee, which was not among the organizers of the march. The devices were designed to disable buses, the sheriff's office said. Five people from that group were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to riot, conspiracy to commit civil disorder and conspiracy to damage property, the sheriff's office said."

      Cut and paste, isn't it wonderful?

      Fox even says those raided weren't among the organizers, I put that in bold. Now I have a question for you, are you willing to admit you were wrong if it was found the police acted wrong?

      Falcon

    7. Re:MN governor by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The problem is I am Australian and in Australia there are no conspiracy crimes as it is well known, as was demonstrated here, that they are too readily abused by autocratic authorities. So bottom line, autocratic intimidation, the stomping on peoples rights and a fucking environmental bus not there to protest at all but to promote green solutions is pulled over the occupants, a family, is harassed because someone believes, they might possibly not be republicans.

      So in Australia people are arrested because they actually commit a crime not because a bunch of other criminals, looking to get paid or pursuing reduced sentences, say they were thinking about committing one. As for denying a citizen access to public spaces because you don't like what they are going to say or, there is more than one which is the best indication especially when there are tens of thousands of protestors, there dissatisfaction with government policy.

      So your bull shit is bullshit because they did not damage someone's property, in fact the police did they damage and 'wohoo' they conspired to commit the damage in a group, a clear case of armed riot if there ever was one, even the police are not above the law :P.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:MN governor by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're missing the point, and focusing on some hypothetical intentions by the victims of these crimes, instead of the crimes themselves. First off, no evidence of relevant criminal wrongdoing has been supplied, thus a grievous infringement has occurred.

      No.. Four of the people have been charged with conspiracy to commit crimes. Just because they didn't tell you their plans for fighting crime or doing anything else does not mean any infringements have occurred. Agents infiltrated the groups and had records of their plans. The MP3 players had recordings of how to disrupt the convention by causing flat tires on buses and limousines, blocking public streets and plastering delegates with feces, paint, and other things that would cause them to leave to get cleaned up. Now, just because that wasn't reported by the one article here or because it took three days to get out, doesn't mean there was no reason.

      Your own defense of the cops is self contradictory, since these groups obviously had their rights removed without just cause. No amount of prior or current criminal activity by citizens ever merits stripping the rights of other people based on similarity of the individuals alone.

      Your acting like these people were walking down the street minding their own business and all the sudden the cops picked them up and raided their homes for no other reason then to do it. This couldn't be further from the truth. Informants inside the make shift organizations ratted these people out and told of plans of illegal activities. They are not in any way some innocent person molested by the cops. Do you no understand the concept of informants told authorities? Or are you closing your eyes to everything that doesn't fit your world view?

      Do you believe that it should be fine to randomly invade the homes of certain racial minorities because they have a higher per capita crime rate? Generalizing people to a political creed, and supporting oppressive measures to restrict that creed, is bigotry. Furthermore, it is wrong to arrest people for crimes before they commit them, based purely on suspicion or hearsay. Again, point me to any hard evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the INDIVIDUALS arrested or otherwise detained, and you might have an argument; otherwise you're just practicing apologetics for fascist tactics.

      Wow, you seem simply purposely clueless. Get your head out of the sand. These weren't randomly invaded homes, it wasn't singling people out for political creeds and conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime in and of itself. Otherwise they couldn't prosecute anyone until after the committed a crime regardless of how much the cops know. Imagine if the crime was your assassination, do you want the cops to ignore all reports of it until the time they actually try to kill you? Do you want the cops to ignore the person stalking your wife or daughter until the potential attacker tries to rape, kill, or otherwise harm either? Intent to commit a crime is a crime which is the only way laws like stalking and such can work. When you gather materials to commit the crime or actually stalk someone, you have shown intent.

      By your explanation, we should be A OK with living in a totally preemptive police state, since political figures have been assassinated throughout our national history, and security should demand such precautions to prevent a relapse. Does the gestapo style assassination of Fred Hampton seem like a conspiracy NUT "mountain out of a molehill", because this is a fine, modern, example of what you get when you let legal authority operate unchecked to demolish dissent. People making a "big deal" out of this are doing so in the hopes that we don't become a country where totalitarian practices are tolerated, and you are a fine example of why we should be afraid.

      No, by my explanation, you a moron who should be allowed to

    9. Re:MN governor by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I understand the point of view your coming from. But remember, when all you see is black sheep, it doesn't mean all sheep are black.

      As we have seen, the people have been allowed to protest. The people have even turned violent and had tear gas used to dispel them. This wasn't a situation of intimidation, it was a case where informants told the authorities of planned wrong doing. Even if Australia doesn't have actual conspiracy crime, I'm betting they do have the same but labeled differently. In fact, Sedition laws of Australia which were amended in 2005 state "to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth." which would in the US be called "conspiracy". In the Australian, under the "CRIMES (TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES) AMENDMENT ACT 1992 No. 77 of 1992 - SECT 4" the definition dealing of drugs include

      "(b) being a party to any dealing in drugs referred to in subsection (1);
          (ba) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, or being by act or
      omission in any way directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in, any conduct
      that is, under subsection (1), a dealing in drugs;".

      In the US, that would be considered conspiracy to deal drugs or conspiracy.

      So while your current law doesn't say conspiracy, it definitely contains the equivalent. It's just that in the US, the term is separate to distinguish physical participation. And no, I don't consider it any different in the US. In the US, possession of tools with the intent to commit a crime and preparing to commit a crime is a crime in and of itself. In Australia, it is the same, at least with controlled substances (drugs) and even if your just telling a person how to deal drugs in violation of the law, your busted just as if you were the dealer himself.

      BTW, the people in question weren't thinking about committing a crime, they were preparing to commit a crime. They built devices to cause flat tires and cause harm to others with the express intent of using them at a specific time on specific people who posed no immediate threat to them.

      So your bull shit is bullshit because they did not damage someone's property, in fact the police did they damage and 'wohoo' they conspired to commit the damage in a group, a clear case of armed riot if there ever was one, even the police are not above the law

      I would suggest that you actually become familiar with your own laws before calling bullshit on other countries laws. Perhaps them you won't look like such a bullshitter yourself when complaining about what your extremely ignorant over. BTW, is took me roughly 20 minutes to find the two examples of Australian law that I cited. If you would have done minimal checking before showing the world you have diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain, you wouldn't have ended up looking to ignorant of your own legal system. You can't claim My system is better when you don't know about either system. Cut the crap now and at least refrain from speaking on topics that you have no clue about.

    10. Re:MN governor by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow, another mind reader. What am I thinking now?

      I don't need to be a mind reader to see the obvious. Perhaps that is because I'm objective where your convinced.

      Where's your proof anything illegal was being planned? Oh, that's right, you can read minds and don't need proof.

      I don't need proof of anything, the cops do. And this proof will come out during their trial. The article presented is a little misleading on facts too. I suggest that you find other sources of information. Here are some things you seem to not want to know about. The cops said they had informants who told them about the planned activities. $ of the people have been charged with conspiracy. They were making, not possession but making devices to cause harm to other people's property. And last night, the local news reported that the MP3 platers have instructions on how to build some of the devices along with potential targets.

      Now, as for proof, the cops will show that to the courts during their prosecution. I don't need it, all I need is an accusation and charged to be filed which both are true at this point. BTW, possession of dangerous chemicals can be a fire code violation as well as a felony. But there were more then "fire code" violations involved.

    11. Re:MN governor by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It is amazing that those that resort to insults also resort to outright lies, lest no confuse accessory before or after the fact to the ACTUAL commitment of a crime, don't you even read what you quote, compared to conspiracy where no actual crime is committed but maybe might because someone says so. Interesting possession of legal items means you will commit crimes, so petrol, fabric wicks and empty bottles means molotov cocktails or is it just a lawn mower, expensive soft drinks and cleaning rags.

      I could resort to the same level of pathetic insults that seems to drive your ego, but it is pointless and it is far more satisfying to simply be amused by it. Of course neocon english tends to differ to the rest of the worlds view so maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt, nah. Perhaps your nickname is only unfourtunately all too apt, good luck with that ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:MN governor by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It is amazing that those that resort to insults also resort to outright lies, lest no confuse accessory before or after the fact to the ACTUAL commitment of a crime, don't you even read what you quote, compared to conspiracy where no actual crime is committed

      Yawn. I didn't compare the conspiracy to conspiracy of the charges in MN. I said you have conspiracy laws in which you claimed you didn't. I'm not going to become an Australian law expert over a conversation on slashdot. But the fact of the matter is that you do have conspiracy laws under a different name. Now, conspiracy in the US requires a clear intent to commit the crime. This means they are in the stages of committing it. Strange but tell me, if someone get busted in AU for dealing drugs before he actually deals them, IE get caught with them divided up into normal size packages for sale and has more in possession then one person would likely have for themselves, and the cop watched the per approaches a cop and askes if he want to buy some drugs, does the guy walk away scott free because the cop arrests him before he deals in the drugs? Does the fact that he failed in his attempt to deal drugs let everyone else off the hook too? And the answer to that is no.

      but maybe might because someone says so. Interesting possession of legal items means you will commit crimes, so petrol, fabric wicks and empty bottles means molotov cocktails or is it just a lawn mower, expensive soft drinks and cleaning rags.

      No, possession of legal items don't mean you will commit a crime. Telling someone your going to commit a crime and having possession of those materials means your going to commit a crime. There were informants that told the cops what to look for and where to look. This isn't a matter of a cop all the sudden deciding to walk into a house and see what he can find. They got warrant and those warrants specified what and who they were looking for. The cops went in, found what they were looking for in all but one place and that one place the person they were looking for was absent too.

