About Me

I used to be a UNIX systems admin, but got tired of the corporate games. Now I work for myself. I'm still good with the computers, though (grin).

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Another one for the files on government abuse of power

It appears that the availability of a microphone to the public for the purpose of asking questions of a candidate is subject to whether or not those questions "disturb the peace." This is so contrary to the idea of a free and open political debate as to beg the question "Do we already live in a police state?"

The firebrands among our founding fathers must be turning about 4500 rpm in their graves. Our country was founded on the principles of free political speech and the writers of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights would be shamed to see the video of Andrew Meyer being subjected to police interference with his right to speak at a public forum.

The young man was informed of a time limit on his use of the microphone and the mic was turned off when he exceeded the time limit. Fine. He should have sat down and allowed things to continue and let people make up their own minds about what transpired.

But the government, represented by those who are sworn to serve and protect, decided that a little physical pain was called for by his actions. After the young man was subdued, these armed and badged animals decided to use a taser on him, and according to the video, he was not struggling or resisting at that time. It was clearly an attempt to inflict punishment for his actions, not an attempt to gain control of a suspect. This is a violation of due process, outside the use of force guidelines, and an absolutely obvious attempt at intimidation of those who would speak freely.

I wonder if our great nation would ever have been founded if, for example, Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson, two very eloquent and passionate speakers, if we can judge by their words as recorded in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and in other documents, had been subjected to this same standard. I doubt it.


While John Kerry is not a candidate that I support, he was trying to answer the questions, and had the police not decided that they were better equipped to deal with political debate than Mr, Kerry, an accomplished politician, I believe it likely that Mr. Kerry would have been able to handle the situation without violence. This is what should have happened. Mr Kerry expressed much the same opinion himself after learning of the arrest and tasering of Mr. Meyer.

Instead, we now have the specter of the police managing political debate according to their ideas of what is appropriate behavior in a public forum, not specific actions or threats, but which questions can be asked, and how long one can speak. You can be arrested and charged with a crime for participating in political activity at a political event! You don't have to make a threat or cause harm, you just have to refuse to be quiet! At an event designated as a question and answer forum! God save us. The police want you to know that your safety depends on you being a good little citizen and not opening your mouth after they tell you to be quiet. Never mind the Bill of Rights, or our history as a nation founded on civil disobedience. Of course the young man was disruptive, that is the heritage of our country. (Just ask King George III.) He has every right to prove himself a fool, and he did a pretty good job of it. But being foolish is not a crime, and it shouldn't be. And it sure as hell isn't something that gives the police the right to administer electric shocks in order to stop him.

In part of the video, after he was under arrest, a female officer can be heard telling him he was under arrest for "inciting to riot."

WHAT!!!!!!

I would dearly love to hear her rationale for that statement. That is absurd. If he was inciting a riot, isn't she insulting the intelligence of every person present by assuming that he was able to persuade them to act as a mob? Now, this isn't about an action he took, it is about the content of his statements, for only the content can "incite a riot." But isn't content that is not libelous or dangerous protected by the constitution? What was dangerous about his questions?

This frightens me. It should frighten you. Say goodbye to our freedom. It is now time for the police to run things. And they have badges and guns and tasers, and the ability to use them indiscriminately, and you have no right to expect to be secure in your person and possessions when you choose to be heard in the political arena.

Damn, people, wake up. It is the fate of your children we are talking about.

Epitaph - King Crimson:

The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams.
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams.
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
As silence drowns the screams.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh.
But I fear tomorrow Ill be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow Ill be crying.

Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh.
But I fear tomorrow Ill be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow Ill be crying.


conhed


Powered by ScribeFire.

No comments: