Peaceful Iraq war protests prompt 71 arrests

[Tellurian]

Peaceful Iraq war protests prompt 71 arrests

September 26, 2006



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two Presbyterian ministers were among 71 people arrested during a series of peaceful protests against the Iraq war Tuesday, said a spokeswoman for a group participating in the protests.

Demonstrators held sit-ins, prayer services and sing-alongs at four locations in the Capitol complex, including the central atrium of the Senate Hart Office Building.

The demonstrations were reminiscent of the Vietnam era, with protesters strumming guitars, singing peace songs, holding flowers and wearing hats made of balloons. (Watch war protesters face the music -- 1:28)

Senate staffers watched the demonstrators from their offices. Protesters said that several workers gave them a thumbs-up or other signs of approval. (Watch how the protests are part of a highly charged day in Washington -- 2:23 external link)

"We are trying to protest a lack of civil liberties and to try and end a war culture," said protester Alex Bryan of New York.

Thirty-three of those arrested were charged with unlawful conduct inside the Hart Building, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the Capitol Police.

Thirty-eight more demonstrators were arrested at separate protests near the Capitol, she said. Of those, 23 were charged with crossing a police line and 15 were charged with demonstrating without a permit.

All of those arrested were cooperative with police, Schneider said.

The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, which has organized dozens of anti-war protests around the country, coordinated Tuesday's effort, which included several religious and secular groups.

Among those arrested during the demonstrations were two Presbyterian ministers, a Catholic activist and a member of a Quaker group, said Jennifer Kuiper, spokeswoman for The Declaration of Peace, one of the groups participating in the protests.

Both groups apparently expected participants to be arrested. On a notice posted at The Declaration of Peace Web site, the protests are described as an "interfaith religious procession around the Capitol, followed by peace presence and nonviolent resistance, including risking arrest at the U.S. Senate."

The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance Web site adds, "Those willing to engage in nonviolent acts of civil resistance against the war and occupation are encouraged to join us. We also enthusiastically call upon those who cannot risk arrest, but who are willing to support those who do."

Despite a rising tide of war opposition, the protesters said they represent no party or political movement.

Baptist minister Jamie Washam of Wisconsin, who led an interfaith service during the protests, said she is adamantly opposed to the war.

"My congregation wants peace," she said. "And I think it's an offense to God."

Tuesday's events in Washington were part of 375 protests and other activities being held around the country this week in opposition to the war, according to The Declaration of Peace.

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2006%2FUS%2F09%2F26%2Fdc.protests%2F

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. TO GITMO WITH THOSE TRAITORS!

A litle waterboarding ought to fix their perspective.

[file83]

2. Did the Airforce get to test out their new microwave weapon on this crowd?

I'm serious: http://www.nwherald.com/MainSection/other/291576086050359.php

[bryant69]

3. Serious in wondering whether they used a microwave

weapon on a peaceful crowed who weren't resisting arrest?

Or serious in that a microwave weapon exists?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bryant69]

6. Should the united states try to develope non-lethal weapons

in your opinion?

As for trying it on Americans first, that's good sense, but I don't get the impression he was talking about protesters - rather I suspect that when the test the weapon they will seek American volunteers - if it works than they will move onto using it internally.

[LSK]

7. "As for trying it on Americans first, that's good sense"

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[bryant69]

8. Look are they non-lethal or not?

We are trying to develop weaapons that will not hurt people - weapons that we don't risk permenantly injuring people with.

We are also fighting a public relations battle.


So A + B - we take these non-lethal weapons to Iraq and test them on Iraqis (or whatever country we invade next), and it looks like we don't believe they are really non-lethel. We don't really believe they can be used safely on civilians. So we are are hypocrites - or it's the Tuskegee experiment with more sand. Using them on American volunteers first makes more sense. And if they actually work safely, we should be willing to use them on our civilians (please recall that criminals are civilians). Why wouldn't we? Isn't the whole point to create such weapons?

That said developing weapons is often seen as a negative, no matter what the purpose of said weapons is.