      Se here is the recap. Possesion of a can of gas, a glas bottle, some torn fabric doesn't mean your going to commit a crime. Telling someone that you are going to take those ingredients and make molitov cocktails and use them on someone turns it into a crime.

      I could resort to the same level of pathetic insults that seems to drive your ego, but it is pointless and it is far more satisfying to simply be amused by it. Of course neocon english tends to differ to the rest of the worlds view so maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt, nah. Perhaps your nickname is only unfourtunately all too apt, good luck with that ;D.

      Dude, My insults might have been overboard but I clearly showed were you were ignorant of your own laws. So don't blame your ignorance of not only the situation at hand but of your own law on my world views. I've already contacted a connection in Australia and they told me that my recollection of the situation is accurate and true with respect to Australian law. So I would suggest learning a little more about it before commenting about another country's laws.

    13. Re:MN governor by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I don't need to be a mind reader to see the obvious. Perhaps that is because I'm objective where your convinced.

      Say what?

      I don't need proof of anything, the cops do. And this proof will come out during their trial.

      If there is one. And what if this is one of those "oops we made a mistake" situation? Too bad?

      The article presented is a little misleading on facts too.

      I have more than one link in my collection:

      As people posted links in the tread, I'd open then in a new Firefox tab then I'd bookmark after reading them.

      The cops said they had informants who told them about the planned activities.

      Yea, and those informants were getting paid only if there was an arrest.

      They were making, not possession but making devices to cause harm to other people's property

      And there were no legitimate uses for any of them? Oh and they were all made illegal?

      Now, as for proof, the cops will show that to the courts during their prosecution. I don't need it, all I need is an accusation and charged to be filed which both are true at this point.

      In other words it's okay to deny people the right to protest just by making an accusation, or paying an informant to make the accusation. I wonder what you would think if that happened to you.

      BTW, possession of dangerous chemicals can be a fire code violation as well as a felony. But there were more then "fire code" violations involved.

      And what charges will stand up in court? Or doesn't it matter to you? Is all that counts is that protesters were stopped? Maybe you'll like it with Kim Jong-il then.

      Falcon

    14. Re:MN governor by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Say what?

      Umm.. What so difucult to understand? Your completely ignoring the law enforcements accounting of the situation and pressing the one sided "oh we are innocent" side and your links actually show that. You have lost all objectivity and are attempting to lay a false claim.

      If there is one. And what if this is one of those "oops we made a mistake" situation? Too bad?

      If the cops didn't have solid evidence, the judges wouldn't have issued a warrant. If the judge did issue a warrant without good evidence, then a lawsuit is justified. Don't make the mistake that I'm saying the cops are right, I'm saying that informant told them what was going on and they acted on it. That is a good investigation and police work, not some threatening situation or something like your attempting to portray it.

      I have more than one link in my collection:

      And I looked at a non-biased site and found this. Notice how when you look for the facts and no opinions over something, you tend to get information from both sides?

      As people posted links in the tread, I'd open then in a new Firefox tab then I'd bookmark after reading them.

      Like I said, look for the facts and not opinions. This is the cops position.

      Yea, and those informants were getting paid only if there was an arrest.

      Who cares. If they didn't product enough evidence and someone got killed because of their actions, you would be bitching that they knew and didn't do anything about it. The bottom line is that paying only on a conviction which is the story I originally read actually stops people from making shit up to get money. And no, this wasn't just one person either. Evidently FBI and other operatives have chat logs and other exchanges that led them to what they were looking for when they did the raids. I guess if there is a moral to all this it would be, don't go around bragging on the internet about your planned illegal activities even if you don't plan on carrying them out. And if you do, definitely don't have the materials to aide in those actions on hand when the cops come looking. If informants didn't tell the cops what to look for, they never would have gotten a warrant describing most of the things and people seized before the actually went in and seized the stuff. I mean the fact that the warrant actually spelled out a lot of the stuff found is telling enough, this isn't some innocent gathering and police intimidation regardless of how many biased and one sided videos you want to put forward while ignoring everything else.

      And there were no legitimate uses for any of them? Oh and they were all made illegal?

      Well, some of the stuff have no legitimate use. But a crowbar is a legitimate tool use for legal purposed until you tell someone your going to use it to break into something illegally or smash someone's head in with it. It then becomes a criminal tool. If you can't understand that then you shouldn't even be discussing this. I'll tell you what, go buy a hunting riffle then start telling your neighbors your going to shoot him with it and see how long before that legal gun become illegal for you to possess.

      In other words it's okay to deny people the right to protest just by making an accusation, or paying an informant to make the accusation. I wonder what you would think if that happened to you.

      Yes, it is perfectly fine to arrest and detain people in which you have information about planned illegal activity when you raid their houses or search them and find ev

  199. We seem to have a misunderstanding. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    Evidently physics works differently on your planet. But here on this planet, people who are handcuffed, face down, on the floor, under the eyes of a crowd of cops, some with drawn automatic weapons, aren't going to be "destroying" much of anything.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    1. Re:We seem to have a misunderstanding. by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      aren't going to be "destroying" much of anything.

      Their pants perhaps?

  200. Re:That is uncivilised!! by houbou · · Score: 1

    Well, I guess we can agree to disagree! :) Don't forget I'm being called a "flamebait" for my views in this article :)

    But "pissing and moaning" about it, as you say, is far from constructive...

    That much I'm pretty sure of.

    Protesting just for the sake of protesting is wrong. Activists who protest the right of an established political party, aren't taking the right approach.

    Anyone who wants to make an impact and try and change someone's mind, should in my honest opinion, be good mannered about it.

    If you want to "woo" the republican supporters onto your cause, then "pissing and moaning" isn't the way to go, instead, challenge them with insightful thoughts and give them answers to problems which they are plagued by just as you are.

    But as you say, they have the right to moan about it in the streets outside, as long as it is done in a peaceful manner, I agree with you on that point.

  201. Yet again, RTFA. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    No. There are plenty of witnesses who were not members of the "RNC Welcoming Committee". In fact, if you had RTFA, you would know that the biggest raid was against a house full of people who were simply there to videotape the event. A thing that scares the Minneapolis police since over four hundred arrests at the 2004 RNC were proven to be on false grounds due to videotapes that proved that the arresting officers were lying.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  202. How many of those items do YOU own? by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    Do you own "flammable liquids"? Paint? Rocks? How many Americans own guns? Should they all be arrested for that? As for the "buckets of urine", I'm quite impressed how far and fast that b.s. is spreading. Look above and you'll find that addressed at least five or six times right here in this thread.

    Oh, I certainly do hope that there will be a 'law suite", if by that you meant "lawsuit". There are certainly grounds.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    1. Re:How many of those items do YOU own? by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't really own rocks, guns, or bows and arrows. Nor do I have buckets of urine lying around (those generally go into the toilette). Yes those items can be common in most American homes and yes, the summary does indicate that an excessive level of source may be used. But, I think that we here on slashdot have a somewhat knee-jerk reaction to bash on authoritative figures when something happens. My point was that I'd simply prefer more information as to the context of the situation before casting blame based on an article(s) summary.

      And yes, I did misspell lawsuit. I happen to make mistakes from time to time.

  203. And don't forget the FBI infiltrators by Slur · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The FBI almost openly plants people in areas where activists congregate, and keep tabs on where and when groups will be staging events. Ordinarily they don't use the information gathered to disrupt the groups - though disruption is still performed in various ways. Planted people may be encouraged to sow seeds of discontent and disinformation, but of those I have heard reported, it's usually pure information gathering - dates and times.

    The disruption of activists implies to me that ahead of the RNC some fairly high-up people decided to make use of the information the FBI and/or local enforcement regularly gathers through covert means... though it seems really odd that they impulsively arrested all these people then couldn't figure out how to make them disappear.

    So maybe it's all some kind of PR stunt to throw some red meat to the ravenous right wingers who'll have a laugh to see some anarchist hippies get kicked in the nuts. "Ha! Ha!"

    The media-for-idiots (i.e., news networks, talk radio) will smear the airwaves with the usual shitty lowbrow opinion theater, confabulating activists with terrorists. Despite the transparency of their game, they find lots of hapless people who will play along, who automatically join the apparent throngs sympathetic to the powerful... the soldiers of God.

    We witness this the way these appalling scoundrels - our political class - pretend-o-cratizes its way to the bank in the classic style of corrupt servants of power. They stir the rest of us up such that we sycophants slaver and bicker over the falling scraps of our so-called "leaders."

    Certainly we all strongly sense the corruption and pettiness that exists across the board in the halls of our government, and how cavalier they are becoming. It seems as though the ordinary men and women who hold offices of government - these supposed servants of the people - are more likely than ever to succumb to the inducements offered by large-scale capitalists, war profiteers, and disaster recovery specialists.

    The audacious series of acts we have seen from the right wing especially in the last 8 years, the absolute disregard for the founding spirit that is this country's beating heart, the way that our airwaves have become vile with propaganda breeding cruelty, jingoism, and cynicism - these are the fruits of unbridled capitalism. Another seems to be a policy of undermining public education, presumably to create a larger pool of angry discontented mentally handicapped people who will be more likely to buy into their idiot brand of propaganda.

    But that is a subject for another day.

    Meanwhile, hey, what's to stop these people in the in-group who currently have power from using the FBI and law enforcement any way they want? To me this seems no less a crime than Watergate, except in this case the public can be fooled into thinking the break-ins were necessary to protect lives and property from domestic terrorists... well, anarchists... uh, whatever, same thing! ...pass me another beer.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  204. Please, get it right. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    It's fuck "tha" police.

