It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Tear Gas used at Inauguration

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
There was a point in the inaugural procession where the vehicles and Secret Service increased their pace. No reason was really given for this, however reports indicate that it was due to a few dozen protesters who were hurling debris and attempting to break down the security fence. Tear gas was used to disperse this crowd of a few hundred protesters.
 



www.theaustralian.news.com.au
POLICE sprayed tear gas to disperse demonstrators who hurled debris and tried to break through a security fence keeping protesters away from US President George W. Bush's inaugural parade in Wahsington today.

Several dozen protesters thronged towards the security fence, lobbing bottles, rubbish and snowballs at police, witnesses said.

More than 100 police officers were at the scene where hundreds of protesters had gathered.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Wow......I guess we can trust our nations media to be impartial and critical regarding events that have an implication towards how we view our political events. Amazing how not a single mention was made....I was watching the procession live. Though I disprove of the "hurling of debris," we should have heard about this....why was it blacked out?

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Banshee]




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
We all know bush doesnt want to hear any bad news, and probably doesnt want any of us to hear it either, lest it tarnish his gleaming image. I wonder if this will up the already soaring tab for this self-indulgrant spree of Herr Bush's?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I watched it in the UK on Sky TV - they openly reported the crowd trouble.

We saw the barriers broken down in a couple of places, and something being spreayed into the crowd. It looked like a small water cannon. Was it tear gas? Dunno.

In another instance we saw a section of fence come don, and one of the Men in Black raise his arm to strike someone - then he refrained.

Watching this, Bush looked weak and pathetic. He was in a bomb-proof car travelling though his capital city. Clearly it wasn't safe for him to be out in public view.

It was only towards the end when he was ina safer place that he got out and did the waving and smiling bit.

This wasn't spontaneous either - it was clearly a scheduled move. This was made obvious when the car door was flung open for him and he wash ushered back into safety.

The image I saw was the leader of the free world a prisoner in his car. Unable to meet the people for fear of his safety.

What chance has he of spreading freedom and liberty when he isn't free himself in the very seat of his power.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I posted the video to this last night in Multimedia Uploads:

DC Police Use Pepper Spray on protesters

They really seemed trigger happy with that spray.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The stakes were high. . .



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
If the protesters broke down the barriers wouldn't they have been viewed as a threat? I'm mean the barriers are there for a reason. Im all for peaceful protest but if you break down a barrier then you encroach on ground the Police have to protect and should expect to be dealt with harshly.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

as posted by MemoryShock
Wow......I guess we can trust our nations media to be impartial and critical regarding events that have an implication towards how we view our political events.



Perhaps you weren't looking hard enough?
Perhaps your search engine is malfunctioning?
Dunno, really, but it was covered.
Tear Gas used at Inauguration

Interesting how this event is such a "big" deal, anyhow, unless of course, you support the activities of those protesting.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Wow......I guess we can trust our nations media to be impartial and critical regarding events that have an implication towards how we view our political events. Amazing how not a single mention was made....I was watching the procession live. Though I disprove of the "hurling of debris," we should have heard about this....why was it blacked out?

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Banshee]


Guess you weren't watching C-SPAN then? They showed live coverage of the protestors throughout the parade. They even showed the highlights several more times throughout the day.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Wow......I guess we can trust our nations media to be impartial and critical regarding events that have an implication towards how we view our political events. Amazing how not a single mention was made....I was watching the procession live. Though I disprove of the "hurling of debris," we should have heard about this....why was it blacked out?


I actually saw this on regular news....but they treated it as above..."no big deal".

Well, maybe I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit of an extreme action response to throwing a little debris? Guess so...
Now, if they were throwing molotav cocktails? Well, that's a different story....but no, I didn't see any of that. I think it speaks volumes that so many booed and threw things at the thought of this idiot representing us to the world again...



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I find it very interesting that we "Americans" accept the concept of free speech zones. Zones where you can protest and exercise your 1st amendment right. The area the protestor occupied where designated free speech zones. Doesn’t this go against the whole concept of protesting even more, doesn’t this go against the whole concept of freedom of speech? What the government says is that you can only exercise your 1st amendment right where you won’t offend anyone. From my understanding, the first amendment protects speech you do not agree with. I personally think people in the protests are committed to their cause, but to allow protests to confined to obscure areas of town, away for public view, defeats the purpose



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ohplease
I find it very interesting that we "Americans" accept the concept of free speech zones. Zones where you can protest and exercise your 1st amendment right. The area the protestor occupied where designated free speech zones. Doesn’t this go against the whole concept of protesting even more, doesn’t this go against the whole concept of freedom of speech? What the government says is that you can only exercise your 1st amendment right where you won’t offend anyone. From my understanding, the first amendment protects speech you do not agree with. I personally think people in the protests are committed to their cause, but to allow protests to confined to obscure areas of town, away for public view, defeats the purpose


Protesting is a privledge, didnt you know that.. just ask mayor Bloomberg.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Be glad that it was only tear gas, used because it was orders to used any means to keep the crow subdue.


And control......................



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ohplease
I find it very interesting that we "Americans" accept the concept of free speech zones. Zones where you can protest and exercise your 1st amendment right. The area the protestor occupied where designated free speech zones. Doesn’t this go against the whole concept of protesting even more, doesn’t this go against the whole concept of freedom of speech? What the government says is that you can only exercise your 1st amendment right where you won’t offend anyone. From my understanding, the first amendment protects speech you do not agree with. I personally think people in the protests are committed to their cause, but to allow protests to confined to obscure areas of town, away for public view, defeats the purpose



You have no clue do you?

