I find this topic useful to show how our rights are being abridged on a daily basis.
I am quoting from another blog, the one of Carlos Miller.
http://carlosmiller.wordpress.com/
" Photography is not a crime; It’s a First Amendment right
Home
About
June 7th, 2007
Freelance reporter/photographer arrested for asking the wrong question about Rudy Guliani
In an incident that has received absolutely no coverage from the mainstream media, freelance journalist Matt Lepacek was arrested at a New Hampshire press conference Tuesday after asking a Rudy Giuliani staffer about the ex-mayor’s prior knowledge of a collapse of a World Trade Center building.
On this video, Lepacek is surrounded by a sea of reporters when he starts firing off questions to Giuliani pollster Ed Goeas. Seconds later, a group of police officers move in to arrest him as several photographers snapped away. Two days later, the incident has only been reported by a handful of alternative news websites.
Lepacek was on assignment for www.infowars.com, a site that has raised some controversial theories about the government’s involvement with 9/11. But he was reportedly carrying CNN credentials at the time of his arrest, insinuating that perhaps he has worked for them in the past.
Lepacek was charged with criminal trespass and there was talk that he would be charged with “espionage” despite the fact that he was holding the camera in full view and that the incident took place after a GOP debate attended by hundreds of photographers.
Luke Rudkowski, another Infowars reporter at the scene, said police physically assaulted him and Lepacek, destroying the camera in the process. "
From Carlos, May blog post, apparently he was hassled for taking pictures, or at least, having a camera...
"May 25th, 2007
A Coral Gables police officer asks me for a permit after I photograph him
I was standing on a sidewalk on Miracle Mile Thursday night carrying my Canon 5D with a 50 mm f/1.8 lens, a combination that works excellent in low light situations.
The officer was across the street standing on one of those motor scooters that police have nowadays that enable them to walk their beat without actually walking their beat.
As the officer was zipping across the street on the scooter, I took a few shots as I think it is hilarious that police have resorted to a child’s toy for law enforcement efficiency.
“Do you have a permit to take photos?” he asked as he reached the sidewalk I was standing on."
But, it is a widespread topic on the Net, i.e., this issue of cops hassling people taking pictures.
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FVKK
Thomas Hawk has an interesting article on his experience, he calls it the Right to Bear Cameras
http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.html
"Tonight Flickr pals Ropeboy, Aqui-Ali, Ranjit and I all went down to Oakland's warehouse district to shoot. No sooner had we begun than we were stopped and confronted by Sheriffs. They required each of us to turn over our IDs and then proceeded to detain us for about 20 minutes. Admitedly there is a small power plant and trains down in the district but ask yourself this, should carrying a camera result in this kind of harrasment? Should the police be able to randomly stop you and run your ID for warrants or a background check merely for being in the wrong place with a camera? There is a chill in the air in this country right now but I'm not sure that taking it out on the rights of photographers is the correct answer. We were committing no crime and peacefully assembling for the purpose of our passion, photography and it's pursuit in a group that we call Flickr.This particular cop asked that I not take his photograph. I took this shot anyway when he wasn't paying attention. As I understand it, freedom of the press involves the ability to photograph law enforcement and what some might view as an abuse of power."
But, there are lots more blogs talking about this disturbing trend.
FREEDOM TO PHOTOGRAPH
"
Stopped for my 6th time!
Today (9/6/2004 - Labor Day) I was kind of in the wrong place at the wrong time while doing some night photos, but the story is interesting at the same time. I was on the dirt back roads of Laurel Park in Secaucus, NJ and while leaving a Hudson County Police Officer drove up to me and politely said "Parks' closed." As I normally would, I agreed with him and packed up my stuff and walked back towards my car.
Although (which I should have realized anyway) he wasn't done talking to me (because they never are, they always have more to say). He had to come back about 30 seconds later to ask me "Where you taking any pictures back there?". Not to lie or anything, I told him yes. He then started to tell me how those back roads are private property and that I was trespassing (He wasn't yelling at me, more just informing me).
This is what I don't understand. I have been on those back roads plenty of times and sometimes police even came back there to see what I was up to. Although, they always leave me be because I'm open and show them the photography I did and they don't see that I'm causing any harm. Also, there are also no signs stating "Private Property: Keep Out" or "No Public Access". The only sign visible is a yellow diamond saying "End of Pavement".When I told him that I was doing some photography he asked me of what. I told him truthfully that I was photographing the city lights of Newark & New York from the Meadowlands, especially the "Towers of Light", the World Trace Center memorial that is erected around September 11th every year.While talking to him, I noticed a New Jersey Transit off-road police unit drive by and head up the dirt roads I just came out of. The officer said "I don’t think NJT would appreciate you taking photos back there in a vital area. Especially along the Northeast Corridor Train line, because you might be trying to blow the trains up."Bullshit my ass. If I was a terrorist and I wanted to blow something up, I could easily do it without photos. No terrorist attack in the United States has ever relied on photography. "
I COULD POST MORE AND MORE AND MORE...YOU CAN LOOK THE BLOGS UP YOURSELF. In fact, watch the Michael Moore film, FAHRENHEIT 9/11. He and his crew were peacefully filming the Saudi Arabian headquarters in DC from a distance, and while he is narrating, Federal Secret Service officers come up to hassle him about filming.