    Kids these days. No respect for tradition.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  205. Not really. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    Your examples are very different. From TFA: the police in Boston were "looking for people who had defaulted on warrants for crimes including shoplifting, rape of a child, and assault and battery with a deadly weapon".
    Say what you will about the actions but no way will you convince me that the police actions in Minneapolis this past few days are done to find career violent felons.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    1. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting how "people who had defaulted on warrants for crimes including shoplifting, rape of a child, and assault and battery with a deadly weapon" are the very same people who want to protest the Republican convention.

      Gives you a little insight to the minds of these protesters and the left eh?

  206. Kicked americas door off the hinges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they did was kick in americas door and said "free speech is off the table."

  207. wow...just wow by blimeygx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find myself hoping there is something missing from the story...some detail that removes how horrible this seems on the surface. Ignoring "he said, she said" and "Republicans" or "Democrats" blah blah...

    What in the holy hell happened to basic human rights? Was there a thing missing from the story that we don't see that shows these people were making bombs? Were the "insiders" witness to horrific hate crime behavior that /maybe/ I can say "these people were about to do something they shouldn't"?

    It's been said to death... "This sucks" "that sucks" and "geez, where'd our rights go".

    What are we doing? We've let the country just creep into this hole where no one cares enough to vote, or write congressman...

    And now, I am getting older, and caring more and more about how much I used to be able to do, and now, I fear everything, even our own police.

    My then (3 years ago) 2 year old daughter was snagged out of my hands when visiting the liberty bell going through the guards gates. By a guard, btw. I hadn't made it through the check point, yet. Now, mind you, he's thinking "I'm the good guy, I'm the hero here, protecting these people from the bad guys." He snags her to bring her through the gate, forcing me to go through behind her before I have emptied my pockets. I am not letting my kid out of my hands so easily, Mr. Guard. Well, of course, they get riled, and start pushing me backwards through there. I went livid, and said "Give me my kid, or I call the police". They started getting on me like I was a terrorist all of a sudden. Oh, and when I finally got calmed, and through the gate, I told the officer to never do that again and his only reply was to say "We're here to protect the innocent, sir", and from there, they were walking behind us the rest of the tour.

    Best part? When I get through the exit, they insist you go through this "line" to go back across the street. My kid steps off to the side, and so I follow, not realizing that it is apparently a federal offense now to be belligerent when an officer snags your kid away from you, and oh, when you walk over the little white line on the pavement. That's bad too. So, the officer accompanying me says "Sir, I need you to step back into the line". "Um, why? We're headed to the same place, and I don't think I can cause too much trouble being 5 feet outside, moving towards the same side there" Well, of course, they are already pissed at me for making a scene...Anyway, when I get to the other side of the street, he says "Sorry for being such a hard ass, sir, but things changed when 'they' attacked us on 9/11" "Oh really?" "And, I suppose walking outside of the lines somehow adds up to blowing up buildings?" Geez...those guys have no sense of what this country is about. Following orders, I guess...?

    The Liberty bell. Definitely part of history, and nothing to do with modern US.

    Where'd all this truly start? I've seen a couple of posts on "well, it started 8 years ago" ...

    Stop and think about this. For the last 100 years, or more, the centralized federal government has been power grabbing, and short changing us on every turn, snagging little bits and pieces away.

    They'll do something horrible, then take it back, and then do something less horrific so we can feel comfortable with being screwed...

    I really hate to even fan this flame, but, gas is 3.40ish in NC. I hear people say "man, that's great!"...um...oil barrel ...is...at..the same price it was when fuel was 2.89 p/gal...*rolls eyes* ...ok...I give.

    I have a home owners association that is a very tiny scale perfect model for the US on this; hear me out...

    They sent out fliers saying they were going to assess each unit for $5,000 to repair a swimming pool for the community. Sounds like a great idea, save, they've already been getting money for 3 years in a column titled "repairs" that has a n

  208. Possibly my mistake. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that the UID comment was about Steve Franklin.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  209. Re:Rock bottom by Solandri · · Score: 1

    The OP and GP were debating a matter of degree of wrongness. The OP citing the fact that the country experienced greater wrongs in the past is sufficient to refute the GP's claim that we had in the present "almost hit rock bottom". I'm not sure how your "two wrongs don't make a right" got modded insightful, since the OP and GP had a disagreement over magnitude, not sign.

  210. cherry picking by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

    The /. summary kind of cherry-picks the bits that it mentions. If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready

    Who's cherry picking now? If you read the Star-Tribune article you would have read how there was only one bucket of urine, and it was in an apartment without a toilet where a illegal occupant was. And you would have read who that person had nothing to do with the protesters.

    in addition to the slingshots, bow and arrows, and gun that police seized

    I used to own at least one of each of these as well as a rifle and a blow-gun. Does that mean I was planning something illegal? In that case my dad was a criminal because he gave me the rifle when I was young. And the person who sold me the gun was one too even though we were both in the US Army when he sold it to me.

    It's pretty clear that whatever protest these people were planning was going to go beyond peaceful words, unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.

    It's clear to whom? To you? Maybe you don't need much information as I need to decide guilt.

    It also notes that these informants were working on the inside of the protest groups for quite some time, to minimize any doubt that these folks were up to no good.

    And those informants were getting paid, but they only got paid if there was an arrest. Let's see, if I became an informant and I knew I would only get paid if the info I gave led to an arrest but there was nothing being planned that was illegal, would I tell the truth and not get paid or would I lie so I would be paid?

    So, in other words, the cops were doing their job

    No, so either you don't have enough info or you're trolling.

    Falcon

  211. Bearing witness is admirable, too. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    Then I'll cut you some slack. Having just looked through some of your posts in other threds, I'll even agree that you do make a consistent effort to bring some politically aware clue to discussions.
    But I still don't think that name-calling is effective. I understand your frustration. I've done my time, too and it gets kinda lonely out there sometimes. Or, more to the point, perhaps, it's bloody hard to sit in a room full of people complaining and know that you're the only one actually putting your all too fragile ass on the line to do anything about it.
    But there is considerable value that comes from somebody, especially somebody like "Garcia" who is pretty upfront about who he is, being willing to come forward and say, "yes, this chilling effect IS changing my behavior." It's gotta be embarrassing, if nothing else. The truly cowardly thing is what thousands have probably done in the past day, which is to be a Twin Cities resident who read this thred and said nothing at all. They are the ones who truly make it harder to judge how much dissent is warped by government actions like these.

    Frankly, I planned my trip to Minneapolis a few months back in part specifically to avoid the RNC. I thought about going. Same for Denver. I had offers of transportation and places to crash. And I'm sitting here in the safety of my home a thousand miles away in part because I prefer to reduce my odds of time in a jail cell or even handcuffed on a floor somewhere. And that's a thing worth having on the record, too.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  212. Please don't go all Godwin on us. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1

    I'm far from pleased about this (as my many posts here show) but the Minneapolis cops are NOT comparable to the SS. They really aren't. What they're doing may be wrong but to equate it with, for example, shooting people down in the streets for having the wrong ethnicity is pathetic. That kind of false equivalency just makes it harder to judge how bad things really are.
    Trust me on this; things can get a hell of a lot worse than they are right now and if they do (which I increasingly suspect they will) it will do us no favors at all to misremember how things were.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  213. What is worse? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Recently we have heard about political demonstrators being arrested, in China during the Olympics, and now in the US before the Republican Convention. I believe we all agree that this is wrong - if freedom of speech has any significance at all, it is to secure the freedom to express your political views without fear of intimidation.

    But, bad as it is in China, I think what happens in the US is doubly bad. At least, in China you know in advance that what you do is illegal before you do it, and that it can have negative consequences - you can prepare yourself for it. In America people think that they have the right, that taking part in a political demonstration is not going to have big amd bad consequences, because you have the right to speak your opinion.

    True, these Americans are not going to spend long time in a prison or work camp; but in both cases the free expression of political opinions has been oppressed. As far as I can see, America is not living up to its own standards; so - with China, we get to see that they are always doing better than what we expect, and America is always doing worse. Come on, Americans, I know you can do better.

  214. Here is a better answer. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    My initial reaction was to say nothing because I wish to protect my anonymity. After some thought, however, I believe I can relate a bit more without giving away very much. This is a sampling; it is not a comprehensive list.

    When most in my small community (at the time) were too afraid or too apathetic to protest illegal actions by the local police, I went down to one of the big town events and performed a one-person protest, complete with picket signs leaving no doubt as to my position. I was later intimidated by some VERY unfriendly people who also made a very big deal of taking many pictures of me as I passed. Nevertheless I continued my activity. My position on the issues were later vindicated by the courts, and two innocent people were awarded damages from the police department by the court, which also publicly reprimanded the officers and the police department. (Sadly, they did not lose their jobs.) I do not pretend that my actions influenced the courts, but maybe -- just maybe -- they showed other people that they don't have to stand still and put up with it.

    When the local police were "breaking up a riot" that did not actually exist (the only people "rioting" were, in fact, the police... members of the public were merely trying to get out of their way), I stood my ground against a gang of fully riot-geared police officers, who illegally tried to force me off of the private property on which I was standing, minding my own business. One of the officers had his can of mace pointed at me, 3 inches from my face. I held my ground. The commanding officer told them to leave me alone, and I was left unmolested, but it was close. I had no way of knowing he was NOT going to spray me straight in the eyes... but I was in the right, he was not, and I did not back down. That is what mattered. I am not completely ignorant of the law; I would have fried his ass in court if he had sprayed me. There were witnesses too. But I was willing to get sprayed if necessary to make the point... and that is sometimes what it takes.