Bryant

[file83]

9. Yes it is negative - when it' designed to violate free speech!!!

For anyone to even suggest that such an exercise is an "okay" idea, reveals an unhealthy mindset and an uninformed opinion. To not consider any of the below consequences is a manifestation of mal-adaptive behavior and a disgustingly submissive predispotsition to the state and illegitimate authority.

If a cop needs a non-lethal choice for individual cases, that's one thing.

But to "test" a microwave mass crowd weapon on an American crowd, that means it's going to be a protest of some kind (I doubt a sporting event or parade).

During large protests here in America, if there is any violence that breaks out, in the last couple decades it has been almost completely in isolated areas that can be dealt with by a small group of police.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFIABLE reason to be using a weapon (lethal or not) that could be used in that case that would end up breaking up the ENTIRE protest without violating the First Amendment Rights of the people involved in the peaceful protest.

Need you be reminded:

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.

If these mass non-lethal weapons are "legal", then that means the LAW is in violation of our rights.

Say for instance that you want to participate in a protest that has, say 5000 people. You are protesting the outcome of a local election (voter fraud). The protest is a peaceful one. But then 1 or 2 jackasses decide to have a fight with the police. The police decide to target YOU and the rest of your fellow patriots with microwave technology. The crowd disperses, the protest goes away. Your voices and political pressure is not heard. The newspaper decides to write about "how this great new technology" saved the day. The DON'T write about the reason the protest was there in the first place - voter fraud.

The person/group that was the target of the protest (corrupt politician) is protected.

Tell me how you think that is a good idea.

As if that isn't bad enough (and it should be), we haven't even mentioned the health implications of said "non-lethal" weapon - why should US citizens be the guinea pigs in some sort of experiment? That is not only sick, it's ILLEGAL!!!

[bryant69]

10. Well if it was used that way and only that way it would be a tragedy

But there are other possibilities. Say for example a riot - the LA riots were 10 years ago, but obviously they could happen again. And not just in LA. Alternative, a hostage situation or something like the waco situation - everybody gets knocked out, hostages and criminals together - the hostages get taken away and given attention, while the criminals wake up in chains.

Any technology could be used for negative ends, and using it snuff out protests is a bad end. But that doesn't change the possibility that such technology could have beneficial ends as well.

We also don't know how tightly they can focus this - what if it could be used to to knock out the three guys fighting and maybe one or two close by while the rest of the protest went on? Granted, they might, for political reasons, want to shut down the entire protest anyway, but then the act of shutting the protest would be the crime, not the means by which they used.

Bryant

[file83]

15. Don't you get it? That is EXACTLY the way they want to use this

technology. The implications of millions of Americans not being able to protest for fear of this weapon FAR OUTWEIGHS any possible good that saving a few lives could (if that is in fact the case).

The LA riots are the same way - those kinds of events are so far and few between that legalizing the use of said technology for that event puts a foot in the door for using it in other types of sociological events. A few people died in the LA riots - but that's the price of freedom from fear of government.

The slippery slope the government will always use for protests is that they will claim "fear it could descend into a violent protest" or riot - so just like the "preemptive" strategy used to as the excuse to invade Iraq, they will use this microwave technology at protests to preemtively prevent a riot. The reason will always be to "save lives" and to "protect the city". I'm sure even the excuse will arise "there were children at the protest we were trying to protect" - even though, more than likely, those very same children would probably have suffered great physical pain by being at the receiving end of that "non-lethal" technology.

This kind of stuff should scare the shit out of everyone. Because once they legalize this, then, hey, why not just put a few satellites up or fly a few of these unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) above the city at all times armed with this microwave weapon - you know, just in case you are doing something that could "turn into a crime", they can "zap" you back into a socially acceptable behavior?

Not while I'm alive.

[bryant69]

17. That the rub isn't it?

I see a tool that could be used to capture criminals in a more safe manner, safer for the cops, safer for the criminals, safer for innocent bystanders.

You see a tool that could be used for oppression and only oppression. You see something that, regardless of the potential benefit in meeting legitimate police needs, cannot be developed because of the fear that it could be used as a tool of repression.

But of course by that logic any attempt to develop any technolgical advantage in this field is flawed at the outset. Because anything you can use to catch criminals (or terrorists or insurgents) could also be used to catch innocent protesters - could be used as a tool of repression.

