Trump went too far. Pentagon official resigns. Where is the line?

[CenterField]

There was no repression, your hyperbole is childish.

Really?

[hanger4]

Really?

Yes, really

[TheLiquidGuy]

*That doesn't mean that this non-organized group required a permit. Also, the police did not cite that as reason for pushing them out.*

But they do need a permit. I've already posted this link to you,

I am sorry I missed this earlier when you posted it. Thanks for having the patience to post it again. We can talk about it now.

To be honest, municipal bylaws seem far less important to me (and apparently to the city) than the greater principle of freedom of speech. But since you insist on pressing any technicality that would legitimize abridging FoS, I will go there with you. (I still maintain that moving demonstrators abridges FoS)

From your link… (my bold)

“Want to have a protest in DC? You might want to get a permit. We know it can feel like an infringement of your rights in some ways, and some groups have had success with non-permitted protests in the city, but dealing with the police bureaucracy and getting a permit can help make your event a lot less stressful on the day of.

When do you need a permit? Protests of 25 people or more on the National Mall or other National Park Service operated spaces in DC require a permit (click here to see a listing of those spaces) require a permit, as does any event that requires streets to be closed. The Metropolitan Police, because they lost an important court case, are required to allow permit-less marches in the street as long as they stay within a single lane. Demonstrations on public sidewalks are legally permissable without a permit so long as they don’t block the walkway and fewer than 100 people are expected.”


Throughout that article there is grey area. I doubt you could believe this would end the debate in your favor. We could spend pages arguing about whether the protest did meet or could have been altered to meet the requirements for being "permit-less" had they been told by police that their protest required one. But I don’t think I need to start that tangent. The reason is police never put “no permit” forth as a reason to move. In fact, you acknowledge below that after they were moved, police left them alone.

I suggest you read it and while reading find the part where it says if the protest/demonstration is spontaneous, no worries.

Again I dont think it’s necessary to address the “spontaneous” thing since a permit was not even the issue. But I just can’t help myself…

The language in this article indicates it is intended for people who are planning a demonstration. “...fewer than 100 expected.” I was about to say that nothing in there supports or negates my argument that many individuals can spontaneously congregate without permit, but that’s not true: There is some support for my contention and none for yours. “some groups have had success with non-permitted protests in the city”.

But put that aside and think of it this way: What should happen if, purely by coincidence, a ton of people decide to go to a public park that day? Say, because it’s a warm sunny day after a long stretch of inclement weather. Should a permit be required? Who should obtain the permit for all those sunbathers? That’s essentially what happened at Lafayette, except they were chanting and carrying signs. It was naturally occurring, not engineered. I say there is an important difference between the two. You don’t seem to.

https://washingtonpeacecenter.org/gu...ermit-process/

BTW, after moving the protesters a block further away on Monday late afternoon it was significantly peaceful as were the next two days.

[hanger4]

I am sorry I missed this earlier when you posted it. Thanks for having the patience to post it again. We can talk about it now.

To be honest, municipal bylaws seem far less important to me (and apparently to the city) than the greater principle of freedom of speech. But since you insist on pressing any technicality that would legitimize abridging FoS, I will go there with you. (I still maintain that moving demonstrators abridges FoS)

From your link… (my bold)

“Want to have a protest in DC? You might want to get a permit. We know it can feel like an infringement of your rights in some ways, and some groups have had success with non-permitted protests in the city, but dealing with the police bureaucracy and getting a permit can help make your event a lot less stressful on the day of.

When do you need a permit? Protests of 25 people or more on the National Mall or other National Park Service operated spaces in DC require a permit (click here to see a listing of those spaces) require a permit, as does any event that requires streets to be closed. The Metropolitan Police, because they lost an important court case, are required to allow permit-less marches in the street as long as they stay within a single lane. Demonstrations on public sidewalks are legally permissable without a permit so long as they don’t block the walkway and fewer than 100 people are expected.”


Throughout that article there is grey area. I doubt you could believe this would end the debate in your favor. We could spend pages arguing about whether the protest did meet or could have been altered to meet the requirements for being "permit-less" had they been told by police that their protest required one. But I don’t think I need to start that tangent. The reason is police never put “no permit” forth as a reason to move. In fact, you acknowledge below that after they were moved, police left them alone.



Again I dont think it’s necessary to address the “spontaneous” thing since a permit was not even the issue. But I just can’t help myself…

The language in this article indicates it is intended for people who are planning a demonstration. “...fewer than 100 expected.” I was about to say that nothing in there supports or negates my argument that many individuals can spontaneously congregate without permit, but that’s not true: There is some support for my contention and none for yours. “some groups have had success with non-permitted protests in the city”.

But put that aside and think of it this way: What should happen if, purely by coincidence, a ton of people decide to go to a public park that day? Say, because it’s a warm sunny day after a long stretch of inclement weather. Should a permit be required? Who should obtain the permit for all those sunbathers? That’s essentially what happened at Lafayette, except they were chanting and carrying signs. It was naturally occurring, not engineered. I say there is an important difference between the two. You don’t seem to.

Freedom of speech doesn't include violence, vandalism and arson, which had already occurred during the previous days. There is no reason to think it wouldn't continue. The protesters were moved further away and it did not.

[CenterField]

Freedom of speech doesn't include violence, vandalism and arson, which had already occurred during the previous days. There is no reason to think it wouldn't continue. The protesters were moved further away and it did not.

That is, the Minority Report method. Gotcha.

[hanger4]

That is, the Minority Report method. Gotcha.