    On a different occasion, when I found a police officer doing something that was clearly illegal and dangerous, I physically attacked him and took his gun, painfully injuring him in the process (though not permanently). He was later reprimanded for his actions. (Sadly, this one did not lose his job either. However, I honestly believe he will not try that again.) Note that I was not charged with anything, because I was in the right and they knew it. But if I had done nothing, he would have gotten away with it.

    There are a few other incidents that I will not detail. But my point is: if you lie down and let them walk on you, then you are part of the problem. Despite the inherent risks, I have instead chosen to be part of the solution. And unless someone is mentally or physically handicapped, I have no respect for those who CHOOSE to be sheep and just bitch and whine, like that poster up above.

  215. Re:Rock bottom by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how your "two wrongs don't make a right" got modded insightful, since the OP and GP had a disagreement over magnitude, not sign.

    I don't know why either. However I replied with "two wrongs don't make a right" because GP said "the crackdown on civil rights has been tame". Just because it's "tame" does not justify it. Now if GP didn't mean to justify it then he could have said that.

    Falcon

  216. Re:Rock bottom by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative
    3. Fascist governments, like Germany, Italy, were pretty damned socialist.

    Yes, in exactly the same way that the DPRK is democratic.

  217. Troll (Re:also) by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    That was just one of the groups affected. You're ignoring the raid done at the I-Witness Video group's gathering. There was no evidence anyone in that group was planning any violence. Heck they weren't even planning on protesting. Just video-recording everything.

    And you're calling the "anarchists" "hooligans" before either side has their day in court, based purely on the police statements. In this day and age, please don't tell me you still take the police at their word for every action they perform. Haven't you seen enough video evidence to the contrary to plant a few seeds of doubt in your mind?

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  218. You say some good things. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, here is a person who says "Fuck you America", but is unwilling to do what it takes to change things. I have a difficult time letting that go unchallenged.

  219. The ones breaking windows are working for the cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The anarchists in Seattle that broke all the windows were given free public housing for years after the WTO police attacks. Is that the typical punishment for "evil doers?"

  220. broken windows by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    So because they have worse riots other places, it's OK to break windows of innocent local businesses in St. Paul and Seattle?

    What windows were broken in St Paul? I live right across the river in Minneapolis and I haven't heard of any broken windows.

    What a load of bullshit.

    Who's speaking shit?

    Falcon

  221. what your trying to say is its all bush's fault? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    What is all Bush's fault? If you mean Saddam, no it's not all his fault. Actually Reagan is more at fault. If it's not Saddam I have no idea what you mean.

    Falcon

  222. Re:Rock bottom by Raenex · · Score: 1

    What makes me laugh is that America still calls itself the "Land of the Free" *snicker* and the "Home of the Brave" *guffaw*.

    Those are ideals that have never, in no time in America's history, have ever been fully lived up to. Still, it's nice to have ideals.

    You appear to be neither from over here.

    Where is "here"? Every country has it's problems.

    I'll probably be modded as flamebait or a troll for this

    No you won't, because you included this phrase, which often results in upmods, as I'm sure you're aware.

    Maybe we should vote on it; you Americans are okay with voting, right? Even if it means you might lose?

    Go ahead, why the fuck should Americans care? The world will continue on in pretty much the same way, since America has no official position as "leader of the free world". That point was made pretty clear when a lot of the "free world" countries were against the invasion of Iraq.

  223. Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you feel safer now?

  224. It's more complex by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The horrible number of casualties were the result of

    A) First and foremost, failure to adapt fast enough to new weaponry and tactics. E.g., took an awfully long time to sink in that a rifled gun shoots accurately to IIRC 300m, while against muskets it was reasonably safe to march to 100m and stand tall. (Oh, you could get hit by musket fire too, but, as an officer in the age of muskets put it, only if it was aimed at someone else;) There were years of horrible massacres, where thousands of soldiers were marched in formation to 100m, and then they shot essentially point blank at each other, standing tall and taking the volley.

    B) Incompetent charges that ignored the officers' advice and marched some soldiers to slaughter. E.g., Picket's Charge.

    C) Essentially, the first attempt in history at having a broad front war. Previously war had been historically a set-piece affair, where two armies would meet, fight, and that was it. E.g., when the Gauls invaded Rome, or Rome smacked Carthage, or whatever other historical war, don't think that they had a front across Italy. It was basically the army of one side vs the army of the other in _one_ point, and that decided the fate of the war. They might leave a detachment behind to besiege some city or whatever, but there was no coordinated effort by multiple armies. The American Civil War was arguably the first where that was even attempted, and it resulted in hideous casualties as essentially there were more battles all over the place and more generals trying to win some glory by breaking the opposite line in some God-forsaken place.

    D) Railroads. Unlike previous times in history, it was now trivial to keep reinforcing and resupplying a lot of army. Where previously you'd admit defeat or fortify and wait for reinforcements for a year (see Hannibal), here it became a case where it was possible to throw more soldiers at anything. And they did. With the logical results.

    E) Lack of modern medical care. Wars had always been a crappy affair in that aspect. The Minnie ball caused horrible wounds, and there were no antibiotics or even anesthetics.

    Additionally:

    1. Focusing on _US_ casualties in WW1 and WW2 is rather misleading. The USA took only a minor part in the trench battles of WW1, for example. The finance and industry of the USA played a bigger role in both world wars, than the actual soldiers in the trenches.

    For the countries which actually held the line in those wars, the casualties were a lot more horrible. The USSR in WW2, for example, lost ten _million_ soldier and some thirteen _million_ civillians in WW2. Let that sink in a bit, next time the "we won WW2" willy-waving contest comes by. China lost some 4 million soldiers and 16 million civillians, and their contribution to the attrition and over-extending lines of the Japanese should not be overlooked in the Pacific War. On the Axis side, Germany lost 5.5 million soldiers, and almost two million civilians. You don't think you were that good that you fought Germany single-handedly and caused 10 times more casualties than you took, do you? But at any rate, that's what WW2 was really like, for those in the middle of it. There's an estimated 72 million people who died in that war.

    In WW1, the Brits took almost 60,000 casualites just in the first day of the Battle of Somme. Almost half of what you took in the whole war. And while I'm too lazy to look up numbers, France almost depleted their manpower to the point where they were out of conscripts for many years after the war. There's a reason for the pacifism and (in the USA isolationism) after the war. Humanity had never seen such carnage before, and was thoroughly shocked.

    So writing only the USA casualties for both wars is IMHO highly misleading.

    2. Again, the fact that something has happened before, doesn't excuse the present.

    The general history of humanity started from ritualized mass-murder and slavery, and we had a long way to gradually become more... civilized. And I don't mean just having TV and Sla

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:It's more complex by zogger · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a very nice reply to my post with the historical references, but I was only pointing out the obvious that the civil war was a nasty war with a high attrition rate and they used what tech was available at the time extensively. Along with the concentration camps. I only included stats for the US in war figures reference, I wasn't trying to compare it to all the totals, just to show that the US actually lost more folks fighting internally than they did in the next two large wars, which was supposed to emphasize how bad and extensive the US civil war was from a US perspective. sorry that didn't come across adequately.

      As to being anti war, my cred is pretty good there, I've been opposed to the bulk of the conflicts the US has been in since as far back as I can remember, because they are for the most part banker's wars, wallstreet blood profit's wars. I can't see where I was "excusing" anything with what I wrote.

  225. Re:Rock bottom by squizzar · · Score: 1

    When there's actually a bunch of guys with tanks and guns waiting to land on your shores and occupy your lands then you've got a war that requires serious changes to laws and rights. When a few people want to blow some stuff up your in the situation that has occurred in many countries in the rest of the world since Guy Fawkes' time and earlier.

    You will _never_ have a world leading democracy that doesn't inspire hatred in the hearts of those that can't accept, understand or tolerate your freedoms. What you propose is to give up those freedoms to destroy them, when all you will achieve is to become like them.

  226. Any word on finding the snitches? by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aided by informants planted in protest groups

    It shouldn't be terribly hard to find the folks who ratted on these people.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  227. Welcome to the Machine, slaves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A history lesson in activism for those that missed it the first time around.

    Mario Savio: Sproul Hall Steps, December 2, 1964 "the operation of the machine"

    "There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw

  228. Restaurants do serve piles of shit by burnitdown · · Score: 1

    McDonalds is probably the most popular restaurant in the country. Have you looked lately at what they're serving?

    Feces, blended with enough chemicals to disguise its true nature, could become a popular snack. Of course they don't just serve you shit next to fine wine; they're smarter than that.

    Much of democratic liberal capitalist societies is dressing up low-cost turds as high-value products. That plastic junk you took home from Wal-mart was a bargain... until it broke six months later and you realized it was an inferior version of something better. But most don't realize. They keep buying.

    In the same way, in a democracy, you depend on making a situation appear to be something that gives people warm fuzzies or dark fears, when the situation is actually more complex. You don't deal in reality because most of the electorate can't handle reality in their own lives, and they definitely don't want to hear it from their figureheads.

    Tell me, why does history record no successful democracies?

    Maybe it's because all that matters is the perception of the person voting when they place that vote. Just like all that matters is the perception of the person buying when they slide that credit card. There's no followup, no correspondence to reality.

    If you think about it, there's a lot of political complaining on this site, but no one has any solutions other than to "try harder" at certain aspects of the system as it is. Why do you think that is? And when do you think it will succeed?

