Griff, the article at the latest link posted by esdad71 is about a different guy. It's not about Mr. Howards!

[edit on 10/16/2006 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by Griff
And that is the problem isn't it? Maybe these royals should just keep closed up in their palaces then if they feel EVERYONE is a threat.

Edit: If they wern't so corrupt...then maybe they wouldn't feel every citizen is a threat?

That's not partizan.....they are all corrupt.

No, the secret service take no chances because thats their job not too. When it comes to the security and saftey of a head of state figure, you do not take chances and leave no stone unturned, its just secret service policy, not Dick Cheneys. Would you have thought John Hinkley Jr. was a threat by the looks of him? No, but he was, looks can be decieving and that is why no chances are taken with the security of POTUS or the VP, or any other government official protected by the secret service.

The real question in this disgracefull situation is Who broke the Law.

Let's start at the beginning.

Mr. Howard met VP Cheney on the street and told him that he disagrees with gov. policy in Iraq.
Did he brake the Law. NO. He was excercising his right to free speach.

Later Mr. Howard was aproached by SS Agent who asked him if he assaulted VP Cheney. Mr. Howard responded NO (maner of response is open to debate). We know that Law Enforcement officers (and especialy SS Agents) have quite a large arsenal of authority to their discretion. Did SS Agent brake any Law or missuse his powes. NO. Did he acted like a moron? ABSOLUTELY.

So who did brake the Law?

The one who made a false report or accusation (about assault) which triggered this chain of events.
And who was that?
Yes boys and girls. It was the good old Dick.

Everything else is smoke, mirrors and damage control.


[edit on 17-10-2006 by yanchek]

I guess the emperor doesn't really like his new outfit. The emperor doth protest too loudly.

I posted the second artilce to show that there are rules that are attempted to be applied when specifc people (POTUS and VP) are present post 9/11. It is a different world, and anyone is a potential attacker or terrorist.

Cheney had nothing to do with it. It is protocol for the USSS to investigate what they feel may be a threat. hte one stone unturned can bite you in the arse if it is not kept in check, and that is all that happened here. No rights violations, no first amendment supression. Remember, he was arrested on suspicion of assault, which was reduced to harrasment. The charges were dropped not because the USSS wanted to hide something, but because the threat was not there, and why waste the time and energy. If anything the USSS saved the court system a little time for real crime.

Originally posted by dubiousone
Griff, the article at the latest link posted by esdad71 is about a different guy. It's not about Mr. Howards!

[edit on 10/16/2006 by dubiousone]

Oh, I need to start reading peoples links....doh. That's twice in one day that I did that and just took the word of someone else. I'll try not to do it again.

Actually, the rules would apply in the Howard case also.

So, let me get this straight. It's ok to shake hands with the VP but not say anything that would be considered protesting? So, when is the VP suppossed to hear what people are not happy with?

Originally posted by esdad71
Cheney had nothing to do with it. It is protocol for the USSS to investigate what they feel may be a threat.

So why did SS Agent aproached Mr. Howard with direct question "Did you assault VP Cheney"? He was clearly responding to a direct order by someone to investigate a possible assault.
Who gave the order?

[edit on 17-10-2006 by yanchek]

I am talking about security, not a forum where the VP can Q & A with citizens. If you do not get it by now, nothing I can atmtept to explain will help. I stand by the fact that I feel the USSS did nothing wrong but protect their assisgnment.

There were numerous other people according to the articles who did jsut what you are asking, go up and say something to Cheney, so what did Howard do to perk the interest of the USSS? They geenrally do not jsut jump off at nothing. THere are 2 conflicting stories, and hopefully in a few months if this comes to trial we will have more information.

Till then...

esdad71, you keep saying the same thing. Have you read anybody's posts on this thread? Have you made the slightest effort to understand what they are saying? Nothing seems to get through your filters.

The SS or, as you insist, the USSS, hasn't stated a version of what happened. Why not? How long does it take them to figure out how to express in intelligible terms what they observed and heard. Descriptions such as "argumentative" and "combative" tell us nothing beyond the SS's self-serving spin on the matter.

We have only one version of the actions and words of Mr. Howards . . . Mr. Howards' version. The SS has not contradicted him one iota.

What did Howards say that can be characterized as "argumentative"?

What did Howards do that can be characterized as "combative"?

There could be a debate about this if the SS said something of substance. Maybe they're waiting until everyone forgets what really happened before they publish their make-believe version of the event.

I'm getting numb from reading that your believe the SS wouldn't do what they did unless they were justified in doing it.

Maybe I'm not understanding you. Are you saying we should accept at face value whatever the SS, Cheney, and other officials say? Are you saying that we shouldn't question authority? That's how your posts are coming across.

[edit on 10/17/2006 by dubiousone]

I have stated that the truth will come out in the trial when they are called to testify in my last psot.

My stand is this. The USSS did nothing outside of the norm, and it makes me numb to think that many of you think they did something wrong. Mr Howards was not injured, or harmed in the act of the arrest. I am standing by the original article that was published about this event that states he was combative and argumentitive after 'returning' to where Cheney was. He said his peace, and then he came back? Why?

That is the question I keep asking myself. He came back, and when questioned, he became argumentive and combative. When he first passed Cheney, if he would have been detained, I could see your side a little clearer that this man did nothing but make a statement, which is fine and should not be questioned by anyone.

He was detained for his actions, not his words. Does that make it any clearer on how I am looking at this?

Your position is clear. Authority is its own justification. I think I understand perfectly.

It won't go to trial. They'll settle just to cover their asses and avoid having to admit or lie under oath about what they did or what their superiors told them to do.

That is a very cynical and biased view that you have dubiousone, writing it off before it is over but first making a big deal about it. Why even care if you have already, in your head, closed the case? Did you not understand the point I was making about why he as questioned? It was for his actions, not for what he said. He is suing because of 1st amendmant infringement. Please tell me how it fits?

Like I said, lets wait and see what happens at the trial. My views are not odd in any way.

I will be interested to learn of the outcome.

I wonder whether the official story will ever amount to more than conclusory descriptions such as "argumentative" and "combative", which terms are nothing more than a ploy to allow the SS to suck and jive as the needs of the moment dictate.

It's been an interesting exchange on more than one level.

[edit on 10/17/2006 by dubiousone]