It has nothing to do with psychic abilities, it has everything to do with known facts. Considering the previous days activities there no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again. To think otherwise is naivete on your behalf.

[nathanbforrest45]

I cannot understand why anyone would think a mob of "protesters" with a history of quickly degenerating to riots and mayhem should be allowed within a block of the President of the United States, regardless of who that president may be. Had there, God Forbid, been a President Hillary Clinton I would have expected the same level of protection from the authorities.

[CenterField]

It has nothing to do with psychic abilities, it has everything to do with known facts. Considering the previous days activities there no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again. To think otherwise is naivete on your behalf.

What I'm saying is, you don't start repressing people before they act illegally. We do not have the Minority Report psychics to anticipate who will commit a crime. If you see a bunch of American citizens protesting peacefully which is their right under the First Amendment, you don't go in with low flying helicopters, bang grenades, pepper pellets, and tear gas, regardless of what other groups did on the preceding days.

Sure, this will sound a bit of a hyperbole and/or slippery slope fallacy, but would you like it if LEOs knocked on your door and said, Sir, we are here to arrest you, because by statistical analysis and looking at what's going on, we figured that people with your profile have been engaging in illicit acts the last few days and there is no reason to think you won't do it, so we're arresting you to prevent it.

I said, the president's security detail and LEO agencies should be deployed and prepared to act in case of necessity... but shouldn't start repressing American citizens who were acting lawfully and peacefully, on the odds that they *might* misbehave, all for a lousy photo op.

And no, this is not naivete on my behalf. It's called respect for Americans' constitutional rights, something that in the past conservatives used to be for. Again, I bet this would be seen very differently if it was Governor Whitmer repressing the right-wing activists who gathered in front of her office to protest the lockdown, so that she could pose for a photo op.

Again, I don't condone looting, arson, and violence by protesters. They need to be arrested and charged with felonies.

But I don't condone violently repressing American citizens who are peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights, and I thought that this was something conservatives would have supported too; as a matter of fact, very conservative and life-long Republicans like many generals who occupied for decades senior positions in our Armed Forces including former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have strongly condemned what happened. Are you doubting their conservative credentials? Just yesterday, Republican Senator for Alaska Lisa Murkowsky said "I thought Gen. Mattis's words were true and honest and necessary and overdue." (Yeah, yeah, I now you'll say she is a RINO)

Like I said, I have no trouble praising Trump when he is right. In this, I think that he was wrong.

[hanger4]

What I'm saying is, you don't start repressing people before they act illegally. We do not have the Minority Report psychics to anticipate who will commit a crime. If you see a bunch of American citizens protesting peacefully which is their right under the First Amendment, you don't go in with low flying helicopters, bang grenades, pepper pellets, and tear gas, regardless of what other groups did in the preceding days.

Sure, this will sound a bit of a hyperbole and/or slippery slope fallacy, but would you like it if LEOs knocked on your door and said, Sir, we are here to arrest you, because by statistical analysis and looking at what's going on, we figured that people with your profile have been engaging in illicit acts the last few days and there is no reason to think you won't do it, so we're arresting you to prevent it.

I said, the president's security detail and LEO agencies should be deployed and prepared to act in case of necessity... but shouldn't start repressing American citizens who were acting lawfully and peacefully, on the odds that they *might* misbehave, all for a lousy photo op.

And no, this is not naivete on my behalf. It's called respect for Americans' constitutional rights, something that in the past conservatives used to be for. Again, I bet this would be seen very differently if it was Governor Whitmer repressing the right-wing activists who gathered in front of her office to protest the lockdown, so that she could pose for a photo op.

Again, I don't condone looting, arson, and violence by protesters. They need to be arrested and charged with felonies.

But I don't condone violently repressing American citizens who are peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights, and I thought that this was something conservatives would have supported too; as a matter of fact, very conservative and life-long Republicans like many generals who occupied for decades senior positions in our Armed Forces including former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have strongly condemned what happened. Are you doubting their conservative credentials? Just yesterday, Republican Senator for Alaska Lisa Murkowsky said "I thought Gen. Mattis's words were true and honest and necessary and overdue." (Yeah, yeah, I now you'll say she is a RINO)

Like I said, I have no trouble praising Trump when he is right. In this, I think that he was wrong.

Nobody was being repressed, nobody's Constitutional rights were being abridged. And your example is silly, nobody was told to stop protesting, they were told to move back.

[TheLiquidGuy]

It has nothing to do with psychic abilities, it has everything to do with known facts. Considering the previous days activities there no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again. To think otherwise is naivete on your behalf.

So now we are circling back to this old argument? In addition to what CenterField said I will remind you what I said...

You have no clue how many or even "if" anyone was present the night before. And you have no clue how many of those people, if any, did unlawful things. Assumptions are not allowed any more in this context than you guys allowed assumptions regarding Trump's antics. According to all video and nearly all media accounts I have seen, the crowd was peaceable and legally present

I appreciate that police should take steps to be cautious. But they must do so within the constitution.

Lets face it, this president is not a principled individual. He came into his job thinking he could wield the authority of a king. He has shown admiration time and again for strongmen around the world. He even rates actions in such terms “strong” or “weak”. While police were using batons and shields against peaceful protesters a few thousand feet away, he was telling his audience in the rose garden...

“I will fight to protect you. I am your President of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters.”

But later in that speech, a little bit of his true authoritarian instincts bubbled up...

“If the city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residence, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”
[...]
“As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel…”

Bill Maher has a list of Trumps dictator-like actions. Its long and persuassive. If you doubt he is an authoritarian at heart I will see if i can dig it up for you.