  229. Did this happen with the Democratic convention? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I have generally held that republicans and democrats are two faces of the same coin and that they are generally the same. But I don't remember hearing this kind of oppressive crap prior to the democratic national convention. Yes, there were protests and police and stuff like that, but the FBI doing pre-emptive strikes against people wishing to exercise their constitutionally protected rights? I would really like to know what individuals requested these acts. These people and their party should be held to the light over this.

    We hear about events like these in China and think "human rights violators!" What could people be thinking when that happens in the U.S.? And who are these people "following orders"? They have to know what they are doing simply amounts to silencing critics and preventing the exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms. Each member of these law enforcement parties are sworn to protect... not this.

  230. Anarchists? by Danathar · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that the Anarchists are protesting the Republicans more than the Democrats, especially when theoretically the Democrats are for MORE regulation and MORE Government (I say this as a matter of theory, not as a matter of reality). I also am not criticizing more gov and more regulation, just thinking of what an Anarchist might object to more.

  231. Re:Rock bottom by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    We haven't been at war in decades.

  232. Re:Rock bottom by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Doing something bad is bad, even with provocation. However, to say that it's as bad when there is provocation is ridiculous. Actions taken during the World Wars were bad, but there were legitimate security concerns at the time. Yes, there was fear and hysteria, but we were in the midst of REAL wars against nations that either declared war on us or actually attacked our shores.

    Today, these actions are like "Free Speech Zones" -- a deliberate attempt at removing every civil liberty from the Bill of Rights on down. To condone them is to condone a coup intended to replace the Constitution with a tyranny.

  233. Ah, yes. Democracy in action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Write in Ron Paul.

    1. Re:Ah, yes. Democracy in action. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Write him in for what? You do realize we don't have a democracy here and its a republic?

      Your 'vote' for president is not a vote, its just a suggestion to the people that actually do vote of who you would like to see as president..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  234. Re:Rock bottom by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

    Meh. I deserved my troll mod before (and was expecting it), but this is unjustified.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  235. Re:Rock bottom by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

    Racism and sexism have been erased?! Holy shit, that's great news! I can't wait to tell my sister, who still makes about 70 cents on the dollar compared to me. And I will sit here and hold my breath while I wait for the people responsible for these most recent violations to be held responsible.

    Sparky, you *are* a tool, in every sense of the word.

    If this sentiment is confusing or nonsensical to you, consider that the fault may not lie with the message. After all, what does a hammer know of the carpenter's will?

    --
    "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  236. MURDER the unamerican fuckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO one has the right to question police who are enforcing LAW.

    goddamn terrorists think they have the right to disrupt a Republican convention???

    PUT EM DOWN.

    PERMANENTLY.

    And God Save America, from commie scum.

  237. Well after sporting events... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

    ... there should be preemptive raids on people drinking beer in stadiums, just to make sure people don't get drunk and break shit after their team loses.

  238. Re:Rock bottom by Risen888 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm talking about the political and legal history of the United States since 1860. Compared to the American Civil War, the First World War and the Second World War, the crackdown on civil rights has been tame, compared to the dangerous faced with new asymmetrical weapons and tactics.

    Really. Let's check the list.

    Hobbling of the press. Check.
    Illegal detainment of US citizens. Check.
    Unconstitutional invasions of personal homes and effects. Check.
    Unconstitutional use of federal agents and armed forces in civilian jurisdictions. Check.
    Executive abuses of "war powers." Check, check, and check.

    So how is this not exactly like the Civil War, or the First and Second World Wars? Well, there is one difference. We are not at war. Except with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

    --
    Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  239. The "naziamerica" tag is distasteful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We aren't shoving minorities into ovens en masse. And we aren't all fawning over a 'glorious' leader (obviously). People who don't like what's going on are allowed to dissent.

    1. Re:The "naziamerica" tag is distasteful. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Yet. Sure you are allowed to dissent, but you are also liable to be investigated and detained for 'national security reasons'.

      Think that fear isn't a real deterrent? Who among us can withstand a hardcore investigation where they strip your house clean and even check out your pocket lint from 40 years ago? Who here wants to cast the first stone?

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  240. Re:Rock bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your point? Ignore the problem until it gets worse?

  241. intimidation designed to quash free speech by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    We still have free speech? I thought that was effectively taken from us long ago and were left with the *perception* of it to make the unwashed masses feel good.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  242. Skeptical by spurdy · · Score: 0

    Reading several of his columns, it is clear that Greenwald is operating from a radical left-wing point of view and wants to do a hack job on this convention. I'm not saying that the reporting by others isn't true, or that what's going on is good or bad, merely that Greenwald is going to put it in the most unfavorable light for purely partisan purposes. That is exactly what's wrong with politics. Trouble is, it's nothing new. See the 1968 Democratic convention.

  243. Re:Weird....there are TWO FA's..part 2 by Poingggg · · Score: 1

    Looks like somehow part of my comment fell away or I did not check my preview good enough as I was in a hurry (had to go to work).

    The article I quoted was the one /. links to. On first sight the article jlarocco links to is the same, but it is not, although it is the same site.

    Hope my reply is clearer now.

    --
    What person will donate an airborne act of love?
  244. spoke openly of criminal intentions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been many reports many of them have spoke openly of criminal intentions including: plans to disrupt local roads, state highways and interstate freeways. Intentional property damage. Assaulting counter protestors including assault not in personal defense.

    I'm going to show up to counter protest, take lots of pictures and video with the aid of a dish mic so I don't miss anything.

    See ya there!
    "Enemy of the enemy within."

  245. Watergate by smallfeet · · Score: 1

    Hum, republicans doing illegal actions to try and enhance their chances in a Presidential election. Where have I seen this before? Hopefully there is some film coverage of this that can be used in ads.

  246. what to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can all ways charge the policy for over stepping there boundaries in the matter. Peaceful protests are fine but they are not allowed to be disruptive. Which means the convention should be allowed to continue with little disruption other then people standing by with signs or yelling/chanting. There are rules for this type of gathering of people in the hopes that both sides will walk a way fine. However, some tools might be good to try and get the message accosted; they could be used to cause harm so people need to think about others peopleâ(TM)s safety too not just the message you are trying to get accosted.

    Since, I do not know what tools where going to be use or other stuff that the protestersâ(TM) where going to uses itâ(TM)s hard to say. A pie in the face is very disruptive and slightly harmful if you need to give a talk. While, a sign can be use to hit someone the chances of this happening are slim.

    The other problem is that maybe the people attending the convention are afraid of the protesters. They might be trying very hard to fix the nation, only to see every attempt fail and then they get blamed for it. I really do not know. But only going with one side of the story is never a good idea.

    Part of the problem here is that people feel that they are not being heard. This might be true. In which case spend sometime to ask useful questions, and try to get useful answers for these question so you know you are being heard. If you get good answers and still see no progress on the issue then either they are lying to you or they are running into other problems in an attempt to fix this one. Which case, figure out what those issues are or find someone that will and get those issues fixed then get back to fixing the original issue.

    While itâ(TM)s nice to say I am a part of this party, they will fix it. The truth is something that can normally be measured. Please spend sometime to choice wisely this year and go with people that are willing to listen and fix these issues. Because, sometimes other people really just do not care what you have to say so please take time out to identify those people and donâ(TM)t give them the power. Also, its hard to except that there will have to be some scarifies like more tax, more regulations, or something else to get thing fixed. Itâ(TM)s hard to except compromises when you donâ(TM)t want to give anything up. But, its one of the only ways to move forward.

  247. Re:Rock bottom by Solandri · · Score: 1

    But he never said it was justified. Someone posting a followup mistakenly mischaracterized his response as justification (and somehow got modded 5 insightful for it). OP never said the crackdown was justified.

  248. Anarchist can die for all I care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to say you guys are absolutely nuts if you think this is wrong. Law enforcement has rightfully focused on what can only be called the scum of the earth. These are not people protesting the current government but rather the whole concept of government. Further they are known to do so via assault, rape and murder. In the case of crap like this a good offense must be part of the plan. When it comes right down to it the only unfortunate thing is that none of these so called anarchists did not end up in the grave. Personally I think the government needs to put a bounty on every head involved in this movement with the only acceptable state of the body being dead.

    Harsh you might think well I'd have to say then that you are grossly misinformed. First on has to think about what anarchy is. Second one has to consider what the movement is after. I will simply ask here how many on slash dot are serious capable of surviving with the country in a state of lawlessness. Since we are talking the average geek here on slash dot I can assure you that most of you would not last long at all if these people got their way.

    Remember these people are not advocating a different form of government but rather no government at all. Chaos is simply not the answer to our current issues and frankly our current issues are blown way out of proportion.

    Dave

  249. Stop with the partisan crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 2 party system is dead. What we have now is a show that pits a single party against itself in a Jerry Springer setting. They all act like they hate each other on camera but off camera they both acknowledge common Grand Uniparty Goals for one world gov't and for elitists to control the people as so much livestock.

    Did any of you complaining here vote for Ron Paul or was he not "charismatic" or "presidential looking" for you? They aren't the problem. They are simply a tiny wart on the ass of a selfish and arrogant people. We could clear them away with a flick of our collective little finger if only we would band together, Martin Luther King style (nonviolent but unyielding) and simple grab our country back from the elitists who somehow hold us all captive.

    It will only get worse folks. The repression and authoritarian state tactics are happening. The socialists will say it is all for our own good. Most of the people will not even know it is happening because they are too busy watching the weapons of mass distraction put out there to capture our attention. Some people will actually welcome it because they are elitist wannabes.

