posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:28 AM
A public protest (spontaneous or otherwise) is a form of speech, protected constitutionally, unless the authorities had reasonable evidence which
could be expressed to a judge to prohibit it, they lack the power to 'decide' to cripple public communication systems upon which at least tens of
thousands rely. There is a jurisdictional matter of state and local ordinances, in which excessively pandering city councils and boards often
'grant' such authority to the militancy under exigent circumstances, like a riot, gang war, or disaster (It is usually a "political" mistake to
resist or question "business as usual")
I understand the outrage evoked by such an act, however, to have overlooked this as a likely development in the posturing between an increasingly
authoritarian state, and her increasingly disaffected people seems naive on the part of the protest organizers. Assuming the forms of civil redress
were obeyed, the protest wasn't a surprise which could have misinterpreted as a threat to "security."
For one thing, the police, and establishment political appointees, will seemingly always choose to identify public dissent and political or social
unrest as opportunities for malfeasance. It might be justifiably erring on the side of caution, from a certain perspective. However, let's not
pretend we don't know of increasing occurrences where such gatherings took place and the 'threat' was actually the official act of agent
provocateurs, or 'taunting' by contracted uniformed police contractors.
The situation was clearly one of a desire to make a statement and the authorities (knowing in advance) refusing them their right (by removing the
ability) to do so. Of course, some judge may have been just as inclined to carry the establishment's will over in to action anyway; one can never be
guaranteed that a Justice is in anyway obliged to see the symbolic relevance of his title.
Sadly, in such cases where the subject of the protest has the 'presumed' authority, access, and means to eliminate dissent against themselves, the
only avenue of redress is another authority... which is closely aligned with and traditionally supportive of the object of the protest.
Is it an wonder people get agitated? If you listen to their press it would seem so. If we speak with each other, explain ourselves, and share our
thoughts and experiences, the control model is threatened.
I would be remiss in not pointing out the 'tin-foil hat' potential of this as well.....
Recently we have seen (or have been told by the main stream media, at least) that people have been engaging in riots, violent upheavals, gang
activities (which is the label the previously amusing and fun "flash mobs" are now universally given.) All over the world the application of mass
real time person to person communication tools have reaffirmed the existing power behind popular will. From Bahrain to the United Kingdom we have
seen that when people begin to commune with one another, the standing establishments are challenged to be the 'servants' they were supposed to be,
as opposed to the 'masters' they have become (or at least that they would assume themselves to be.)
Has anyone considered that this technique may be 'controlled,' 'instigated,' 'studied,' or even 'applied?'
Rest assured, even if you are disinclined to believe it; it remains a troubling possibility.
What happens if some cabal of the military industrial complex, some enterprise of the 'branding' behind the NWO, or even some petty manipulative
'revenge' scenario is playing out - using our (ostensible) sovereign communications as a 'tool?' If you think that hasn't occurred previously,
you should ask around... it has.
footnote: I do not envy the foot soldiers of their power. For they are obliged to carry out the plans of their leaders, whether or not they consent
is irrelevant. They may believe the same lies and misinformation they foist upon the press puppeteers.
In either case, I agree the action was worse than wrong... but I wonder if it will even get legal "legs".... only the BAR controls that.