It is not rocket science why cops are especially aggressive about people filming or photographing them. It is evidence that can be used against them in court when they are found guilty of wrongdoing. People who are doing wrong, or who don't want dirty secrets exposed, can get physcially aggressive, even violent when someone starts filming or photographing them.
Look at the videotaping of the beating which Rodney King received. In that case, even though the video was clearly depicting Mr. King getting the hell beat out of him , due to the venue of the trial (Simi Valley), where lots of cops live, the cops were found not guilty, but without the video, the nation would never be shown first hand evidence of what appeared to be police brutality to most of us (almost everyone NOT living in Simi Valley).
To that point, read this from REASON.com
http://www.reason.com/brickbat/show/120408.html
"You Thought That Was Police Brutality?
May 29, 2007
Angel Rodriguez says he was videotaping police making a drug arrest from his window in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, when he saw what he thought was police brutality. Then, he says, the police spotted him videotaping them. He says several police officers rushed into his home, knocked him to the floor, beat him and tore the videotape out of his camera."
And more
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/032218
"Friday, July 12th, 2002Police Brutality On Videotape Across the Country: The Videographer Who Captured Footage of Police Beating An Unarmed Teenager in Inglewood Is Arrested; Police Investigate An Oklahoma City Police Beating of Another Unarmed Black ManListen to Segment Download Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
Police Thursday arrested Mitch Crooks, the man who videotaped the scene of a white officer smashing the head of a handcuffed black teenager into the trunk of a car. The arrest came on the same day Crooks was supposed to appear before a grand jury. He was approaching CNN for a television interview, when plain-clothed officers drove up to the building and hustled him into a van with tinted windows. A CNN surveillance camera caught the scene on video. It shows Crooks struggling against the officers, screaming for help as the van drove away.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's office says Crooks was arrested on warrants for petty theft and driving under the influence with a hit and run. The DA also served him with a subpoena to testify before the Los Angeles County grand jury. Crooks had been expected to appear before the grand jury Thursday morning but failed to show up.
Crooks had repeatedly told reporters he was afraid officers would be "coming after" him for videotaping the beating of 16-year-old Donovan Jackson Chavis from a nearby motel room. Speaking on a radio program Wednesday Crooks said: "I fear for my life. They're going to kick my ass in a cell and take turns on me, probably." Crooks also told reporters the four officers involved in the beating approached his motel room moments after he shot the video, demanding the tape.
Jeremy Morse, the officer seen beating Donovan Jackson Chavis, has yet to be charged with a crime. He was suspended on Monday with pay. On Thursday, his attorney said the 16-year-old developmentally disabled Jackson took action that "required that he be punched." Morse has been the subject of repeated complaints to the Inglewood Police Department.
Meanwhile, authorities in Oklahoma City asked the FBI to look into the actions of two officers who were videotaped striking an unarmed African American man 27 times with batons. The police also sprayed him with pepper spray. They said they were trying to arrest the man, Donald Pete, for trying to conceal marijuana by swallowing it.
Oklahoma City Police Chief M.T. Berry said the Inglewood incident prompted him to contact the FBI. But he said he does not believe the Oklahoma case rises to the same level of seriousness as the California case.
The Police Chief initially defended the officers, saying they acted correctly while handling the arrest on Monday."
Cameraman Videotaping Police Beating Arrested in California
"The man who shot the amateur video of a white police officer beating a black teenager in suburban Los Angeles was taken into custody Thursday afternoon by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office
The man who shot the amateur video of a white police officer beating a black teenager in suburban Los Angeles was taken into custody Thursday afternoon by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. Michael Crooks, 27, was arrested outside CNN's Los Angeles bureau where he was scheduled for an interview.
He was screaming as he was driven away by plainclothes officers, the CNN quoted witnesses as saying. The district attorney's office said Crooks' arrest was unrelated to the videotape case and he was arrested on at least two previous charges from Placer County, northern California.
The charges include petty theft and driving under influence of alcohol. The surprise arrest came when the videotape taken by Michael Crooks has been played repeatedly on television, in which police officer Jeremy Morse of the Inglewood police department was slamming a handcuffed teenager boy, 16-year-old Donovan Jackson, onto the back of a police car before punching him once in the face.