    After living in this country for 50 years it is sad to see so many complainers and so few dooers. Get behind Ron Paul. He's the only one who is looking out for you. So what if he will not be president this very year. This is a long term battle for the survival of the Republic, not a contest to see who gets to control the sheeple for the next 4 years. Donate to his fight for freedom and get involved. Failing all of that, at least quit whining because if you are not part of the solution you are the problem.

  250. Re:Rock bottom by Toonol · · Score: 1

    Sparky, you *are* a tool, in every sense of the word.

    You misunderstand. Look at the words; they really make no sense. "That comment LITERALLY BLEW MY HEAD OFF!" would be just as incorrect.

    The 70 cents on a dollar wage discrepancies are largely eliminated once you account for factors such as education/time on job. In fact, I think people are generally lying when they give examples of it. I have never in my life encountered any business that pays a lower wage for a woman who is working the same job, with the same seniority, experience, etc.

  251. Brian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom of speech does not include buckets of piss, road spikes and other tools that can inflict pain on other human beings. You people out there that would disagree with this are probably the ones who complain when government agencies use force on people, because youâ(TM)re the ones out there trying to throw the road spikes and piss, causing hate and discontent for the ones who contribute to society.

  252. Re:It's not that simple... by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And, about the the fire violation arrest: if you don't want to get arrested for fire violations, don't violate the building codes. It's pretty easy.

    Hey, moron. They didn't violate the building codes. They rented a building that the cops claim is in violation of the fire code, which mysteriously means they can arrest everyone in the building.

    I can't even imagine how that works. Maybe I can see some misapplication of the law that lets them arrest the people who rented the building, but being physically located in it? How are you supposed to check for fire code violations without entering the building?

    You've just argued that it's illegal to be in a specific place that it is impossible to know beforehand. That is, for example, illegal to shop in Walmart because Walmart has, in a back area that is offlimits to shoppers, paint stored next to gasoline.

    You are truly an idiot.

    Oh, and the cops also broke down the front door to a private residence, arrested everyone in it, and then attempted to have the building condemned that same day because it didn't have a front door. Probably because no one had repaired it because they were all in jail.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  253. Knife - Legal (in a private residence) by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I have 3 pocket knives, of different sizes, and I almost always carry the smallest one with me.

    Falcon

  254. We learned a lot from 9/11. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Deal with the threat before it can strike.

    Move to North Korea, don't turn my country into it.

    Benjamin Franklin:
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

    Falcon

    1. Re:We learned a lot from 9/11. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Deal with the threat before it can strike.

      Move to North Korea, don't turn my country into it.

      Hyperbole.

      Benjamin Franklin

      You people love to quote those dead, white men when it serves you.

      "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

      You haven't lost even a drop of your liberty.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    2. Re:We learned a lot from 9/11. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      You haven't lost even a drop of your liberty.

      Tell that to those on one of the Do Not Fly lists. Recently CNN did a report on three people who have trouble taking a flight. One is a commercial pilot for an airline, another is a 5 year old boy, the third is a lawyer. But they all share the same name, James Robinson, which is on one of those lists. And the pilot is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general.

      That most definitely is a loss of liberty.

      Falcon

    3. Re:We learned a lot from 9/11. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Tell that to those on one of the Do Not Fly lists.

      Will do. Give me names, numbers and addresses. I'll tell 'em, "Sorry for the fuck up, but we're fighting a war. Deal with it."

      Recently CNN did a report on three people who have trouble taking a flight.

      CNN, eh? Yeah. Okay. CNN is to the Right as FNC is to the Left.

      Did it have weepy music, a sad mother and a screwed up looking kid?

      One is a commercial pilot for an airline, another is a 5 year old boy,

      There we go. Need the kid for the pity factor.

      the third is a lawyer.

      Well, if he's worth a damn, he'll get right on fixing this.

      But they all share the same name, James Robinson, which is on one of those lists. And the pilot is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general.

      Sometimes all we have is a name to go on. We'll have to find a way to purge the "good" James Robinson's of the world from the list.

      See, instead of wanting to destroy America, I'd like to fix it.

      That most definitely is a loss of liberty.

      No, it ain't. It's a guv'ment fuck up. Happens all the time.

      If it took you two days to come up with this, then I'd say America is in great shape.

      Now, go listen to Rage Against The Machine and piss in a bucket. :)

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  255. Re:Rock bottom by Grim+Beefer · · Score: 1

    What's your point? We also used to have legalized slavery in the United States. Does that mean we should "laugh" if someone tries to claim that racism is still an institutional problem?

  256. Re:Rock bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By your logic, I suppose you support lynching because it has been done before
    Just because someone else has broken the law does not excuse you when _you_ break the law.

  257. If you've never been tear gassed by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can tell you it engenders a strong desire to smash shit belonging to the gassers.

    That didn't happen to me or others I knew. While in the US Army my unit would have drills where we'd go into this room gas would be released into. Some of us would try to beat each other in how long we could stay in the room before we had to leave.

    Falcon

  258. Yeah.. speaking as a Minnesotan: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Pawlenty has been almost as bad a governor of our state as Bush has been a president.

    Though I live in the Twin Cities I have to admit I don't know how well, good or bad, Pawlenty is doing as governor. I love it that Jessy Ventura is running for the Senate though. "Shake things up." I've said on /. before that he were to run for president I'd vote for him.

    Honestly I'm an independent but I find myself voting against the republican party consistently because they continue to crusade to take away my rights as a human being and a citizen of this country.

    I'm independent too, er in MN No Party Affiliation, however I lean towards liberalism but in today's climate libertarianism is a better description as "liberal" has been maligned. As I see it both Democrats and Republicans want to take away our rights. Democrats what to restrict people economically, tax people to death, and Republicans want to tell people what they can and can not do to their own bodies.

    Falcon

  259. Re:It's not that simple... by gregorio · · Score: 1

    And, about the the fire violation arrest: if you don't want to get arrested for fire violations, don't violate the building codes. It's pretty easy. If the cops invade a room (with a warrant) to search for counterfeit money but only get a room filled with countefeit checks, do you expect the cops to say "Ohh damn, we came here just for the money, not checks! Let's go home!"? A crime is a crime.

    First: according to several of the sources, the police did not produce warrants at some of the sites raided, and at other sites ignored several requests to produce a warrant, but did do so eventually.

    Cops are human too. And people can be disorganized, arrogant and abusive. Those behaviours are even more pronouced when people think they're doing the right thing and fighting thugs who are trying to destroy society.

    That only means that the cops were not acting right on a lot of stuff. Still doesn't mean that they were working "for the man". To me, it looks just like normal (unfortunately) cop behaviour.

    Second: when you have a search warrant, and you use it to search a private apartment, you can't just arrest a person for everything wrong in the place.

    A cop can arrest or move anyone at any time for commiting crimes or violations that justify arrest or forced evacuation. There is no "magic table" crossing warrant context and crimes that can motivate arrests.

    Large groups of people gathering at small and unsafe places can and will justify arrest against the responsible, and if none is found, everyone. After all, if the cop walks away and the whole place burns down a few hours later, I can assure you that not a single judge in the entire US of A would let the cop go free because "he respected those cool protester dudes and avoided arresting them for small reasons". And places with lots of nutjobs smoking and driking DO burn into flames FREQUENTLY.

    The fact that the cops couldn't even pull out charges of "resisting arrest" or "interfering with an officer in the course of his duty" shows how much the protesters went out of their way to avoid doing anything wrong. When fire-code violations are all that get applied, it's very clear to see that the cops over-reacted.

    You can be sure they acted like idiots. The cops are just... people. As I said: if you don't want to get arrested for fire violations, don't violate building codes.

  260. You are full of shit. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How about you quote that law in full or provide us with a link.

    I think you will find that it doesn't back up your case at all.

    What a disgusting case of a deceptive under quoting to try to back up your point.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  261. Re:It's not that simple... by gregorio · · Score: 1

    Hey, moron. They didn't violate the building codes. They rented a building that the cops claim is in violation of the fire code, which mysteriously means they can arrest everyone in the building.

    If no person responsible is found or produced, they can arrest everyone. The law includes that possibility to avoid several ways of people not being responsible for their actions. Otherwise, thugs like those could just rent the building using cash and a fake name and just go home with impunity after being questioned by the cops.

    You can't be an accomplice to a wrongdoing and expect not to pay for your acts.

    I can't even imagine how that works. Maybe I can see some misapplication of the law that lets them arrest the people who rented the building, but being physically located in it? How are you supposed to check for fire code violations without entering the building?

    You ARE supposed to check for gross fire violations before using ANY building for any kind of official activity. It's not just a matter of "passing by" but a matter of commiting yourself to actually USE for any kind of activity.

    You've just argued that it's illegal to be in a specific place that it is impossible to know beforehand. That is, for example, illegal to shop in Walmart because Walmart has, in a back area that is offlimits to shoppers, paint stored next to gasoline.

    These people weren't just shoppers. They were USING the building for THEIR purposes. So violations are also their responsibility.

    Oh, and the cops also broke down the front door to a private residence, arrested everyone in it, and then attempted to have the building condemned that same day because it didn't have a front door. Probably because no one had repaired it because they were all in jail.

    If the law says that a building without a door must be condemned, it doesn't matter where the owners are and who put them there.

  262. Re:Rock bottom by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    But he never said it was justified. Someone posting a followup mistakenly mischaracterized his response as justification (and somehow got modded 5 insightful for it). OP never said the crackdown was justified.

    He didn't say it wasn't justified either. As for me mischaracterizing him, I didn't.

    Falcon

  263. Re:It's not that simple... by gregorio · · Score: 1

    Finding nothing is still a victory?

