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.

 

Police State? You Betcha.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Reading recent coverage of a Neo-Nazi rally down in Florida, a couple of things jumped out at me.

Here are some articles on the subject for people to get up to speed.



www.msnbc.msn.com...

More than 300 law enforcement officers are on the scene.


(More cops than there were demonstrators and counter-demonstrators combined)



abcnews.go.com...

No members of the neo-Nazi group were arrested, police said.

Fourteen of those arrested are members of out-of-town groups such as the Skinheads Against Racial Prejudices and the Southeastern Anarchist Network, said Orlando police spokeswoman Barb Jones. All faced charges including disorderly conduct, battery on a law enforcement officer and wearing a mask, police said.


Wow. So, first, the numbers. 30 demonstrators, more than 100 counter-demonstrators, and 300 police.
I think the numbers really do speak for themselves, so I'll reserve comment and let people draw their own conclusions.

Second, the police showed up to protect the Nazis and subdue the crowd.
The arrests were SHARPs, not Nazis. There's something wrong with that picture, I think. I guess the Nazis maintained an orderly presence while calling for the extermination and/or marginalization of a large percentage of the population.


C'mon...

Somebody ought to give a medal to those counter-demonstrators. Standing up for what's right.


And if a Nazi catches a boot in the back because of it, so much the better.




posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Not really shocking the Nazi wannabees have gotten smarter and dont start the violence at these events. The are allowed to spout igonorant crap like that thanks to the First Amendment. People that come to protest the Nazi's using their constitutional rights tend to be more violent now. Now matter how much you disagree with Nazi views they are protected and you cant physically attack them. The Police have to protect them.

Dont you remember the Toledo, Ohio Roits of the Nazi protestors? Those were not the Nazis burning and looting places. When the Nazi's have a legal rally and start no violence and spark a group of blacks to riots it only proves there point.

Perhaps in the US we should just make it illegal to have rallies from groups with unpopular views. That would make it so much easier, darn that pesky constitution.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   


The Police have to protect them.


They have to respond to a call for help, but they don't have to act as an honor guard for these twits. If the cops just stayed home, you can bet the Nazis would too.



Dont you remember the Toledo, Ohio Roits of the Nazi protestors? Those were not the Nazis burning and looting places. When the Nazi's have a legal rally and start no violence and spark a group of blacks to riots it only proves there point.


Yeah, I remember. Stupid people on both sides. The looters don't give a damn about appearances. They saw an oppurtunity to get some material wealth, and they took it.



Perhaps in the US we should just make it illegal to have rallies from groups with unpopular views. That would make it so much easier, darn that pesky constitution.


Nope, bad idea (I realize you're being sarcastic). Here's a good idea. Make the Neo-Nazis wait for the cops like everyone else who gets victimized for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If I announce my intent to walk through a nearby black neigborhood banging pots and pans and shouting racial slurs at the top of my lungs, are the cops gonna protect me too? I didn't think so...

If the cops waited for an actual crime to be committed, they wouldn't have to wait long, but on the plus side, their job would be pretty much reduced to clean-up.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Second, the police showed up to protect the Nazis and subdue the crowd.
The arrests were SHARPs, not Nazis. There's something wrong with that picture, I think. I guess the Nazis maintained an orderly presence while calling for the extermination and/or marginalization of a large percentage of the population.


C'mon...

Somebody ought to give a medal to those counter-demonstrators. Standing up for what's right.


And if a Nazi catches a boot in the back because of it, so much the better.

Yes, of course, freedom of speech only suits you when it conveys your particular point of view, huh, WrydeOne? At any right, if the right to protest march was authorized and those that marched were orderly and peaceful, anything that those who were marching had to say would simply be classed as freedom of speech. Further, those who sought to forcibly deminish or hamper that freedom of speech got what was rightly due: being arrested.

Obviously, if this had been a march by SHARPs and they were calling for the extermination or marginalization of a minority of the populace, Nazis and any other type you desire, you would have no problems with it, correct? No need to respond with a 'Yes, I would' cause your "catches a boot in the back" speaks volumes for how you perceive such....hypocrisy mixed with the 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' calls of a "Police State" redux.





seekerof

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...
In times of war, the balance which may usually exist between the freedom of individuals and national security often tips in favour of the state (see also National security and rights & freedoms).

For example in the United States, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the American Civil War, Woodrow Wilson allowed many citizens to be imprisoned for sedition during World War I, and Franklin D. Roosevelt allowed many Japanese-Americans to be placed in internment camps during World War II (see Japanese American internment).

For many, the conduct of the current War on Terrorism is the latest example, with various countries including Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States responding with legislation designed to hamper the activities of potential terrorists. However, critics also point out that such legislation has the effect of hampering the legitimate actitivies of citizens, and restricting various rights and freedoms.



guantanamo bay is the closest we have come so far, holding people without charging them is akin to what happened to the japanse after ww II.

your example is just the police knowing a controversial group was planning a public demonstration, so the smartly showed up in large numbers. had they sent 12 cops, it may have been much worse.

.02



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
If I announce my intent to walk through a nearby black neigborhood banging pots and pans and shouting racial slurs at the top of my lungs, are the cops gonna protect me too? I didn't think so...


If you had a legal permit for that rally you better bet they would have to provide some security and traffic control and the like. The Nazi's get permits for all these events they just dont decide get the pots and pans lets make some blacks mad. Cops have to be theie at all these events. They cant just send say 10 cops and turn a blind eye if anything bad happens. After recent riots like those in Toledo it would negligent for them not to provide adequate security.

Thats all started with some 300 people protesting the Nazis and spread way out of control. If they were so negligent as to not provide any secruity they could be held legally accountable for damages caused.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   


Yes, of course, freedom of speech only suits you when it conveys your particular point of view, huh, WrydeOne?


Nope, Seekerof.
I just don't like Nazis, and I love seeing them get their whuppins. I support the right of Nazis to SAY whatever they want, wherever they want, however they want, for as long as they want to keep on sayin' it. I also support the rights of the citizens to run these bastards out of town to demonstrate contemporary American unwillingness to consider ideologies that call for the extermination of people based on their race or creed.



Obviously, if this had been a march by SHARPs and they were calling for the extermination or marginalization of a minority of the populace, Nazis and any other type you desire, you would have no problems with it, correct?


Incorrect. But for the record, being a Nazi isn't like being black, or one of us pesky inferior mixed gypsies, it's a poisonous ideology that has to be adopted willingly.



No need to respond with a 'Yes, I would' cause your "catches a boot in the back" speaks volumes for how you perceive such....hypocrisy mixed with the 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' calls of a "Police State" redux.




Wailing and gnashing of teeth? I see 300 cops on city time protecting 30 douchebags from more than 100 irrate citizens. Sorry, I don't see the logic there. If the Nazis insist on marching, they're on their own.

If they had their way, the country would be incinerating folks like me full time, in no time. So you'll have to excuse me when I don't jump for joy at the prospect of Nazis receiving police protection at enormous cost to the taxpayers.




posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Hey, they had the permits, they had the rights, the people who might beat the livin heck out of em were in the wrong. Remember that riot they had up North in Ohio? It wasn't a single Nazi in that crowd, all the blacks they were protesting against, and so the 'victims' become the rioting law breaking mad men that the Nazis claim them to be.

In the country you have the right to free speech, the right to be offended, and the right to be unpopular. Look at Bush, he gets offended whenever someone asks him a question and is unpopular and he is the president!



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I see 300 cops on city time protecting 30 douchebags from more than 100 irrate citizens. Sorry, I don't see the logic there. If the Nazis insist on marching, they're on their own.

The logic is this: do you know how many police were protecting the million man march or many unmentioned and unrecognized other-than-Nazi type protests--say anti-abortion marches or pro-abortion marches? As you fail to see my logic, I have failed to see yours. This is a freedom of speech and right to protest issue here, and if what they have to say as there right requires protection, then so be it. The same would be applied if the SHARPs required protection in advocating their line of freedom of speech rhetoric in a predominately white Nazi neighborhood, etc.




If they had their way, the country would be incinerating folks like me full time, in no time. So you'll have to excuse me when I don't jump for joy at the prospect of Nazis receiving police protection at enormous cost to the taxpayers.

