1. There isn't that large of a usurpation of liberty here. 2. I'm sure there are some valid concerns about security. 3. I don't think this is entirely innocuous. Protests always come with the risk of violence. However, in the past, we've always judged that the right to exercise free speech trumps the everyday concerns involving "normal" security. I fail to see, however, how a garden variety protest would present such a huge security threat. There are similar events all the time that involve similar #'s of people (like parades). What is going to happen at an anti-war proteset that's so uniquely dangerous? A little erosion of liberty... not too much in itself... easily rationalized... yet part of a larger picture that is frightening.
Then we could march all the suit-wearing, SUV-driving, short-haired white guys down the street and have them taken out by snipers. Max: Since, according to polls, well over 60 percent of Americans still don't support war without the UN, the silent majority doesn't apply here. On the protest in general, as usual, glynch overreacts. I do think this was an overreaction by the protestors. The best way to protest in NYC, IMO, would be in Central Park anyway. Banning a march down 1st Avenue doesn't seem unreasonable to me considering the potential problems, though I'll admit that drunken idiots marching in the St. Patrick's Day parade sounds like much more of a threat than a peace protest.
It's important to distinguish between those who are anti-war and those who are anti-this particular war without UN support. You didn't see any anti-war protests against the war on terrorism. Why? Because only the most marginal groups believe in the cause of peace under every circumstance. This is an instance where the country is divided about what to do in this given situation. It's like the difference between World War II and Vietnam. Everyone understood the menace of Hitler. Not as many got the issue with Vietnam. The result was a lot of people who marched for peace. As much of a peacenik as I am, I could support military action under the right circumstances. These just aren't the right one's for me or for a lot of others.
I don't go downtown very frequently, I remember seeing machine guns by the exchange. I haven't noticed any machine guns near hotels, etc. from about 34th St. and up-maybe I'm desentized to it. My point was, it's not as bad as you made it seem. On a side note, do you or anyone else know what the handgun laws are in the city? I think its time to add a 9mm to my 3 day emergency supply kit.
The best way to protest in NYC, IMO, would be in Central Park anyway. Banning a march down 1st Avenue doesn't seem unreasonable to me considering the potential problems, Jeff, you strive very successfuly to be the voice of reason and given your position on the bbs I don't agree with your jibe at me. My third world dictatorship remark was in jest. As an aside do you generally find the ACLU hysterical or overreactive in the freedom of political expression area? Now the real problem that I have is that I'm not sure you or Bloomberg should be deciding what is reasonable free political speech. I do agree it somewhat depends on the details. If traditional protests have gone down 1st Avenue than that is where this one should be allowed to go. Secret claims to evidence based on unsubstantiated rumors cannot be allowed to stifle free speech or importantly to even give the appearance of stifling free speech, especially when the decision maker has such an obvious conflict of interest. I would assume based on past posts that you generally would be opposed to people being convicted or legal issues decided in court due to rumors of secret unsubstantiated evidence just because "security" is cited. Don't you agree that deciding legal issues, in this case a political parade permit, based on rumors can lead to abuse?
NJRocket, nope, I'm not kidding you. Unless the federal judge was actually shown tapes of intercepted phone calls or captured notes or had terrorist witnesses etc. , to just rely on the governmnet claims that it is a security risk to have the march is secret evidence. To decide things on the basis of I have secret info, "believe me I'm the government", is the exact opposite of our legal system. Perhaps, like many all you need is the claim of national security, to give up the right to have legal issues decided by only evidence that is public and subject to cross examination.
Here's an update on the attmept to suppress the NYC march. I feel the quote from Desmond Tutu about the denial of the permit feeling like the days of Apartheid in South Africa and the role of Ashcroft and the feds in trying to suppress the demo especially interesting. ************************** By ALEXANDER COCKBURN We're witnessing the largest outcry in history against an imminent war with the imminent aggressors-- the US and UK--so frightened of the outcry that they have been trying to curb the demonstrations in New York and London. The one in New York is scheduled for February 15, with the gathering point as of this writing at noon , 49th st and 1st Avenue. On Monday a federal court ruled in favor of the NYPD, denying next Saturday's demonstrators the right to march past the United Nations. Desmond Tutu told the march's organizers in United For Peace and Justice that the ban reminded him of the days of apartheid in South Africa. For updates, check the UFPJ website or listen to WBAI radio. The UFPJ website also has information about the various feeder marches that will meet earlier and proceed to the main march. At time of writing, the ban is being heard before the 2cnd Circuit Court of Appeals. It will be a remarkable moment, a worldwide demonstration for peace, perhaps the largest worldwide protest in history or at least in modern times. One other major demonstration in this country is planned for San Francisco but the date is shifted to Sunday Feb 16. There are demos round the world--more than 306 cities--on all continents! There's even a demonstration scheduled in Antarctica, outside the McMurdo Station there. As to New York, the buzz is this is going to be a major amount of people. Nobody is giving out numbers except to say it will build on the success of the Jan 18 demonstration which the Washington Post called the largest anti-war demo since the Vietnam period. The London Daily Mirror several weeks ago forecast that there would be ten million turning out worldwide for all these protests The Gothamites on the streets Saturday will include plenty that watched in horror as the World Trade Center fell. Survivors and survivors' kin are playing a prominent role. The anti-war sentiment continues to build here even as the Big Apple is a prime target for further damage. Whatever the stresses and strains within the movement about ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice is organizing this one. Leslie Cagan and other long-time hands are involved. Several hundred volunteers made a huge literature outreach last weekend. There's lots of labor involvement, youth, greens, war veterans. After 9-11, there were pledges about ensuring better cooperation between federal authorities and the NYPD. That seems to be just what Bush and Bloomberg have had in mind. In the negotiations between the city and UFPJ, after an initial offer of a march permit (not for the route desired by UFPJ) the march offer was taken off the table altogether and now a federal judge has upheld that decision. The pressure on NYPD may not have been so subtle. The Bush/Ashcroft operation sent federal prosecutors to the court hearing and the feds filed an amicus brief.
Glynch...you must be slow...they anti war fanatics are ALLOWED TO PROTEST....just not down 1st Avenue...get a life
Never in my entire life have I ever appreciated the power of spin enough until I saw it in action on this BBS. Glynch posts his typical far out in left field spin to start this thread, and he even has the audacity to provide a link hidden by a blatant out and out LIE (NYC bans rally). Although this subject might be worthy of discussion (after knowing the facts), this thread should have died immediately after people learned just how blatantly Glynch lied. If anyone would have actually bothered to read the story behind the link Glynch provided, you'd know that: 1) NYC did NOT ban the rally as Glynch asserts. The rally has a permit and will go on as scheduled. Where do you learn this? IN THE FIRST ******* SENTENCE IN THE ****ING STORY!!!!!!! 2) NYC has put a ban in affect on marches South of 59th street. This has NOTHING to do with this particular march and was enacted well before this march was even thought of. The organizers of this march knew damn good and well that this ruling was in effect. Why did they try to pursue it anyway? Either they are complete idiots or they recognized an opportunity to get some more publicity. You be the judge. Personally, I'd like to give them a little credit and think that it's for the publicity. Why is it working? After reading this thread, it's obvious: BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY ****ING MORONS IN THIS WORLD!!
guys, youre agendas are showing! relax, Pole is right. there still will be a march, and it it being touted as the largest anti-war rally ever. i tout it as the worst traffic jam ever.
Thanks for the support....but to make sure there's no misunderstanding: There WILL be a rally (rallys are stationary) There will NOT be ANY marches regardless of agenda (marches not stationary)
