First, Let me say that I have no problems with protest and marches and the like. I had no problem with the march on the capitol and the "die in" or the counter demonstration at the same time. What I do have a problem is what some did after they were allowed to do the "die in"
"The arrests came after protesters lay down on the Capitol lawn in what they called a "die in" -- with signs on top of their bodies to represent soldiers killed in Iraq. When police took no action, some of the protesters started climbing over a barricade at the foot of the Capitol steps.
Many were arrested without a struggle after they jumped over the waist-high barrier. But some grew angry as police with shields and riot gear attempted to push them back. At least two people were showered with chemical spray. Protesters responded by throwing signs and chanting: "Shame on you." "
From the Chicago Tribune
Why is there a need to try to get the police involved. It is so they can claim that the police harrased them. These individuals should be ashamed and should be exposed for the frauds they are. Instead of shouting "shame on you" to the police, we should line up these people and shout "shame on you" at them for their disrespect for common sense and the rule of law.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 36
NOTE: That not one of the Counter-Protesters were arrested.
I've read a few different news articles about the protest and so far, I haven't read any protesters saying the police harassed them. If some of the police responded inappropriately, then they may well have something to be ashamed of.
I don't know what the "rules of engagement" are for protests in DC, but I hope using pepper spray on somebody because they jumped over a barricade isn't standard operating procedure.
In addressing the others let me say this how is it the counter demonstration was able to get its point across without causing problems? It is one thing to protest they would have been noticed that is the point of doing the "die in" That is fine. They got a permit and everything. I just dont understand why it was necessary to jump the barricades and cause an incident. That is not protesting that is just illegal. They quit being peace advoctes at that time and the rest of the anti-war contingent should rebuke them for this action
Did the 200 people who were arrested get violent in order to get the cameras on them? I didn't read anything like that in the article MDP linked to, or in any of the other articles I read. I read that they stepped or jumped over a waist-high barricade. That doesn't necessarily sound violent. I don't even know if it's illegal.
I read that some of them were throwing signs at the cops. And some of the cops were spraying protesters with pepper spray. Who was responsible for causing the most trouble?
I agree with what Iraq vet Adam Kokesh said before he was arrested -- "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
Sometimes resistance doesn't mean asking permission to protest or staying in the official protest zone. Again, that's why they call it civil disobedience.
"When police took no action, some of the protesters started climbing over a barricade at the foot of the Capitol steps."
This is not Civil disobedience this is unnecsary disturbance of the peace. They got to do their protest there was not reason to scale the barricades and try to go up the capitol steps.
One person's civil disobedience is another person's "unnecessary disturbance of the peace."
In any case, they were arrested for their acts of civil disobedience. Whether they're all actually charged with committing a crime is a different story. And whether or not they'll be found guilty of those crimes is yet another story.
So maybe the question you ought to be asking is, why did the cop (or cops) have to use pepper spray? Maybe it was justified, maybe it wasn't. I'm betting we'll never find out.
Everything was fine until some of the demonstrators decided to push the envelope and turn what was peaceful into civil disobedience.
When protesters start to act inappropriately, these things have a way of turning into a much larger, dangerous situation. Mob mentality takes over and things get way out of hand. Look at Kent State (if you're old enough to remember it as I am). It started out fine until some students decided to throw rocks at the national guard, causing a deadly situation. Protesters need to realize that they will get as good as they give. If you are peaceful and law abiding, you will be treated appropriately. If you break the law, action will be taken also.
"But some grew angry as police with shields and riot gear attempted to push them back. At least two people were showered with chemical spray."
It is not Civil Disobedience. That gives it a bad name. Civil Disobedience is when you peacefully do something that you are prevented from doing for no good reason. Like some did during the Civil Rights movement. These clowns are just using the same hate they use when the spit on people that dont agree with them.
What people don't seem to understand is that we have already brought home a brigade - in coffins.