I know what they stand for and what they preach, and 'NO', I do not agree with their extreme rhetoric and preachings. What I do believe in is the right to protest and freedom of speech, whether I agree with it or not, it is simply a matter of what is constitutionally right. Objective versus subjective here, WrydeOne.

If protection is due, just as it would be if the roles were reversed, then so be it. Accordingly, that is what those Nazi-American taxpayers pay for, since, of course, you did mention "taxpayers," correct?





seekerof

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   


The logic is this: do you know how many police were protecting the million man march or many unmentioned and unrecognized other-than-Nazi type protests--say anti-abortion marches or pro-abortion marches?


The three examples you gave aren't in the same category with Nazi rallies. Nazi speech is hate speech, and we have laws against that sort of thing. Americans are free to practice and preach their ideologies, as long as their ideologies don't threaten the lives of their fellow citizens, forment hatred, or promote violence.



This is freedom of speech and to protest, and if what they have to say as there right requires protection, then so be it.


I disagree completely with the first part of your statement, and as to the second part, other noteworthy groups touting unpopular speech provided their own protection. I'm thinking, just off the top of my head, the NOI. They didn't need the police. And for the record, neither do the SHARPs.



I know what they stand for and what they preach, and 'NO', I do not agree with their extreme rhetoric and preachings. What I do believe in is the right to protest and freedom of speech, whether I agree with it or not, it is simply a matter of what is constitutionally right. Objective versus subjective here, WrydeOne.


Again, I'm not trying to infringe on their right to make asses out of themselves in public, I'm not telling them what to think, or say, I'm not telling them they can't march, or can't protest the existence of minorities.

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their right to spout hate, one has to lay responsibility squarely where it belongs. If you scream fire in a crowded theater, you shouldn't be able to sue after you get trampled. If you are intent on telling people you think they are subhuman and should be eliminated, you should be responsible for mitigating the backlash. Poor decisions result in painful consequences.

The Nazis are gloating because they just wasted a bunch of the city's money and got a bunch of free press, not to mention had a few opponents arrested. They made a poor decision and got rewarded. Bad way to train an errant pet...

I'm also not saying that beating up a Nazi just because he's a Nazi should be legal. That's not something, obviously, that the law can make an exception for. However, if a sex offender out on parole decides he wants to do one act plays recounting his crimes, outside the homes of the victims' families, I DON'T WANT TO PAY CITY COPS TO BE HIS PRIVATE SECURITY.

The ACLU overstepped the boundaries of decency, as they are sometimes wont to do, when they sued to force municipal authorities to provide protection for these jerks during their gay little parades.



If protection is due, just as it would be if the rolls were reversed, then so be it. Accordingly, that is what even a Nazi taxpayer pays for, k?


Why can't they hire their own private protection? Why does the city have to subsidize their political agenda with this vast expenditure of money?

We're not just talking 300 salaries either, we're talking dogs and horses and choppers, oh my!
And all for what? To prevent the inevitable riot when these morons walk into some lion's den waving a pork chop? I think that's senseless.

Remove the guarantee of protection, and you remove the likelyhood of a protest, thus removing the likelyhood of a counter-protest, thus making a riot pretty unlikely. So, if the goal is preventing a riot, then the best way to do it is to spend no money! Why spend a ton of money to accomplish the same goal?



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

en.wikipedia.org...
In times of war, the balance which may usually exist between the freedom of individuals and national security often tips in favour of the state (see also National security and rights & freedoms).

For example in the United States, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the American Civil War, Woodrow Wilson allowed many citizens to be imprisoned for sedition during World War I, and Franklin D. Roosevelt allowed many Japanese-Americans to be placed in internment camps during World War II (see Japanese American internment).

For many, the conduct of the current War on Terrorism is the latest example, with various countries including Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States responding with legislation designed to hamper the activities of potential terrorists. However, critics also point out that such legislation has the effect of hampering the legitimate actitivies of citizens, and restricting various rights and freedoms.



guantanamo bay is the closest we have come so far, holding people without charging them is akin to what happened to the japanse after ww II.

your example is just the police knowing a controversial group was planning a public demonstration, so the smartly showed up in large numbers. had they sent 12 cops, it may have been much worse.

.02



Well reasoned, SHP. Of course, we're facing nothing like the threats of WWII or especially The War of Northern Aggression, although we may soon be facing much worse.

IMO these 'Nazis' are just useful idiots playing the role assigned them in the NWO's divide and conquer scheme. If they didn't exist, they would have to be created (and perhaps they were), in order to provide an enemy that makes the passing of freedom destroying laws seem necessary. We must not forget that whatever power we give to gov. to destroy those we oppose, can also be used to destroy us, our children and grandchildren.

BTW, I always wondered; How did you guys fit 'all the gifts of life' in one temple? And hands off my guitar!!



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
BTW, I always wondered; How did you guys fit 'all the gifts of life' in one temple? And hands off my guitar!!


nevermind, it doesn't fit the plan !

they have assumed control
they have assumed control
they have assumed control



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The Neo-Nazis were spreading a message of hate. I could care less if they have the right to march. We are a civilization, we don't have time for stupid Nazi messages. Sorry, but let the fools get slapped around for carrying a hate message and marching in a black neighborhood.

Sorry, but that is an abuse of the constitution. It's like me marching around spreading a message to kill other people. But as long as I quietly spread my message it's ok, despite the people it might encourage to kill others.

I'm a southern white boy/part Native American, don't think I won't flip those Neo-Nazi's off if they come spreading their rotten message in my neck of the woods.

Folks, we've got to be able to think about the situation we have at hand, before we say, "Well, the Constitution says..." The Constitution should not be something a hate group should be able to exploit to achieve their rotten purpose.

What good does their message bring? When the Nazi group changes its message to someting good, then I might be interested in their message. Untill then, they can keep their pus filled message to themselves.

Troy



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I am not a ‘NRA type’ pro Amend 2 person. I think Amend 2 applies to militias. I have been a victim of security hysteria while serving in the U.S. military. See Note 1. I have taken some (quiet) comfort in the (forlorn?) hope that an armed citizenry is less likely to be overcome by a government gone awry than an unarmed citizenry. Discounting the fate that befell a fictional account of a disarmed 1930s Germany, the fact there are so many guns in so many hands in America seems reassuring.

Part of my concern comes from a volunteer Armed Forces. There is in the background the old adage that he who pays the fiddler gets to call the tune. Add to this that soldiers are taught to follow orders instinctively - say Nuremberg - and that most of the soldiers like most of us, are not fully informed in every area. They - and we- tend to trust those in authority to know what is right and best.

Military doctrine has slowly devolved from a division and corps strategy level to a brigade and battalion strategies level. There will never be another tank battle like Kursk, the MOABs. More and more we see war being waged inside cities, house to house, as in Fallujah. Today more people are exposed to lethal force by squad or platoon strength military forces than ever before. At this level, civilians are no match for the military.

Throw in the Air Force C5A and C17 for quick transport of troops around the country, add deadly Blackhawk and Apache choppers for on-site death and destruction in unimaginable quantities with incomprehensible rapidity and the prospects that any citizen force armed with .357 Magnums or 9 mm Glochs are going to be able to resist a military tasked by errant politicos with “restoring law and order” is zero to none. Military night vision capability and computer controlled battlefields will spell a quick end to any organized resistance. Amend 2 notwithstanding. See Iraq in 2006. The IED - Improvised Explosive Devices - will be the most potent weapon a resistive citizenry can bring to bear on an Armed Force controlled via satellite out of Tampa. Which is to say, not much.

THIS IS A WORSE CASE SCENARIO - A PORTENT OF AN AMERICAN GULAG - A POLICE STATE FIAT ACCOMPLI. CHEERFULLY ACQUIESCED TO AS A NECESSITY FOR DOMESTIC SECURITY! “TRUST ME,” HE SAID.

Don W


Note 1. In 1964, post JFK tragedy, I was asked to leave the Air Force on issues unrelated to JFK. I received an Honorable Discharge. For the more informed, I did not like the AFR* paragraph under which I was discharged, but no one has ever asked me about that. So I guess it is either an esoteric item or a proprietary matter. *Air Force Regulations.