After the disclosure of the tape, the Los Angeles grand jury started investigating the violent case, which prompted an outcry reminiscent of the response to the 1991 beating of black motorist Rodney King.
The grand jury hopes to get the original videotape shot by Crooks. Rejecting the district attorney's subpoena, Crooks did notappear before a grand jury investigating the police beating Thursday morning, citing he feared for his life after he shot the video last Saturday in Inglewood in southwestern Los Angeles suburban.
A question that hasn't come to a conclusion is what took place at the Inglewood gas station Saturday before Crooks started taping. ¡¡ The video has caused public furor over police brutality and racial discrimination. Jackson and his father Coby Chavis, who was stopped by police while driving a car with expired tag, filed a lawsuit on Wednesdayin a federal court, seeking unspecified damages from the city of Inglewood, the Los Angeles County and seven officers from two police departments. Many compared the incident to the Rodney King case in 1991, in which black driver King was beaten up by four white police officers in Los Angeles at the end of a traffic pursuit. The acquittal of the police officers sparked the worst riots in modernUS history, leading 54 people dead and 1 billion US dollars in property damages. "
The Lower 9th: Documenting police brutality
"Common Ground Relief has never been a big fan of the NOPD. From the first days of the relief effort in Algiers Point, cops have been adversarial towards volunteers and organizers.
For a while, volunteers were doing "Copwatch," or videotaping and documenting police/citizen interactions, much to the chagrin of the officers, who occasionally saw fit to arrest the Copwatcher on some trumped-up charge or other. If the Copwatcher was black, then the attention of law enforcement was consistently more inclined to arrest first, and ask questions later.
Common Ground is still engaged in police accountability, offering legal assistance and documenting allegations of police harassment or brutality. On their website, Common Ground has posted a map of New Orleans overlaid with icons that marking various places throughout town where reported harassment or brutality has occurred. The map shows dozens of incidents, based on phone calls to the legal hotline, reports taken at the CG legal clinic, and some exit interviews with OPP inmates.
By the looks of the map, the worst places in town for police misconduct are the French Quarter -- particularly Bourbon Street -- and a section of Mid-City around the Courthouse. Over two dozen allegations of police theft, abuse, illegal searches, or abusive or inappropriate conduct are reported in that vicinity. On Bourbon Street, where officers famously beat up retired schoolteacher Robert Davis a month after Katrina, there are five reported beatings (one of which resulted in the death of the arrested suspect from being hit twice by a taser), and two police thefts."
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Who would you want YOUR kids to pattern their life after...Dr. Ron Paul MD or Too Much Rouge Rudy ?
The Repubs have , for around eight years, made a big deal about moral issues,
Let's examine which candidate appears to be the more moral of the two.
Dr. Ron Paul, MD has been a medical doctor, delivering babies, easing suffering,
and doing what he can for the health and welfare of his fellow Texans for decades.
Rudy is a cross dressing , multimillionaire lawyer, who has been accused of adultery,
and, from another site, here is what they list.
http://www.realchange.org/giuliani.htm
"-Married his cousin (and divorced her)-
Affairs -- Divorced his second wife (in a very ugly way)-
Mob ties (his Dad and uncle)- Wears Women's Clothing (in a very ugly way)
Flip-Flopping-
Nasty, Mean-Spirited and Small-Minded Cuss-
Bernie Kerik- Business Links-
Authoritarian tendencies-
Cancer-
Quitter-
9-11 Mistakes-
Farmersville, NY Scandal-
Harding scandal-
Lack of Security"
Not convinced ?
Below are actual pictures of both men.
MR. RUDY GIULIANI
DR. RON PAUL, MD
Let's examine which candidate appears to be the more moral of the two.
Dr. Ron Paul, MD has been a medical doctor, delivering babies, easing suffering,
and doing what he can for the health and welfare of his fellow Texans for decades.
Rudy is a cross dressing , multimillionaire lawyer, who has been accused of adultery,
and, from another site, here is what they list.
http://www.realchange.org/giuliani.htm
"-Married his cousin (and divorced her)-
Affairs -- Divorced his second wife (in a very ugly way)-
Mob ties (his Dad and uncle)- Wears Women's Clothing (in a very ugly way)
Flip-Flopping-
Nasty, Mean-Spirited and Small-Minded Cuss-
Bernie Kerik- Business Links-
Authoritarian tendencies-
Cancer-
Quitter-
9-11 Mistakes-
Farmersville, NY Scandal-
Harding scandal-
Lack of Security"
Not convinced ?
Below are actual pictures of both men.
MR. RUDY GIULIANI
DR. RON PAUL, MD
Gingrich Forecasts Ron Paul Nomination?
http://donklephant.com/2007/06/09/gingrich-forecasts-ron-paul-nomination/
Take a look at the following and tell me if Ron Paul isn’t the only nominee that Newt describes…
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Newt Gingrich, in a jab at President Bush, warned on Friday that the GOP will lose the White House and Congress in 2008 if the nominee is perceived as a continuation of the Bush presidency.
Addressing a conservative organization, the former House Speaker never mentioned the president by name, but his political point was clear.
“If the Republicans run a stand-pat presidential candidate who ends up being on defense for all of September and October and who is seen by the country as representing four more years, the fact is that Republicans are not going to” win, Gingrich told the American Enterprise Institute.
Newt probably thought that “being on defense” meant apologizing for Bush’s missteps, but I think those words could speak to something far more interesting. Because, honestly, what Republican is going to back down from Bush’s post-9/11 defense stance? Anybody you can think of?
And furthermore, who will back down from his spending habits? Who will take positions that are consistent with true conservative ideology?
I can think of only one candidate, and oddly enough it isn’t Newt.
Want more proof?
In a glimpse of what his candidacy might look like, he said he would shut down public schools that aren’t performing and offer a $20 billion reward for the first private company that successfully completes a Mars mission.
“Somebody would be there and back about 40 percent of the way into the NASA process,” he said.
Yeah…those are big ideas.
In any event, for those who read this site on a regular basis know, I’ve been talking a lot about Ron Paul lately. It’s not becuase I necessarily endorse the man, but I certainly think he’s one of the most exciting things to happen to the Republican party in the last 20 years.
In any event, keep talking Newt. You may just predict the future yet.
Take a look at the following and tell me if Ron Paul isn’t the only nominee that Newt describes…
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Newt Gingrich, in a jab at President Bush, warned on Friday that the GOP will lose the White House and Congress in 2008 if the nominee is perceived as a continuation of the Bush presidency.
Addressing a conservative organization, the former House Speaker never mentioned the president by name, but his political point was clear.
“If the Republicans run a stand-pat presidential candidate who ends up being on defense for all of September and October and who is seen by the country as representing four more years, the fact is that Republicans are not going to” win, Gingrich told the American Enterprise Institute.
Newt probably thought that “being on defense” meant apologizing for Bush’s missteps, but I think those words could speak to something far more interesting. Because, honestly, what Republican is going to back down from Bush’s post-9/11 defense stance? Anybody you can think of?
And furthermore, who will back down from his spending habits? Who will take positions that are consistent with true conservative ideology?
I can think of only one candidate, and oddly enough it isn’t Newt.
Want more proof?
In a glimpse of what his candidacy might look like, he said he would shut down public schools that aren’t performing and offer a $20 billion reward for the first private company that successfully completes a Mars mission.
“Somebody would be there and back about 40 percent of the way into the NASA process,” he said.
Yeah…those are big ideas.
In any event, for those who read this site on a regular basis know, I’ve been talking a lot about Ron Paul lately. It’s not becuase I necessarily endorse the man, but I certainly think he’s one of the most exciting things to happen to the Republican party in the last 20 years.
In any event, keep talking Newt. You may just predict the future yet.
He Hates Us For Our Freedom- Not Osama, RUDY GIULIANI
Rudy, Rudy , Rudy....you really need to buy an enema.
You are impacted.
When Rudy and his buddy, King George the Cowardly say that the Islamic "Fascists" (actually, they are closer to Fascism than the Islamic fundamentalists, if you read up on the definition of the term) "hate us for our freedom", I think they are projecting.
If we look back to when Georgie Porgie was the "gubernator" of Texas, when environmentalists were exercising their rights to peacably assemble and protest on public property OUTSIDE the governor's mansion in 1999, Bushy changed the rules and sent police, plain clothes law enforcement, and very tall Department of Public Safety troopers to harass, and ultimately, arrest them.
This arrest spawned an ACLU lawsuit which named Bush among others, as a defendant. My understanding is he and the other defendants lost the case, with each of the arrested getting around 100 grand a piece.
But this was just a taste of things to come.Bush has gone out of his way to abridge and even suspend the civil rights of regular citizens.
In point of fact, there are so many outrages and abuses, documented well in documents availabel on line, I don't have the space here to outline them, but just do a Google search and you will be astounded.
And that is only the material that has made its way to sunlight. Who knows how much has been covered up.Whether we are talking about the "Free Speech Zones", the warrantless wiretaps, or any of a zillion other draconian efforts, Bush has shown he does not like Americans to have too much freedom.Well, now, "mini me", aka Too Much Rouge Rudy, aka Nosfergiuliani, aka Drag Queen Rudy, has tried to show he is presidential in the line of Bushy, by having a reporter named Matt Lepacek, arrested and charged with a bogus charge after the GOP debates, because the reporter had the nerve to exercise his freedom of speech and ask one of Il Duce's stooges, Ed Goeas, some hard questions.