Wrong question. A peace "demonstrator" demonstrates peace, regardless of what the police do. If there are going to be peace demonstrations, organizers MUST take responsibility for PROTECTING the police. Otherwise, the demonstration becomes about the demonstrators, and not about peace.
That said, these are useless activities, IMO. Better to carry protests into the markets, buying those things that contribute to peace (e.g., organic food, hybrid cars) and avoiding those things that contribute to war (oil - the less the better).
I don't think standing on a barrier giving a speech (or stepping over it) is hateful, and I don't see how it compares to spitting on people. I didn't read anything in the article you linked to (or any others) about people being arrested for spitting, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
A couple hundred people (a tiny minority of those who were there) crossed the barricades, they were arrested, and according to your source, "many were arrested without struggle." So what's the problem, Publius?
"If there are going to be peace demonstrations, organizers MUST take responsibility for PROTECTING the police."
Less than 200 arrests out of over 100,000 protesters. It sounds to me like the organizers did a pretty good job. I don't know who the organizers were, or which groups were there, or whether the people there were peace demonstrators or anti-war demonstrators, or what. It sounds like you know more about who was there and what they were trying to do, so maybe you can tell us.
"They were allowed to voice their displeasure just like the counter demonstration."
And clearly a very small number of the protesters weren't content with doing only what they were allowed to do.
"Look at Kent State (if you're old enough to remember it as I am). It started out fine until some students decided to throw rocks at the national guard, causing a deadly situation. Protesters need to realize that they will get as good as they give."
If that had happened, the national guard would've thrown the rocks back at the students.
Let me get this straight. This was a PEACE demonstration, wasn't it? The American Revolution is hardly a legitimate analogy - unless, of course, you admit that PEACE really was not the goal.
Wil: "Less than 200 arrests out of over 100,000 protesters. It sounds to me like the organizers did a pretty good job."
Your standards are too low. If you don't think PEACE is a demanding DISCIPLINE, then study Gandhi's life. 200 is 200 too many - the organizers, in failing to take responsibility, fail in their effort. See - the 200 draw attention and who cares about the 100,000.
Wil: "I don't know who the organizers were, or which groups were there, or whether the people there were peace demonstrators or anti-war demonstrators, or what.
Effective then, aren't they? I'll bet you know who Gandhi is. Or Martin Luther King, Jr., or Nelson Mandela.
Wil: "It sounds like you know more about who was there and what they were trying to do, so maybe you can tell us."
No, I don't know who they were either. From this discussion, though, I understand that PEACE is not their priority. But maybe you're right - maybe it wasn't about PEACE - maybe it was just about being anti-war.
http://bestoftoday.gather.com/
Well if you don't know if everybody there was there to promote PEACE, why do you keep claiming it was a PEACE demonstration?
"I'll bet you know who Gandhi is. Or Martin Luther King, Jr., or Nelson Mandela."
Yep, I know who those guys were. But I don't know if they ever organized a demonstration of 100,000 people and were able to ensure that every single one of those people remained 100% peaceful no matter what happened.
You're right. Perhaps it wasn't a PEACE demonstration - obviously, it wasn't a PEACE demonstration. But what good is an "anti-war" demonstration, when your behavior is, well..., bellicose?
Wil: "I don't know if they ever organized a demonstration of 100,000 people and were able to ensure that every single one of those people remained 100% peaceful no matter what happened."
They mobilized nations! When violence erupted - and it did - they were very vocal in condemning the violence of their followers. That's what Gandhi's fasts were about. Now, that man knew PEACE and DISCIPLINE in his cells. Violence is a breakdown of discipline in any setting. If demonstrators don't understand that, they will never achieve their goals.
I don't think standing on or over a waist-high concrete barrier and then being arrested without struggle is bellicose behavior. It's possible that showing up in body armor and carrying a shield, armed with a pistol, pepper spray, and a baton and manning a barricade might be considered bellicose behavior, so maybe we ought to stop referring to cops as peace officers.
