Friday, February 03, 2006
Will Democracy Die to Thunderous Applause?
A comment from yesterday's post is worth repeating here, in light of an interesting NY Times article that we'll get to in a minute. First, the post and comments:
February 3, 2006
Surveillance Prompts a Suit: Police v. Police
By JIM DWYER
The demonstrators arrived angry, departed furious. The police had herded them into pens. Stopped them from handing out fliers. Threatened them with arrest for standing on public sidewalks. Made notes on which politicians they cheered and which ones they razzed.
Meanwhile, officers from a special unit videotaped their faces, evoking for one demonstrator the unblinking eye of George Orwell's "1984."
"That's Big Brother watching you," the demonstrator, Walter Liddy, said in a deposition.
Mr. Liddy's complaint about police tactics, while hardly novel from a big-city protester, stands out because of his job: He is a New York City police officer. The rallies he attended were organized in the summer of 2004 by his union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city.
Now the officers, through their union, are suing the city, charging that the police procedures at their demonstrations--many of them routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches and mass bike rides--were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated.
A lawyer for the city said the police union members were treated no differently than hundreds of thousands of people at other gatherings, with public safety and free speech both protected. The department observes all constitutional requirements, the city maintains.
The lawsuit by the police union brings a distinctive voice to the charged debate over how the city has monitored political protest since Sept. 11. The off-duty officers faced a "constant threat of arrest," Officer Liddy testified, all but echoing the complaint by activists for other causes that the city has effectively "criminalized dissent."
Show of hands: how many people think that, given the opportunity, the Bush administration would use warrantless wire-tapping to spy on their political opponents?So, speaking of people understanding exactly what's at stake, we can't even begin to explain our feelings about this story:
Comments:
i have two up. the other means i think the opportunity has already been taken, many times. they don't give a shit. why should they?
i retched at the applause for the 'terrist surveillance progrim'.
there really aren't more than a handful of republicans up there with principles, are there? i mean, i kinda knew that, but that warrantless spying clapping opened my eyes a bit wider.
# posted by karmacomedian : 1:38 AM, February 03, 2006
Democracy dies to thunderous applause.
The Republicans are worried about this; they're not yet ready to turn on him--they're still hanging in there. But if the poll numbers on domestic spying get worse they won't be clapping any more.
The question is: can Democrats pierce the media propaganda wall and make people understand exactly what's at stake?
# posted by Editor - 201k.com : 9:40 AM, February 03, 2006
February 3, 2006
Surveillance Prompts a Suit: Police v. Police
By JIM DWYER
The demonstrators arrived angry, departed furious. The police had herded them into pens. Stopped them from handing out fliers. Threatened them with arrest for standing on public sidewalks. Made notes on which politicians they cheered and which ones they razzed.
Meanwhile, officers from a special unit videotaped their faces, evoking for one demonstrator the unblinking eye of George Orwell's "1984."
"That's Big Brother watching you," the demonstrator, Walter Liddy, said in a deposition.
Mr. Liddy's complaint about police tactics, while hardly novel from a big-city protester, stands out because of his job: He is a New York City police officer. The rallies he attended were organized in the summer of 2004 by his union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city.
Now the officers, through their union, are suing the city, charging that the police procedures at their demonstrations--many of them routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches and mass bike rides--were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated.
A lawyer for the city said the police union members were treated no differently than hundreds of thousands of people at other gatherings, with public safety and free speech both protected. The department observes all constitutional requirements, the city maintains.
The lawsuit by the police union brings a distinctive voice to the charged debate over how the city has monitored political protest since Sept. 11. The off-duty officers faced a "constant threat of arrest," Officer Liddy testified, all but echoing the complaint by activists for other causes that the city has effectively "criminalized dissent."
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."
George Bush
December 18, 2000
how do you spell fascism?
Post a Comment
George Bush
December 18, 2000
how do you spell fascism?
Links to this post:
<< Home
