Sunday, April 13, 2008
The DC cops violate the First Amendment
Why do the police feel moved to do such stupid things?
Repeat after me, with special emphasis on the italicized part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I consider myself a practical libertarian, and absolutely recognize that the right to dance in silence (an obscure Thomas Pynchon reference -- see The Crying of Lot 49) at the Jefferson Memorial is of small importance. It is also entirely harmless, and therefore its infringement by the police is much more intrusive and offensive than the warrantless tapping of phone calls and emails between suspected jihadis. People would be a lot less worked up over the NSA dropping eaves on jihadis if our own cops were not such blockheads.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
7 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Sun Apr 13, 02:40:00 PM:
Interesting given the swell fo folks here for the World Bank/IMF meetings (as Dean Wormer said in Animal House "Every spring, the toilets explode...") and with the Pope on his way.
(Oh and my Hoya colleague prof. Mike Eric Dyson is FINALLY coming to campus to do something--a poetry event--and maybe teach some classes...the dancing or isruptive throngs on 36th and O streets will be too much for the Metropolitan Police Department to handle...)
By 
, at
Sun Apr 13, 04:02:00 PM:
than the warrantless tapping of phone calls and emails between suspected jihadis. People would be a lot less worked up over the NSA dropping eaves on jihadis if our own cops were not such blockheads.
I expect better than this from you. We're concerned about indefinite electronic surveillance of US citizens. No one is fighting this anti-surveillance war to protect obvious jihadists in foreign countries from surveillance, and to imply so is about the most offensive mistake you could make.
Your lack of knowledge here probably reflects the freedom that Republican politicians and conservative pundits feel to lie about our motives, goals, and the effect of the legal safeguards we need.
Still, you should be able to see the connection here. We have no more recourse once targeted by the National Security State than do the harmless geeks in your story.
By , at
Sun Apr 13, 04:08:00 PM:
Ah, I see you're promoting that Andy McCarthy. That explains a lot: I've never seen him make a post on the Corner that doesn't maliciously misrepresent and cariacture the arguments of his opponents.
Have fun selling your privacy rights over to law enforcement on his behest.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sun Apr 13, 05:11:00 PM:
By the way, McCarthy is yet another creature of this cycling and recycling of glistening pink nubs like Jonah Goldberg into pseudo public intellectuals. Sad but true. I'd actually have no problem with it if those Republicans and wingnuts who promote this stuff would just be honest about from whence it issued from the ooze, and it's purpose. Yet many of these people are the same folk who think the Confederacy and firing on the American flag at Ft. Sumter was some sort of freedom's birth cry, rather than a vile political temper tantrum. hahaha
By , at
Sun Apr 13, 07:08:00 PM:
"No one is fighting this anti-surveillance war to protect obvious jihadists in foreign countries from surveillance, and to imply so is about the most offensive mistake you could make."
So once obvious jihadis get to the US, they can talk to whomever they want about whatever they want without fear of being overheard because listening would be wrong.
"Oh but Dawnfire, that's what warrants are for!"
Warrants have to be supported by evidence. And 'a trusted spy in Pakistan said this guy is a terrorist' might count, if it weren't classified to keep said spy from being discovered, tortured, and executed.
Your lack of knowledge here probably reflects the freedom that Democratic politicians and liberal pundits feel to lie about our enemies' means and goals, and the worthlessness of our typical law enforcement in combating them.
Chrissy: You might find this worthwhile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
This too.
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrative-Fort-Sumter-Perryville/dp/0394746236/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208128078&sr=1-2
By davod, at
Sun Apr 13, 07:28:00 PM:
Megan and her friends are Maoist sympathizers. This was done in an effort to show moral equivalence with the Chinese predations in Tibet.
This was a Federal US Park Police issue not a DC police issue. I would not be surprised to hear that Bush and Cheney were supervising the Park Police.
By , at
Mon Apr 14, 12:12:00 AM:
Was free vodka offered up here when the initial post was made, and as I'm late I missed all the fun?
What a bunch of non-sensical posts followed!