Look folks, when God sent lightning to kill Giuliani's mike during the debate, that should tell you something.The little fart is going to lose both the election, AND the nomination. Put your prom dress back in mothballs Rudy, you're not going to the ball as the Queen of the Prom.
You are impacted.
When Rudy and his buddy, King George the Cowardly say that the Islamic "Fascists" (actually, they are closer to Fascism than the Islamic fundamentalists, if you read up on the definition of the term) "hate us for our freedom", I think they are projecting.
If we look back to when Georgie Porgie was the "gubernator" of Texas, when environmentalists were exercising their rights to peacably assemble and protest on public property OUTSIDE the governor's mansion in 1999, Bushy changed the rules and sent police, plain clothes law enforcement, and very tall Department of Public Safety troopers to harass, and ultimately, arrest them.
This arrest spawned an ACLU lawsuit which named Bush among others, as a defendant. My understanding is he and the other defendants lost the case, with each of the arrested getting around 100 grand a piece.
But this was just a taste of things to come.Bush has gone out of his way to abridge and even suspend the civil rights of regular citizens.
In point of fact, there are so many outrages and abuses, documented well in documents availabel on line, I don't have the space here to outline them, but just do a Google search and you will be astounded.
And that is only the material that has made its way to sunlight. Who knows how much has been covered up.Whether we are talking about the "Free Speech Zones", the warrantless wiretaps, or any of a zillion other draconian efforts, Bush has shown he does not like Americans to have too much freedom.Well, now, "mini me", aka Too Much Rouge Rudy, aka Nosfergiuliani, aka Drag Queen Rudy, has tried to show he is presidential in the line of Bushy, by having a reporter named Matt Lepacek, arrested and charged with a bogus charge after the GOP debates, because the reporter had the nerve to exercise his freedom of speech and ask one of Il Duce's stooges, Ed Goeas, some hard questions.
Look folks, when God sent lightning to kill Giuliani's mike during the debate, that should tell you something.The little fart is going to lose both the election, AND the nomination. Put your prom dress back in mothballs Rudy, you're not going to the ball as the Queen of the Prom.
Note to Rudolph Giuliani, read up on BLOWBACK
During one of the debates, in what has become a much publicized encounter, Dr. Ron Paul rightfully identified why the US had been attacked on 9-11. Mr. Giuliani protested that he had never heard anything like that, and asked Dr. Paul to retract his statement, or, really, more , DEMANDED he take it back.
Well, not only should Giuliani watch the movie WHY WE FIGHT by Eugene Janecki, but he should read what BLOWBACK means.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson "The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for its militarized opponents only an "asymmetric strategy," in the jargon of the Pentagon, has any chance of success. When it does succeed, as it did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets. On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, "This is civilization's fight." This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values--as a "clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon--is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that America's imperial projects have generated."
===SNIP-------------
What IS Blowback?
http://www.blurtit.com/q165306.html
" Blowback is an unpleasant, unintended consequence of a military or paramilitary operation. The operation is often covert and the consequence usually only manifests itself over a significant time-period so that what seemed like a good idea at the time is revealed in retrospect, and in the long-view of history, as profoundly damaging.
An example often quoted is America's support for the Islamic extremist militants who fought against the Soviet Union following its invasion of Afghanistan. America and its allies provided funding, training and equipment for the jihadists who travelled from all over the world to wage war on the hated Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew in 1989, and the puppet regime they had left in place was defeated a few years later, an intolerant regime of religious extremists, the Taliban, was able to take power. In addition, militants from all over the world had received vital training and experience in the almost decade-long conflict, assets they were able to later put to deadly use, against America itself, in other parts of the world."
=============SNIP=============
So, Mr. Giuliani, CAN YOU WATCH THE MOVIE "WHY WE FIGHT"?
and...CAN YOU READ ?
and lastly.....CAN YOU ADMIT YOUR ERRORS AND APOLOGIZE TO DR. RON PAUL ?
Well, not only should Giuliani watch the movie WHY WE FIGHT by Eugene Janecki, but he should read what BLOWBACK means.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson "The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for its militarized opponents only an "asymmetric strategy," in the jargon of the Pentagon, has any chance of success. When it does succeed, as it did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets. On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, "This is civilization's fight." This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values--as a "clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon--is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that America's imperial projects have generated."
===SNIP-------------
What IS Blowback?
http://www.blurtit.com/q165306.html
" Blowback is an unpleasant, unintended consequence of a military or paramilitary operation. The operation is often covert and the consequence usually only manifests itself over a significant time-period so that what seemed like a good idea at the time is revealed in retrospect, and in the long-view of history, as profoundly damaging.