[edit on 2/27/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Be that as it may I will not go down without one hell of a fight and then I'm still not completely sure



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Second, the police showed up to protect the Nazis and subdue the crowd.
The arrests were SHARPs, not Nazis. There's something wrong with that picture, I think. I guess the Nazis maintained an orderly presence while calling for the extermination and/or marginalization of a large percentage of the population.


C'mon...

Somebody ought to give a medal to those counter-demonstrators. Standing up for what's right.



Actually, the police were correct to protect the nazis. You and I may not agree with the Nazis and their principles, however we have an obligation to protect their right to freedom of speech. I'm glad the police were there to protect their freedoms, as they would be to protect mine if I were to speak out against them.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Discounting the fate that befell a fictional account of a disarmed 1930s Germany


Thats not really true German Jews were indeed banned from owning guns having any role in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition or from being firearms dealers. The Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 applied to German citizens Jews were of course not considered German citizens under the Nazi regime.

They banned the use of arms for the people they were going to crush in Nazi Germany. Hitler wasnt trying to wipe out the German people, he was planning to do that to the Jews among others the Germans loved him he had no reason to disarm them.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   


When the Nazi's have a legal rally and start no violence and spark a group of blacks to riots it only proves there point.


I never understand this argument. Does it mean that if a few blacks riot during counter protest then all of sudden the Nazi's are right. Their ideology is totally vindicated because windows get smashed. It means all black folk are violent or prone to violence and should be considered less than human and returned to slavery. Or, are we going to pick and choose what part of their ideology becomes vindicated because windows get smashed? Something like, blacks are just more prone to violence because they are black, but they are still human just a more aggressive and violent form of human--unlike white folk. What part of their ideology does this prove? Be specific because we can sit here all day talking about they are idiots but somehow this statement always finds its way in there. It proves them right--oh no, it does not.

That's bullcrap. They are idiots with rights that shout idiotic things and wave idiotic banners that cause emotional reactions. The things that they are saying and the things on their banners are still bullcrap no matter how many riots they incite.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia


When the Nazi's have a legal rally and start no violence and spark a group of blacks to riots it only proves there point.


I never understand this argument. Does it mean that if a few blacks riot during counter protest then all of sudden the Nazi's are right. Their ideology is totally vindicated because windows get smashed. It means all black folk are violent or prone to violence and should be considered less than human and returned to slavery. Or, are we going to pick and choose what part of their ideology becomes vindicated because windows get smashed? Something like, blacks are just more prone to violence because they are black, but they are still human just a more aggressive and violent form of human--unlike white folk. What part of their ideology does this prove? Be specific because we can sit here all day talking about they are idiots but somehow this statement always finds its way in there. It proves them right--oh no, it does not.



I was talking about it only proving their point in their eyes and other like minded people. There the ones having these rallies trying to get a point across and when something like blacks roit burning stores and such happens yes in their eyes it proves their point to the world. Is that a hard concept to understand?

I dont agree with it, I never said I did.

BTW If you think most Neo Nazis want blacks "returned to slavery" you have a poor understanding of their views. The NAZIs never even had slaves, The goal of most is a White Nation free of any Blacks, jews etc.. slave or otherwise they dont want them in their view of a perfect "White Nation"



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Yes it is a hard concept to understand when you post "it proves their point"...you said nothing about it proves the point for only the nazi's or those that believe that way. It seems as though it proves the point to you at least the way you posted it.

I do understand neo-nazi's believe that they are a master race which means black people are sub-human, a train of thought adopted by the US congress in advocating the use of slavery (a slippery slope). Tis crap on any scale especially when these nazi's are borrowing the tactic of marching in opposition neighborhoods from MLK and the civil rights movement. MLK did it to put a spotlight on the hatred in those communities but they do it in some wack form of reverse hatred--they bring the hate to get the desired reaction. It proves nothing but hate begets hate because people aren't running around breaking windows everyday, are they now? To call it anything other than a perversion and a intrusion is unacceptable. It proves nothing and anyone that believes it does has his/her own issues that they need to work out.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join