You say talk about these "Free Speech Zones" like they were a bad thing.
Since you obviously have no idea how everything was set up, let me explain. Thoughout the parade route were bleachers. These bleachers lined the whole parade route, however, at certain points (not in front of the bleachers but) there were areas were protesters were allowed to protest and excercise their right. These areas were along the parade route not in some obscure area (how do you think debris was thrown at the cars?).

Protesters weren't limited to these areas, but those areas were specifically for them.


As far as the use of tear gas....
Who cares!?
Good.
There were breaking down a barrier that kept everyone out not just them. What do you think would have happened had they been successful?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Keep the littler children away from harm inside their force playpens, democracy in action and in control.

Yes people we are a Democratic nation in wish your rights to protest are monitor and in control.

Yes you still can protest but better follow the guidelines or else.

I understand now


Who said we don't have freedom anymore? as long as is behind barb wire.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Perhaps you weren't looking hard enough?
Perhaps your search engine is malfunctioning?
Dunno, really, but it was covered.
Tear Gas used at Inauguration

Interesting how this event is such a "big" deal, anyhow, unless of course, you support the activities of those protesting.

seekerof


I accept that there was coverage of this; BTW your source is an australian source as well, my point was the American media so stop throwing details around unless you're going to use them all. But my point may still stand in that coverage wasn't live on the networks(C-span, alright, their veiwership is in how many hundreds?) and was hardly given mention in my newspapers, relegated to the back of the main section. Point being that it was apparently more important to highlight the surface value of having a president rather than give attention to why people have a problem with dubya. This inauguration was the most expensive in history, a celebration of a president who lied about Iraq in tandem with other high officials. A president who repeats the words terror and freedom over and over, as if these now generalized terms are going to distract from his mistakes......though in time I suppose historians will be inclined to continue this trend. This was a celebration of what? The fact that he won another controversial election? Let's assume that he did win fairly.....there's half of America that isn't happy with Bush and regardless of how much you love the man, that's a big number and worth allotting attention to.

Point being that, as usual, our nation glazes over the issues in favor of rejoicing idealisms; Republican or Democrat; Liberal or Conservative; doesn't matter - We as a nation seem to care more about "keeping our chin up," and "putting on a happy face," rather than acknowledge the possibility that those in power(with how much more money than the average american?)have a different agenda.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 21-1-2005 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 21-1-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Well, now that the fuss is over and I could stop playing phone tag, here's what happened to those horrible, horrible policemen regarding the peace-loving protesters.

One officer got a broken arm when protesters knocked the fence over and trampled across it and anything that was caught underneath it -- like the cop's arm.
Two officers had to be treated after receiving "Seattle facials" -- urine, cayenne pepper, vegetable oil, bleach, and other nastiness.
Numerous officers were treated for bruises and cuts after the barricade incidents.

Bottles and rocks were thrown at both police and random civilians in the crowd. Unknown number of injuries from those.
Additional property damage from the protesters in the form of broken windows and things being set on fire.

There were a couple large groups who were marching in the street in front of Union Station without a permit and blocking traffic.
They were allowed to protest, despite breaking the law, and after an hour or so finally agreed to move to the sidewalks.

Several protesters physically attacked people trying to enter the Inaugural Ball.

WAY TO GO!!!
Peaceful protests my hind end.

I appreciate the right to assemble and protest a cause, but the key word here is "PEACEFULLY" assemble. It doesn't mean hurt people or break their things.
If you think that kinda stuff is right, I invite you to head down to DC during any protest-heavy event
(IMF meetings, anyone?)
and take your kids with you. Walk through the streets. Try to go shopping or go out to eat.
Wanna gamble on getting hit by a flying rock from these "peaceful" sorts? Or maybe your car windows can be shattered.
I mean, really.
If freedom means people like this can hurt me or my friends or break the stuff I bought, then I don't like that version of freedom. You can keep it.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Wake up you loser Democrats!



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Banshee, well done for presenting the facts!!!!


BTW, i was there since tuesday and returned from Washington just now. I went with a group of 70 people from the Miami/Hialeah area. One of the old people that was with us was wearing an american flag as a tie, one of the protesters got a hold of the tie and was choking this poor old man with it. A police officer got to this protester before i did, and the police officer proceeded to grab the protester and pulled him away from the main area.

If i had gotten there i would have beaten the living crap out of this freaking idiot for attacking an old man. This man was around 75 years old, i never asked him his age, but he couldn't even hurt a fly even if he wanted to. I did noticed that most of the people protesting very quickly resorted to violence which included some groups burning almost anything they could find, including an American flag.

Many of the protesters were just taken away to the area where they were supposed to be, even though they broke the law and quite a few resorted to violence which included pushing Republicans around and trying to instigate fights, not only with police officers, and even then, there were actually only 12 protesters who were arrested that i know of.

There were very few protesters that were peaceful and that you could actually talk with to find their reason for protesting, without them getting violent, but most of these idiots were a clear example why liberals are not taken seriously..... and liberals want to be seen as a peaceful crowd....


[edit on 23-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Thanks Banshee and Muad'Dib for exposing these 'peaceful protesters' for the scumbags (I'm being way too kind with that word) that they are. These people have no respect for life or the law, how can we take even one word they say seriously? They deserve to be locked up for their actions.

[edit on 1/23/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Funny, for these groups that proclaim themselves on the side of peace to be so violent. The groups than virtualy held seige and wrecked part of downtown Seattle. :shk: The one that throw crap (actuall crap) then run to the nearest guy in a camera and scream police brutality. :shk: Given the number of wounded in the police force, it seems that they (The police) should be aplauded for showing some restraint. :shk:

Im all for the right to protest, but once you start disrupting, vandalizing, or throwing feces like a monkey in a zoo, as far as I am concerned that right is over.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join