    Sure it is. As I said, those people are now recorded on their database and if they get in trouble, they might face jail time.

  264. Obvious bias. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DNC put protesters in CAGES, like animals, but the media doesnt make much of that!

  265. Re:Rock bottom by footNipple · · Score: 1

    No, that isn't a war. That's a CRIME.

    It was indeed an act of war because Islam is not a religion, but rather a body politic with a religious component.

  266. Another report that the feds were involved. by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Informative

    Democracy Now! reports that federal agencies were involved:

    Armed groups of police in the Twin Cities have raided more than a half-a-dozen locations since Friday night in a series of preemptive raids before the Republican convention. The coordinated searches were led by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher but conducted in coordination with federal agencies.

    This should hardly be surprising as federal Senator McCain, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney were all planned to appear for the RNC. It would be unusual if county and citywide police were doing this on their own without any input from any federal agency. As time passes I'm sure we'll learn more about the specific people involved at all levels.

    Also, Amy Goodman, host of DN!, and two DN! producers, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, were illegally arrested and detained. Goodman was arrested while trying to free Kouddous and Salazar. From the article:

    ST. PAUL, MN--Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time. Police violently manhandled Goodman, yanking her arm, as they arrested her. Video of her arrest can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

    Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfuly detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman's crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

    Ramsey County Sherrif Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.

    Today's DN! (video, audio) has more on these preemptive arrests and detainments including footage of the police action in progress.

  267. Re:Rock bottom by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

    More people die from drowning every year than were killed on 9/11; to claim that we face a terrorist danger necessitating that we abandon our civil liberties is ridiculous

    Don't you understand what the war on terror really is about? It's not about the terror, it is a practise war to prepare for the war on water! No more shall innocent children drown in the ocean! No more shall elderly people without umbrellas get wet in the rain! No more shall evil floatational device manufacturers employ child labour in third world countries! No more shall the weak and infirm get splashed with water from taps when they misjudge how tight the faucet is and turn it on too hard causing a high volume spray to mercilessly erupt into the sink and spreading water across several tenths of their kitchens! United we stand, divided we drown!

    --
    I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  268. For those of you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who want to take videos and pictures of activities where cameras are likely to get taken away "for investigation" (i.e. to avoid the contents getting out) here's a suggestion - get or make some devices that are always streaming all contents live to a server/backup for immediate distribution to as many sites as possible. With new generations of wireless technology, the way to handle this is to make sure that any picture is WIDELY distributed in the instant of its taking - that way the important content (even perhaps the manner in which the filming is stopped and the camera taken away) is ALWAYS available.

    Heck, make "protest cams" that are specifically MADE for this purpose - the "don't worry about taking me away - it's already online" camera.

  269. Re:also - what an asshat by riondluz · · Score: 0

    First, people shouldn't bother protesting unless they're prepared to get arrested; otherwise, they are wasting their time.
    The whole point of protesting is to stop the machine, shut down the city, etc. Not because of the effect it has on traffic
    but to clog up the jails and courts. So, it makes no sense for someone to attend a rally as a protester and complain
    that they got detained. That's supposed to be the point!

    That said, you're a jerk. The core basis of the USA is protest! All the best things this country represents has
    come about as a result of protest; against slavery, sufferage, labor, the list goes on and on; even to the point
    of Kentucky coalminers and their wives blocking roads with their pickup truck and shotguns.

    And since when was our country (our government ) civilized?
    FWIW, it was the arrest and detention of 6,000 ppl in D.C. in 1971 that stopped U.S. involvement in Vietnam and prevented
    Nixon/Kissinger from going with the nuclear option.

    Get your head screwed on right with an attitude adjustment!

    --
    resist propaganda
  270. Re:also - about anachists by riondluz · · Score: 0

    OK - i take back calling you an asshat. Your earlier point about ppl being agast that the police acted the way they did is somewhat
    on point. Whether the react or over-react is a matter of opinion. Protesting is all about making a statement and that
    does infringe on others.

    That said, your view of anarchists is somewhat skewed. They/we are not all advocates of violence and/or against free speech.
    One can disrupt non-violently, like a crowd that sits in the road and blocks traffic. Also, anarchists should not be the
    label casually applied to anyone who protests. Anarchy (US style) has its roots (deep roots) in libertarianism and ones' basic
    right to survive. Barry Goldwaters' speech writer is a famous anarchist.

    Anarchists are not what the media portrays them to be and not all protesters are anarchists; though I applaud what they are
    doing.
     

    --
    resist propaganda
  271. Local MN newspaper has more info... by kungfugleek · · Score: 2, Informative
    Sorry if this is duplicating anything on this thread -- don't have time to go through it all right now. Just thought you might find these articles interesting...

    Some turn violent in GOP convention protests

    Antiwar protesters cross line and get arrested

  272. Pawlenty is Solid! by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

    Perfect? no but he is a solid Governor and the fact he won in Minnesota a state which *always* goes Democrat in presidential election just goes to show he is not to partisan that many here are trying to pain him as.

    "Pawlenty made a pledge to *never raise taxes and has worked hard to reduce taxes. Sounds pretty straight forward, right? Well.. to balance the budget while not raising taxes and ALSO cutting taxes and spending state coffers on a small feel-good refund he eliminated several public services from the state responsibility (you know.. the things I pay taxes for like roads, education, snow plowing, public safety)
    The result?"

    Ummm no, while he might have cut spending in some areas he did not 'eliminate from the blah blah blah:

    Education: Is 12,000 a head from Minneapolis schools *really* not enough money?, Really?; please give me 24K to home school my two kids I guarantee I could do a better job than the Minneapolis school district. He also started letting local school boards have more control *gasp* more local accountability of school districts to local kids and parents we cant have that now.

    Snow Plowing: Other than state roads *why* should this not be a local function?

    public safety: He has not cut funding for state troopers or other agencies wht he has done is stopped subsidizing property owners by paying off towns so they can keep property taxes low via hitting up everyone with income tax.

    Roads: Right the tight funds have nothing to do with the fact that construction is much more expensive than it should be (asphalt is partly made of oil after all). As to the I35W that bridge was built wrong in the 60's multiple governors from both parties dropped the ball on this one over the decades.

    "Statewide inspection of all bridges yields a vast majority are in need of serious work and a large number are just as in danger of critical failure as that one was."

    This is true in *every state in the union* and these bridges did not just go bad in the past 6 years, 35W had been sporting gusset plates of the wrong thickness for 40+ years.

    "Education, Snow removal, Public Safety: These activities still had to occur so they fell to the local municipalities."

    As they should do you really think a bureaucrat in STP knows better which roads need to be done in Blue Earth County than say the county board does? so what if its paid for at the local level rather than the state?

    "SO my state taxes went down $30 / year. MY PROPERTY TAXES went up by over $1500 / year to compensate! It's called blind loyalty to ideals without recognizing the practicality of the real world."

    Dude if your property taxes went up 1500, when my taxes on a 150K home in Dakota county are only 11 in total I smell 3 possibilities

    1) Your county is run for crap
    2) Your home is worth millions of dollars so stop complaining about 1500 you selfish twit
    3) Your shoveling BS

    --
    "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
  273. Re:It's not that simple... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    I love how 'fire violations' turned into 'gross fire violations' in your mind. They were not, in fact, 'gross' violations.

    First of all, no, you aren't supposed to check buildings for fire code violations. That is, in fact, the job of the inspectors. Who had checked the building on the regular schedule and determined it was just fine.

    The law includes that possibility to avoid several ways of people not being responsible for their actions. Otherwise, thugs like those could just rent the building using cash and a fake name and just go home with impunity after being questioned by the cops.

    You are a complete moron, you realize that, right? Yes, people could rent buildings with fake names, but the problem is that people who rent buildings that have been inspected by fire marshals and determined to be within code should not be responsible at all if the building is not, in fact, within code.

    It's not a matter of possibly 'escaping punishment', it's a matter of fact they shouldn't be punished. The owner of the building should be.

    Actually, he shouldn't be. People who rent property have a requirement to make sure their building is within code. The government said it was within code. If it changes its mind, it actually is required to either wait until the next inspection or inform him.

    The only time they can barge in like this and remove people (let's not even talk about the arrest, just simply removing people), is when a building has become dangerous due to being overcapacity. Which this one was not.

    These people weren't just shoppers. They were USING the building for THEIR purposes. So violations are also their responsibility.

    Hey, dumbass. People shopping are also using the building for their own purpose.

    I like how you're talking about 'official activity', like this is some corporation and the people arrested were all officers. This was not a corporation, this was an organization with some volunteers. Members of an organization, as opposed to officers, are no more responsible for criminal behavior they don't know about on the part of the organization than cashiers are responsible for a company buying old meat and relabeling it.

    However, you're rather explicitly wrong anyway. Several of the people who were arrested were simply visiting. Some of them were, in fact, outside.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  274. Are you convinced yet? by toby · · Score: 1

    The #1 threat to the government is YOU.

    A 9/11-style attack that can be blamed on "foreigners" does not threaten them at all; in fact it strengthens their position as they can spin it into public fear. "We're tough, we'll protect you from the terrorists." A full-scale foreign invasion would not threaten them either.

    What the government is terrified of is an angry public finally figuring out what's going on. That's the only thing that can bring them down.

    They need to crush dissent, silence protest, and neutralise those sectors of society who criticise and may undermine them. (Honest journalists are high on the list. Independent thinkers. Students. "Anarchists." Liberals.)

