Skip to comments.CA: Deputy snapped protest pictures - (Two officers, infiltrate anti-Bush demonstrators)
Posted on 04/26/2006 8:55:46 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
You don't think this already happens? Especially in light of abortion clinic bombings?
The point I was attempting to make was not whether or not it happens, but whether or not you agree with the tactic of photographing and investigating all who attend the protests.
But you two, please do sally forth about the horrid abuse by government of those protesting against the war, borders, traditional families, the United States, our military...
It's obviously very important to you.
When one ventures into public, all sorts of things can happen, that's my point.
We are in a war, and there are traitors in the United States.
If any of those protested and snapped, have a VERY suspicious background -- no I don't mean, marching in a zillion on anti-name-it parades, they will be looked at.
If they've got parking arrests. No. How about delinquent Taxes. No. How about transsexual operation? No.
How about if they have had multiple arrests for arson? Uh, yes. Known agents of the axis of evil? Yesss....
No, I would photograph trouble-makers and those leading the groups. I would also photograph those doing activities not in synch with the intent of the protest. I would also photograph those with large boxes and small attache's being exchanged.
Come on Alia, sally forth? I served in our military to defend the rights that you so cavalierly want to give up. I've served in countries that have never tasted the freedoms that some of us are willing to give up because it's a republican in the chair now. There won't always be a republican in the chair and the power you so freely give the government now will surely come back to bite you in the ass later. For what it's worth.
Operative word of focus: "all". Do you really think two guys with a camera are going to photograph ALL who attend? This is fantastic lunacy.
On the contrary, I think things are going about right, or as well as can be expected. I've got some issues with the way some things have been handled, but overall, I'm fine. I just don't think we're at war.
But we are in a war, a war unlike we've ever been in before
You calling it one doesn't make it so. A congressional declaration makes it so. We're in low intensity security operations in a Iraq and Afghanistan. We're in an international law enforcement and intelligence operations throughout the world. We're in covert actions. We're in diplomatic negotiations. We're in a cultural debate. We're in a heightened security state in the US. But none of those, individually or together, is a "war" any more than the war on drugs is a war.
Pot, Kettle, dear.
If you're throwing out cliches, I'll say that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want the rhetorical bludgeon of "it's a war" without any of the things that actually go with it.
You still haven't made your point. You are making an extremely weak point. It's along the point of hysteria. And if you think our "local" traitors haven't been doing this stuff all along, then please tell me what happened to make Hillary's mysterious files reappear?
We know Saddam was in cahoots with Osama. You can't do the old "standard declaration" on this type of matter.
No matter how much you wish it.
If you think for one fat second Democrats WERE NOT PHOTOGRAPHING OR TARGETING conservatives up until President Bush's election in 2000, you must have been "out of the country". And we were NOT in a war, then.
It's not a rhubarb. It's Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
Congress did VOTE to go to war. They voted yes.
Wrong. They voted to authorize the the President to use military force against Iraq. They did the same thing for Panama in 1989.
You can't do the old "standard declaration" on this type of matter.
Then don't call it one when it's a convenient rhetorical device to excuse something, then deny that it's one because "You can't do the old "standard declaration" on this type of matter."
They tell the press that "hundreds" will show up at their whining sessions. The press arives to find a dozen people, half of which are cops.
It's comforting to know someone is paying attention to the bleaters.. lol.
I understand your larger point. But "harassing"? These lefties have major PR operations just so they can be in the news. So. They are in the news. Always a victim, however, somethings about liberals are entirely predictable. Taking a picture is not harassive. Unless it is terrorists taking pictures of Monuments, nuclear plants, etc. I don't think the anti-war protestors are monumental nor productively reactive.
And, you have the last word, Heyworth.
You are comparing a legal activity (picture taking) and an illegal activity (using FBI files for political leverage-ie blackmail/extortion). That is a fallacious arguement. Your posts are long on hysterics and short on logic.
Friend, when you go out in public, anybody can snap your picture. This is a free country. Now when they do something bad with it that is another story.
The authorities, lately have learned that pictures and video can often keep them from frivolous attacks by lawyers making all kinds of claims. Pictures talk in court.
My point is, that if you are going to protest, you should expect that your picture will be taken and very likely to be used by the media or if your are in a melee, by the courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.