An example often quoted is America's support for the Islamic extremist militants who fought against the Soviet Union following its invasion of Afghanistan. America and its allies provided funding, training and equipment for the jihadists who travelled from all over the world to wage war on the hated Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew in 1989, and the puppet regime they had left in place was defeated a few years later, an intolerant regime of religious extremists, the Taliban, was able to take power. In addition, militants from all over the world had received vital training and experience in the almost decade-long conflict, assets they were able to later put to deadly use, against America itself, in other parts of the world."
=============SNIP=============
So, Mr. Giuliani, CAN YOU WATCH THE MOVIE "WHY WE FIGHT"?
and...CAN YOU READ ?
and lastly.....CAN YOU ADMIT YOUR ERRORS AND APOLOGIZE TO DR. RON PAUL ?
The Arrest of Matt Lepacek, and the MILGRAM EXPERIMENT
People, ordinary people like you and I, can and will do, horrible things when they are "just following orders". The danger of the fallout of people "just following orders" is magnified exponentially when those "following orders" have guns strapped on their hip, handcuffs on the back of their belt, a star on their uniform, and are operating "under color of law".
People sometimes point to the horrors inflicted on people by the Third Reich in World War II, by Nazi soldiers and henchmen of Hitler , and during the Nuremburg trials, they said they were "just following orders", but the sad but true truth is, you don't have to be a sadistic monster in order to do horrible injustices to your fellow citizens. All you have to be is someone who has a job, or is part of something that has a chain of command, and someone in authority who tells you to do it. It happens in corporations, and yes, even in police departments. If a cop is told to arrest and rough up a reporter like Lepacek, it certainly can happen.
For proof of this, just look at the Milgram Experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
"The Milgram experiment was a seminal series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[2]
The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"[3] Or, put another way, why were there so many "Good Germans"?
Milgram summed things up in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:
The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.
Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[4]"
Milgram's obedience experiment was replicated by other researchers since then, and has interstudy applicability and authentication.
http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm
"Stanley Milgram answered the call to this problem by performing a series of studies on the Obedience to Authority. Milgram's work began at Harvard where he was working towards his Ph.D. The experiments on which his initial research was based were done at Yale from 1961-1962.
In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."
Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the "teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.
The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" is actually a student or an actor who is never actually harmed. (The drawing of lots was rigged, so that the actor would always end up as the "learner.")
At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.
Today the field of psychology would deem this study highly unethical but, it revealed some extremely important findings. The theory that only the most severe monsters on the sadistic fringe of society would submit to such cruelty is disclaimed. Findings show that, "two-thirds of this studies participants fall into the category of ‘obedient' subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes (Obedience to Authority)." Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!
Milgram also conducted several follow-up experiments to determine what might change the likelihood of maximum shock delivery. In one condition, the touch-proximity condition, the teacher was required to hold the hand of the learner on a "shock plate" in order to give him shocks above 150 volts.
The most amazing thing to note from this follow-up experiment is that 32% of the subjects in the proximity-touch condition held the hand of the learner on the shock plate while administering shocks in excess of 400 volts! Further experiments showed that teachers were less obedient when the experimenter communicated with them via the telephone versus in person, and males were just as likely to be obedient as females, although females tended to be more nervous."
=====================snip=========================
So, will people do horrible things, even up to and including perceived homicide under the "just following orders" scenario ? Yes. Is it possible for security guards, police, secret service, and others, to violate people's first amendment and civil rights pursuant to being told to do so by someone perceived to be in authority?
Yes, it is possible.
People sometimes point to the horrors inflicted on people by the Third Reich in World War II, by Nazi soldiers and henchmen of Hitler , and during the Nuremburg trials, they said they were "just following orders", but the sad but true truth is, you don't have to be a sadistic monster in order to do horrible injustices to your fellow citizens. All you have to be is someone who has a job, or is part of something that has a chain of command, and someone in authority who tells you to do it. It happens in corporations, and yes, even in police departments. If a cop is told to arrest and rough up a reporter like Lepacek, it certainly can happen.
For proof of this, just look at the Milgram Experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
"The Milgram experiment was a seminal series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[2]
The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"[3] Or, put another way, why were there so many "Good Germans"?
Milgram summed things up in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:
The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.
Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[4]"
Milgram's obedience experiment was replicated by other researchers since then, and has interstudy applicability and authentication.
http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm
"Stanley Milgram answered the call to this problem by performing a series of studies on the Obedience to Authority. Milgram's work began at Harvard where he was working towards his Ph.D. The experiments on which his initial research was based were done at Yale from 1961-1962.
In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."
Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the "teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.
The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" is actually a student or an actor who is never actually harmed. (The drawing of lots was rigged, so that the actor would always end up as the "learner.")
At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.