    This is exactly how they do it: by intimidation. The excessive force is a measure of how scared those in power are. In history the tyrannical personality is insecure and paranoid: Stalin is a classic example. This was what brought Nixon down: An obsession with his detractors and paranoia that led him to compulsively and indiscriminately spy on critics, journalists, political opponents. Kissinger was no better.

    And they have real reason to be afraid - as they have broken many laws and violated the Constitution, ethics, morality, and public trust in innumerable ways. The "accountability moment" has not passed: it has yet to arrive, but your tyrants will do anything to avoid it.

    Watch Naomi Wolf explain how the US is precisely following the historical totalitarian blueprint - what is happening in St Paul is part of it.

    --
    you had me at #!
  275. Everybody's broke, except the perpetrators. by ReedYoung · · Score: 1
    Bill Moyers' recent interview of Andrew Bacevich, former Army Colonel and current professor of history and international relations at Boston University, provides very compelling answers to those questions. The primary subject is the connection between our present fiscal and military crises, which Bacevich shows are caused by consumer demand for cheap disposable plastic crap, which he primarily discusses in more scholarly terms like unlimited credit and negative rate of saving. The tipping point of our fall from a nation of producers to one of consumer, military imperialists, was the level to which Lyndon Johnson decided to escalate our role in Vietnam, about 1965. The continuation of this fiscal and military crisis depends on the myth that Reagan was a champion of small government despite the fact that he expanded it, both in budget and scope.

    ANDREW BACEVICH: (about Reagan) It's Morning in America. And you don't have to sacrifice, you can have more, all we need to do is get government out of the way, and drill more holes for oil, because the President led us to believe the supply of oil was infinite.

    BILL MOYERS: You describe Ronald Reagan as the "modern prophet of profligacy. The politician who gave moral sanction to the empire of consumption."

    ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, to understand the truth about President Reagan, is to understand why so much of what we imagined to be our politics is misleading and false. He was the guy who came in and said we need to shrink the size of government. Government didn't shrink during the Reagan era, it grew.

    He came in and he said we need to reduce the level of federal spending. He didn't reduce it, it went through the roof, and the budget deficits for his time were the greatest they had been since World War Two.

    BILL MOYERS: And do you remember that it was his successor, his Vice President, the first President Bush who said in 1992, the American way of life is not negotiable.

    ANDREW BACEVICH: And all presidents, again, this is not a Republican thing, or a Democratic thing, all presidents, all administrations are committed to that proposition. Now, I would say, that probably, 90 percent of the American people today would concur. The American way of life is not up for negotiation.

    What I would invite them to consider is that, if you want to preserve that which you value most in the American way of life, and of course you need to ask yourself, what is it you value most. That if you want to preserve that which you value most in the American way of life, then we need to change the American way of life. We need to modify that which may be peripheral, in order to preserve that which is at the center of what we value.

    The connection of reckless consumerism supported by military imperialism, to the erosion of civil liberties is by now obvious, so I'll spell them out for the Republican readers. Reagan, and the GOP generally during and since his presidency, have simultaneously transferred wealth and legal privilege from the lower and middle classes to the upper class, and appealed to American consumers of "Law & Order" products like the interventionist foreign policy advanced by such crimes as the Iran-Contra treasons of Reagan and Oliver North, and the creep toward our present surveillance society in which victims have no functioning legal process for demanding documentation of federal government violations of our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, because nobody knows which 3-letter agency to petition nor where to address our complaints. Public protest is the last legal recourse of those who have exhausted, or never had, any judicial remedy available for their grievances.

    War and spying of course always go hand in hand, and convincing voters to fund either requires appeals to fear. Whether those fears are real or fabricated, accurate or exaggerated

    --
    "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
  276. Anarchists coordinating over Twitter by chayen · · Score: 1
  277. The Constitution... by EvilIntelligence · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Constitution was put in place, first and foremost, to protect the people from a tyrannical government. And now that is what we have. I'm starting to feel that if we don't force a change in direction, then the US will be the next Nazi Germany. After WWII, we asked "how could we have let that happen?" Now we know... It's back again folks. It's time we stand up and make a change.

  278. Re:It's not that simple... by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

    Spoken like a good Stalinist era informer! "You didn't do anything but in case you do we've got our eye on you and your urine..."

  279. Re:Rock bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Women still don't get equal pay for equal work

    Bullshit.

    The way that this fallacy has continued to thrive is that people keep looking at an average of all workers in all jobs... which ignores the reality of the situation.

    The fact is that when you compare men and women with similar job titles within actual buisnesses as well as qualifications you find that gender disparity in wages vanishes.

  280. Re:It's not that simple... by gregorio · · Score: 1

    You are a complete moron, you realize that, right? Yes, people could rent buildings with fake names, but the problem is that people who rent buildings that have been inspected by fire marshals and determined to be within code should not be responsible at all if the building is not, in fact, within code.

    Should or shouldn't doesn't really matter. The law is very clear: every time you get involved (rent/buy/build) with a building, you MUST check if all permits and inspections are up-to-date. Stop whining.

    The only time they can barge in like this and remove people (let's not even talk about the arrest, just simply removing people), is when a building has become dangerous due to being overcapacity. Which this one was not.

    The building was so old, damaged and CROWDED that PEOPLE WERE PISSING INSIDE BUCKETS. You can't be THAT dishonest to pretent that it was a nice and cool building with only a few people inside it. It is PRETTY OBVIOUS that things aren't ok in a place where people have to PISS INSIDE BUCKETS.

    I like how you're talking about 'official activity', like this is some corporation and the people arrested were all officers. This was not a corporation, this was an organization with some volunteers.

    Oh!! Praise the small man!! Allow him to do anything he wants!! He is so cute and weak! Let's allow him to do anything at all!

    It doesn't matter if it's just an organization with volunteers. If you are officially involved at some activities, you're also responsible for them. And joining a protest reunion on a death-trap building IS a case of "getting officially involved". You don't need to be the group manager to be responsible.

  281. You mean the anarchists should go to prison right? by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this. This is utterly unacceptable.

    Looks like your sweet, innocent protesters were planning some serious criminal shit:

    Kidnapping, sabotage was part of anarchists' plan to disrupt convention.

    So I'm sure you'll want them to go to prison.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  282. What you don't seem to get by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

    What you don't seem to get is that if Obama actually tries to disconnect the military-industrial-congressional complex like JFK tried to do, they will simply have some "lone nut" blow his brains out and swear in Joseph "LBJ II" Biden. It's not about campaign contributions. It's about having a frigging gun to your head and an electrode up your ass. I've seen this all before, and the bastards who did it or their spawn are still walking around loose. Nothing has changed.

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
  283. That's what they want you to think! by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

    What you don't seem to get is that if Obama actually tries to disconnect the military-industrial-congressional complex like JFK tried to do, they will simply have some "lone nut" blow his brains out

    Come on, don't tell me you believe in that "lone nut" theory. Ever wonder why you never saw Winston Churchill, Elvis Presley, Earl Warren, and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same room together? HMMMMM.....

    Follow the trail, man. It's all there. It all ties back to the Harvard Law Review, a publication of which Obama just happened to be the president, just long enough to get noticed. He saw what was coming and, with the wisdom of a grandmaster, preempted it before anyone else had a clue. They can't touch one of their own.

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  284. What so difucult to understand? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    You for one.

    Your completely ignoring the law enforcements accounting of the situation and pressing the one sided "oh we are innocent" side and your links actually show that.

    Unless you meant "you are completely" I don't know what you mean. My completely? Makes no sense. As for my links, as I said before in case you did not understand what I said, I got those links from others. Those links are not mine.

    If the cops didn't have solid evidence, the judges wouldn't have issued a warrant.

    If they had warrants then why didn't the police show them when they were asked for the warrants? Most were only shown after hours of waiting. Why did they not show the warrants as soon as they were asked for them?

    Don't make the mistake that I'm saying the cops are right, I'm saying that informant told them what was going on and they acted on it. That is a good investigation and police work, not some threatening situation or something like your attempting to portray it.

    And as one of the links I provided said, those informants only got paid of there was an arrest. Of course you overlook that because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs.

    And I looked at a non-biased site and found this.

    Perhaps you didn't pay attention but I previously posted 2 links to the same newspaper as you just did. Actually one of them was to the same article.

    Yea, and those informants were getting paid only if there was an arrest.

    Who cares. If they didn't product enough evidence and someone got killed because of their actions, you would be bitching that they knew and didn't do anything about it

    Bullshit. First, so you only care if someone's arrested? Ok, I'll lie to the police so they'll arrest you so I can get paid. If the police wanted the truth they would have paid whether there was an arrest or not, by only paying if there is an arrest you're inviting corruption. Maybe you do mind it but I do, As for what I'd bitch about, so you can read my mind? You're lousy at it. Not only do I bitch about corruption, but in fact I have said a number of tymes I'd rather 1 guilty person go free than to falsely punish one innocent.

    the people arrested in the raids and the stuff confiscated along with the information presented by the informants does not point to some innocent intentions or unfounded actions/accusations

    How do you know? Ooh, that's right you can read minds.

    There were plenty of people in those houses as well as other places in the area who showed no indication of illegal acts and were not arrested nor denied their lawful right to a lawful protest.

    Including those who were there to eyewitness and record the raids, and they got detained as well.

    That alone debunks your claims of systematic police abuse.

    The detaining of those eyewitnesses debunks your claim nothing wrong happened. Even your " non-biased site" said this: "On Saturday afternoon, law agents surrounded 951 Iglehart Av. in St. Paul where members of I-Witness Video, a New York-based group that monitors police conduct during protests, were staying. They were detained and handcuffed but eventually freed without charges. "

    Wake the fuck up.

    Move to North Korea!

    Falcon