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.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
More than 300 law enforcement officers are on the scene.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Yes, of course, freedom of speech only suits you when it conveys your particular point of view, huh, WrydeOne?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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 rolls were reversed, then so be it. Accordingly, that is what even a Nazi taxpayer pays for, k?
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
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.
Originally posted by donwhite
Discounting the fate that befell a fictional account of a disarmed 1930s Germany
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.
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.