Today the field of psychology would deem this study highly unethical but, it revealed some extremely important findings. The theory that only the most severe monsters on the sadistic fringe of society would submit to such cruelty is disclaimed. Findings show that, "two-thirds of this studies participants fall into the category of ‘obedient' subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes (Obedience to Authority)." Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!
Milgram also conducted several follow-up experiments to determine what might change the likelihood of maximum shock delivery. In one condition, the touch-proximity condition, the teacher was required to hold the hand of the learner on a "shock plate" in order to give him shocks above 150 volts.
The most amazing thing to note from this follow-up experiment is that 32% of the subjects in the proximity-touch condition held the hand of the learner on the shock plate while administering shocks in excess of 400 volts! Further experiments showed that teachers were less obedient when the experimenter communicated with them via the telephone versus in person, and males were just as likely to be obedient as females, although females tended to be more nervous."
=====================snip=========================
So, will people do horrible things, even up to and including perceived homicide under the "just following orders" scenario ? Yes. Is it possible for security guards, police, secret service, and others, to violate people's first amendment and civil rights pursuant to being told to do so by someone perceived to be in authority?
Yes, it is possible.
Movie WHY WE FIGHT shows proof DR. RON PAUL IS RIGHT
There is a movie that has been out for two years (2005 release) by filmmaker Eugene Janecki, which is entitled WHY WE FUGHT that Too Much Rouge Rudy Giuliani needs to see.
His remarks during the debate to Dr. Ron Paul questioning Dr. Paul's statement about why we were attacked on 9/11, are shown to be part and parcel of the spin machine of the military industrial complex, a complex which includes so-called "think tanks" with NeoCons like Richard Perle and WIlliam Kristol in organizations such as PNAC (the Project for a New American Century).
If you want to know WHY and HOW we went to war with Iraq, if you want to know what "blowback" is, watch the movie or rent it and watch it. It is currently playing on the STARZ movie channel.
It shows, absolutely, that RON PAUL IS RIGHT.
His remarks during the debate to Dr. Ron Paul questioning Dr. Paul's statement about why we were attacked on 9/11, are shown to be part and parcel of the spin machine of the military industrial complex, a complex which includes so-called "think tanks" with NeoCons like Richard Perle and WIlliam Kristol in organizations such as PNAC (the Project for a New American Century).
If you want to know WHY and HOW we went to war with Iraq, if you want to know what "blowback" is, watch the movie or rent it and watch it. It is currently playing on the STARZ movie channel.
It shows, absolutely, that RON PAUL IS RIGHT.
Friday, June 8, 2007
BUSH AND HIS EARPIECE
You might think I would talk about Bush and his "mouthpiece", as lawyers are often called, but I just wanted to share a little picture to show that, the voices Bush hears may not be from God, but more from Karl Rove (who may BE Bush's god). Notice the picture WITH THE EAR PIECE and without the ear piece. The ear piece is pinker and lighter in color than the surrounding skin.
We don't usually see Rudy from the side during these debates, so it may be that Too Much Rouge Rudy, is wearing a wire too.
NOSFERGIULIANI
Rudy tends to bend forward, hands together, in the typical Nosferatu, the undead posture, and he always has that slimy grin. Very odd if you ask me. Also, God intervened to shut his mike during the debates.
Others have noticed the similar appearance between Nosferatu and Giuliani.
" Fred Thompson bears an uncanny resemblance to the Creature from the Black Lagoon
Some people have been struck by Giuliani's resemblance to Nosferatu. I say: That's nothing compared to the similarity between Fred Thompson and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. "
Some people have been struck by Giuliani's resemblance to Nosferatu. I say: That's nothing compared to the similarity between Fred Thompson and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. "
Also
http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/node/2623
"Home » blogs » krislopresto's blog
TODAY'S SHOW: WEDNESDAY JUNE 6TH 2007
by krislopresto on June 6, 2007 - 5:22pm.
...Also on the show will be Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone Contributor to discuss the Republican Debates and Nosferatu himself, Rudy Giuliani."
http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/node/2623
"Home » blogs » krislopresto's blog
TODAY'S SHOW: WEDNESDAY JUNE 6TH 2007
by krislopresto on June 6, 2007 - 5:22pm.
...Also on the show will be Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone Contributor to discuss the Republican Debates and Nosferatu himself, Rudy Giuliani."
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Tax Protestors Ed and Elaine Brown
Ed and Elaine Brown were sentenced in absentia for allegedly not paying income taxes for nearly ten years, and allegedly owing a quarter million. They were sentenced to 5 years in prison. I believe Elaine Brown is actually Dr. Elaine Brown, a licensed dentist.
Apparently, the FEDS are now moving on them with armored vehicles and helicopter support, ala WACO or Ruby Ridge.
