You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
US arrests over 135 anti-war protesters
2010-12-18
[Iran Press TV] Some 135 anti-war protesters have been jugged in front of the White House in one of the largest mass detentions in the United States.
Arrested by Barack Obama's White House? I may faint from the shock.
A Missouri-based veterans group
Real veterans or, you know, "veterans"?
organized the protesters, who marched up to the White House gates on Thursday and refused to disperse.

Among those jugged was a famous whistleblower of the Vietnam-era war, Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers as an act of protest in 1971.
Reliving youthful glory, poor man.
Although the arrests were appropriately peaceful,
Quite unlike the arrests of protesters in the homeland of our Iran PressTV journalist, but never mind that.
some protesters went limp, forcing police to carry them to the loaned Metrobuses waiting to take them to a booking facility. A protester attached himself to the gate with a bicycle lock.
One wonders how the Iranian police would have separated the protester, the lock and the gate ...
All were charged with failure to obey lawful order, a misdemeanor, said Park Police front man David Schlosser.

Schlosser said the protesters would be released after either forfeiting USD 100 or accepting an assigned court date.
Posted by:Fred

#5  
Holy Frankenphuck. "Veterans"? You are either a veteran or not a veteran. And just because a Vet was for one war or another, or fought in one war or another doesn't mean its binding upon the vets to like or support ALL or even close to ALL wars. This is a common stereotype heaped on veterans, that if you oppose a particular military action you are less of a veteran or did not serve. It is suspect to even imply this.
Posted by: Fire and Ice   2010-12-18 16:52  

#4  It seems to me that someone could innovate a device that looks somewhat like a stretcher, but when a limp person was laid on it and covered, it would somewhat form fit to them, then become rigid, all but their head would be somewhat frozen in position.

Then they could be stacked like cord wood, or stood upright. Or just slide them into bays in a paddy wagon.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-12-18 12:11  

#3  some protesters went limp

You could make a million jokes from that line alone.
Posted by: badanov   2010-12-18 08:05  

#2  Judges have done no one a service by giving slaps on the wrist to protesters who break the law. And this is a two sided failure.

Both the need for security, and the RIGHT to protest need a clear dividing line between them. This ideally means that legal protesters can do whatever they want, but only so long as they keep it legal. There should be no gray area of "maybe legal", or defining down the law.

By playing this game, it inclines protesters to break the law, but it also inclines government to violate the civil rights of the protesters. And this can get very bad in a hurry.

I watched with great concern when there are international meetings, held in major cities, for what seems to have as their sole rationale, to incite riots, which will then be suppressed. Police are encouraged to break the law, with the idea that by the time the city must pay a settlement to the abused, a year down the road, those who ordered the abuse will be long gone, and the settlement will be made with taxpayer monies.

This is so full of wrong it's hard to know where to begin to describe it.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-12-18 08:04  

#1  And if they were never heard of again, it could be Iran.
Posted by: Bobby   2010-12-18 06:53  

00:00