Bryant

[file83]

19. Your misunderstandings:

One is (but not the most important mistake) is in you thinking that using this weapon at a protest is a good idea - you have now labeled those at the protest criminals. But are they criminals? No - so how could this technology be allowed against people that aren't criminals? Well...

Your other misunderstanding is that in thinking the "excuses" given for the deployment of this technology (fighting criminals) are the real reason for the technology in the first place. That is the shiny packaging on the product to sale the idea to you. You've slapped your money down on the counter and are all excited to go home with what you were sold. What you really get when you take the product home and open it up is exactly that: oppression.

But then you think, "But they told me this would help fight crime!" That is still a valid use, right? Wrong...

Furthermore, there is no proof that even in the cases where this technology were to be used in the one-on-one or true "criminal" types of scenarios (bank robbery) that it would result in : 1) less death or 2) increase in prosecutions

Guns hurt. They kill. They cause pain. Everycop has one - but does that prevent criminals from committing crimes? No.

So tell me how a non-lethal technology would do any better.

But what microwave weapons would do, is prevent people from attending protests because people would fear that if someone decided to toss a bottle or take a swing at a cop that EVERYONE would get lazed with this weapon.

That is a negative sum result for American freedom.

[bryant69]

21. Ah

First of all I did not intend to label protesters criminals, and I think you would realize that if you could look past your tunnel vision of the one and only way this weapon will be used.

Good use of bold there, by the way.

So should cops be armed? Should we even try to fight crime at all? I mean we pay money for these cops and people still commit crimes - maybe we are just pissing our money away. I mean the whole police system, it's just a front for people to smash protesters and repress the people. We spend millions every year training cops - and for what? So cops can beat up protesters? Why even have cops whatsoever - they aren't stopping crime; the only thng they are good for is repressing the people.

Yeah you've helped me to see the light, file83. Clearly the next step is completely dismanteling our law-enforcement system, or as I now call it, the people oppression system. Fire all the cops- and take their guns away. No pensions for those people oppressing bastards either. I mean think about the type of person who wants to be a cop. Who wants to oppress his fellow man. Those bastards don't deserve a red cent.

Shut down the prisons - I mean, my god, think of all the protesters that could be held in those prisons. Why build prisons, if not to lock up political prisoners and protesters? Abandon the criminal side of law - the criminal code. Think of the savings in judges! We've been trying to fight criminals in America since the revolution, and we still have lots and lots of crime. Why haven't we succeeded? Is it possible that the whole purpose of our law enforcement system isn't to fight crime, but to oppress the people? Of course it is!

Thank you File83 - it took a while, but you've opened my eyes. I can only hope your vision will spread and that more people will see the wisdom in abandoning our law enforce. . . I mean People Oppression system.

Bryant

[file83]

22. Did you bring your bathing suit for the ride down your

SLIPPERY SLOPE??

Don't forget your towel!

[bryant69]

23. Bold Capitalized and All Caps

Gosh you are a good debator.

Bryant

[file83]

24. So you'd rather run the risk of deploying a technology that could

potentially be used for oppresive purposes just to protect the lives of criminals?

You choose the rights of a few criminals over the rights and freedoms of millions of law-abiding citizens?

Wow. We are a different breed. Not sure what kind of America you are trying to build there, but it's not a house I'd like to live in.

(Notice how I debated you, and you commented on my formatting style? Yeah, you've been oWned.)

[bryant69]

26. Well

For one thing it could also be used to protect the lives of civilians - but taking criminals down more safely. The hostage situation I noted above. Guy has a hostage - you point the beam at them, knocking them both out - the hostage is moved to safety, the guy is handcuffed.

There's also a question of would vs. could. A technology could be used for oppresive purposes, but would save (criminal) lives. If it works as advertized it will definately save criminals lives, but it could (like every other similar advance) also be used to oppress the people. How do you weigh those two?

Do you think that we should spend money developing technology that has law enforcement applications? Yes or no (but explain too of course).