But for the most part, I think the whole thing went pretty well. From what I've read and heard, it sounds like the vast majority of both the police and the protesters behaved themselves.
"When violence erupted - and it did - they were very vocal in condemning the violence of their followers....If demonstrators don't understand that, they will never achieve their goals."
I haven't read or heard anything stating that the protest organizers have either praised or condemned the "violence" of their followers. Have you?
I don't know if the people who were involved in the "violence" (are we talking about the people crossing the barricades and allowing themselves to be arrested without a struggle, the people who yelled and threw signs after the incident with the pepper spray, or both?) were followers of the protest organizers, or even knew who the organizers were.
And finally, I don't know if the goals of the organizers had anything to do with the extreme form of totally non-violent civil disobedience advocated by people like Gandhi and King.
Pushing the limits is inviting confrontation. I don't know, perhaps this was part of the organizers' plan. Gandhi certainly pushed limits, but he never sought confrontations with police. The primary effectiveness of a PEACE demonstration is a clear understanding that there are no enemies.
Wil: 'It's possible that showing up in body armor and carrying a shield, armed with a pistol, pepper spray, and a baton and manning a barricade might be considered bellicose behavior, so maybe we ought to stop referring to cops as peace officers."
Cops aren't protesting. To focus on their behavior misses the point entirely.
Wil: "I haven't read or heard anything stating that the protest organizers have either praised or condemned the "violence" of their followers. Have you?"
No, I haven't. But I have heard that Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela did - and those were a very long time ago. I can't tell you anything about these organizers, but the effect of their demonstrations are - well..., not very effective. Look at the current discussion.
Wil: "I don't know...."
Neither do I. That's kind of the point.
"And finally, I don't know...."
I know, I know.... Neither do I.
I hear what you're saying, Steve. As we've both said, neither one of us knows who organized the thing, what their intentions were, or whether they had any sort of control or affiliation with the people who were arrested. So to some extent, with regards to this particular demonstration, neither of us knows what he's talking about. Good thing we haven't let that stop us, huh? LOL
But if you read your above statement, I'm sure you'll see that you've said that Gandhi did invite confrontation because he did push limits. I don't want to compare whoever organized the protest in Washington DC with Gandhi or King or anybody like that.
I don't have a problem with protests. Been to plenty of them myself. But most of them aren't particularly effective for bringing about change. That doesn't mean they aren't good for anything. Even with the big social movements led by people like Martin Luther King or Gandhi, most of the individual protests or demonstrations have been forgotten, and may not have been that significant at the time. But they added up to something that went far beyond "protest".
I certainly did say that. There is an important difference though. Most of my experience with protests (I attended several myself during the Vietnam era) is that great men like Gandhi took the brunt of the confrontation onto himself. He was always respectful of the police, even when he was being arrested.
Wil: "...most of them (protests) aren't particularly effective for bringing about change."
I couldn't agree more! That, I think, is a function of poor leadership on the part of the organizers. That's been one of my points all along. The fact that you and I don't know much about this particular protest is another function of the poor leadership. If they had made their point effectively, we would know alot more about it, instead of having the conversation we're having.
Wil: "Even with the big social movements led by people like Martin Luther King or Gandhi, most of the individual protests or demonstrations have been forgotten...."
I haven't forgotten them. The reason they were effective: 1. They were not particularly numerous; 2. They had a specific point and represented a specific call to action. Gandhi's "salt march" was the origin of breaking the British salt monopoly in India. Millions of Indians started making their own salt after that, and the British didn't know how to respond. MLK's mass transit and garbage collection strikes followed this model. This is the model of non-violent non-cooperation, which I have yet to see re: war protests. There is a world of difference. If these organizers had a point and a call to action - and a disciplined, organized "movement", you and I would know about it, be inspired by it, and the like.
Wil: "But they added up to something that went far beyond 'protest'."
My point exactly. The "something" was continuity, community, and consistency.