Here is a live feed from the area
http://www.wmur.com/video/13461073/index.html%20LIVE/index.html
Apparently, the FEDS are now moving on them with armored vehicles and helicopter support, ala WACO or Ruby Ridge.
Here is a live feed from the area
http://www.wmur.com/video/13461073/index.html%20LIVE/index.html
Las Vegas Odds on Ron Paul slashed from 200-1 to 15-1 and continuing to improve
The mainstream media, GOP bigwigs, and everyone else, continues to be frustrated as Ron Paul is winning hearts and minds. Las Vegas odds were 200 to 1. They are now down to 15 to 1 and it will be continuing to get better.
WHAT PROMPTED MATT LEPACEK'S ARREST?
Apparently, this was reporter Matt Lepacek's crime, actually asking a serious question of
pollster Ed Goeas, tool/toadie of "Too Much Rouge" Rudy Giuliani.
Do "Too Much Rouge" Giuliani's Own Kids Hate Him?
http://wonkette.com/politics/rudy-giuliani/giulianis-kids-hate-him-too-241627.php
"Republican primary voters were thrilled to learn Rudy Giuliani’s kids hate him as much as his many ex-wives, because what self-respecting GOP voter doesn’t despise his loathsome children and wives? The ex-New York mayor and neo-fascist, famous for standing around after terrorists crashed planes into New York buildings, is suddenly the super front-runner."
http://polidics.com/category/presidential-candidates/rudy-giuliani/
"Giuliani - “Lying, so easy a caveman could do it!”
It couldn’t be more clear how Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly lied to the public about what really happened 9-11. Here we have the entire N.Y. Fire dept saying hes a liar and yet Giuliani pushes forward claiming to be a hero when nothing could be further from the truth.
I guess for the current administration and supporters like Rudy Giuliani lying is a way of life and will be until Americans call him and the current administration on their absurd lies. Let’s not forget that even though we have a republican president that the democratic side aside from a very few (of which Hillary and obama are not part of) are calling people out on the things that really matter to all of us. His kids wont talk to him, his ex-wives hate him, the NYFD calls him a crook and liar, he has to pay for his debate audience applaud him and were supposed to believe this guy?"
"Republican primary voters were thrilled to learn Rudy Giuliani’s kids hate him as much as his many ex-wives, because what self-respecting GOP voter doesn’t despise his loathsome children and wives? The ex-New York mayor and neo-fascist, famous for standing around after terrorists crashed planes into New York buildings, is suddenly the super front-runner."
http://polidics.com/category/presidential-candidates/rudy-giuliani/
"Giuliani - “Lying, so easy a caveman could do it!”
It couldn’t be more clear how Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly lied to the public about what really happened 9-11. Here we have the entire N.Y. Fire dept saying hes a liar and yet Giuliani pushes forward claiming to be a hero when nothing could be further from the truth.
I guess for the current administration and supporters like Rudy Giuliani lying is a way of life and will be until Americans call him and the current administration on their absurd lies. Let’s not forget that even though we have a republican president that the democratic side aside from a very few (of which Hillary and obama are not part of) are calling people out on the things that really matter to all of us. His kids wont talk to him, his ex-wives hate him, the NYFD calls him a crook and liar, he has to pay for his debate audience applaud him and were supposed to believe this guy?"
THE EXACT LAW ON CRIMINAL TRESPASS LAWS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/635/635-2.htm
CHAPTER 635UNAUTHORIZED ENTRIES
Section 635:2
635:2 Criminal Trespass. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.
II. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a class B felony for any subsequent offense if the person knowingly or recklessly causes damage in excess of $1,000 to the value of the property of another.
III. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:
(a) The trespass takes place in an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III; or
(b) The person knowingly enters or remains:
(1) In any secured premises;
(2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person; or
(3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified of such order.
IV. All other criminal trespass is a violation.
V. In this section, ""secured premises'' means any place which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
VI. In this section, ""property,'' ""property of another,'' and ""value'' shall be as defined in RSA 637:2, I, IV, and V, respectively.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1979, 377:7, eff. Aug. 22, 1979. 2005, 125:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.
CHAPTER 635UNAUTHORIZED ENTRIES
Section 635:2
635:2 Criminal Trespass. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.
II. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a class B felony for any subsequent offense if the person knowingly or recklessly causes damage in excess of $1,000 to the value of the property of another.
III. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:
(a) The trespass takes place in an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III; or
(b) The person knowingly enters or remains:
(1) In any secured premises;
(2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person; or
(3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified of such order.
IV. All other criminal trespass is a violation.
V. In this section, ""secured premises'' means any place which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
VI. In this section, ""property,'' ""property of another,'' and ""value'' shall be as defined in RSA 637:2, I, IV, and V, respectively.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1979, 377:7, eff. Aug. 22, 1979. 2005, 125:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