[file83]

27. Your fantasy works nicely, but in the real world the criminal would not

be "knocked out" by the technology. It causes extreme discomfort and irratability - so the hostage gets one in the head from the criminal's gun. Game over.

Your second question of weighing the options? It's pretty clear - Do we protect (with absolute certainty) the First Amendment rights of law abiding American Citizens, or (maybe) protect criminals from a physically dangerous situation that they chose to create for themselves?

I'll chose against the criminal everytime.

Whether or not a company (not "we" as you framed it) wants to spend money to develop technology for law enforcment applications is up to them. I have no problem with that. The important question is when it comes time for them to try to sell it to us. Us. When the government (by the people) wants to make a decision on whether or not to purchase a technology (of whatever type) - the potential for harm of any kind to the rights of Americans must be the highest consideration.

The consideration of criminals takes a back seat to everything else.

[arikara]

12. Just who, in their right mind

would volunteer to be microwaved.

These "non-lethal" weapons are barbaric. Personally, I would rather be shot than have my insides cooked.

[bryant69]

13. Do you have any special knowledge in these weapons ?

Or any special training that helps you understand them (i.e. are you an engineer or scientist or biologist)? Or are you just reacting to the word Microwave?

Bryant

[file83]

16. Do you actually believe the government will protect you?

Do you have any special guarantee from the corporation that develops it? Show me that guarantee.

Come on - we must refuse this shit for many reasons.

1) It's use can (and we all know it will) result in a violation of our First Amendment rights.
2) Science already knows what microwaves (of all spectrums) do to biological cell structures (it raises the kinetic energy of H2O).
3) General principle (and history) have taught us that "testing" technologies on citizens is a bad fucking idea.

Furthermore, I'm not exactly sure what your motivation is (devil's advocate?) for being so staunchly in support of not only the general idea of this technology (don't give me this "it'll save lives" crap) but also for it's "testing" on Americans!

You have absolutely NO IDEA what the health effects can be - you only have a blind faith in the corporation and government that claims that it's "non-lethal". So it doesn't kill you - does it make you sick? Does it have side effects? Are there "unintended" deaths from impoper use of said weapon?

Do you know? Of course you don't. So how can you claim that it will "save lives"?

Neither do I - and that is EXACTLY why this crap should NEVER be "tested" on unwilling participants of ANY nationality. Being a human being should be enough to protect your human rights.

[bryant69]

18. oK I'm getting a little fed up

1) It's use can (and we all know it will) result in a violation of our First Amendment rights.

Uh, no. As it turns out we don't all know this. And the way that you know that we don't all know this is that I've been arguing the exact opposit for several posts. I mean come on. That's just lazy and sad.

If I believed that this weapons one and only use was to shut down protesters of course I'd oppose it - but it does have other uses, depending on how far the can develop this technology. If they can get this working it can be used to save lives.

I don't know what the side effects are and I don't know what could happen if it is used inappropriately - I'm not a scientist. I don't assume evil intentions just because someone works for a paycheck.

Because we don't know the answer to a question we can't risk taking steps to answer that question. Nice. Very scientific.

Bryant

[file83]

20. You are getting fed up because you don't understand.

As I outlined in another response to you, the reason the end result of deploying this technology ends up being used as an oppresive weapon is because that's all it's good for.

It isn't going to deter criminals from committing crimes. If guns (which hurt AND kill) don't prevent crime - microwave weapons will not.

So that leaves us with... non criminals (aka protesters).

[Tellurian]

28. Simply put, Bryant, it's a cattle prod! n/t

[me b zola]

25. Where do you live?

I'll call the insaniacs @ the Pentagon and tell them that you are offering to allow them to use you and your family as Guinea pigs.

[Tellurian]

4. Oh no...I read that too..

The report I read, the fellow advocating the use of the microwaves sounded like a narcissistic sadist!

[Imagevision]

11. We've lost the freedom to legally protest because of Bush administration

Those willing to engage in nonviolent acts of civil resistance against the war and occupation are now discouraged to do so by local police via Karl Rove playbook, (squash the messengers)

[lebkuchen]

14. There should be protests/arrests every day up to the election

That's the best way to get Iraq/Afganistan in the news, and perhaps prevent an attack on Iran.