OMG...late night DC action...bricks thrown into RIGGS BANK windows....

[diamond14]

http://dc.indymedia.org/

Backup link for DC Indymedia site...which has been overloaded a lot and won't refresh for breaking news...
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/308466.shtml


12:30am New reports from Columbia Road/18th street says bricks were thrown, windows broken at Riggs Bank on Columbia Road; Protesters were hemmed into one end of an alley; 100 to 150 arrests appear to have been made; some marchers managed to slip out of the alley; witnesses saw people already arrested and restrained being pepper-sprayed; in addition to those already arrested, another approximately 50 protesters were on their knees and restrained in an alley just off Columbia Road;

January 21: 12:09am The two buses on 18th street are gone, as are a group of protestors who were arrested; police seem to be about to disperse;

11:59pm Police have assaulted DC Radio Co-Op reporter Darby Hickey for the second time during the day; police warned the reporter to "take a walk" and leave the scene, and then she was shoved; 30 more riot cops marched up to the scene and more arrests are taking place; the entire section of Columbia Road has been shut down, and the number of arrests appears to be in excess of 50 people;

11:52pm March turned onto 18th Street and marchers were blocked in; heavily-armed police are now detaining and arresting demonstrators, and there are 2 buses parked on 18th and another 4 buses parked on Columbia, but so far nobody has been placed in the buses; a helicopter is overhead spotlighting the scene;

11:46pm 100 riot police forming up at 18th and Belmont, and all roads and allies off Columbia Road are being closed off; protesters are now pinned in and are not allowed to leave;

11:22pm Large march of 150 or more people is now moving down Columbia Road through Adams Morgan; they have occupied the entire left lane of the road approaching 18th and Columbia, chanting "Bring the War Home"; the marchers are converging on a hotel;

More Breaking News

[Liberty Belle]

1. Kick! Keep this up for the a.m. folks to see.

:kick:

[Judi Lynn]

2. They dared to boo the pResident on his inauguration day.

Wouldn't have looked right not to give them as much trouble as possible.

I'll bet the orders to start chasing them around came from the White House. They were definitely very circumspect when I saw them on C-Span for a couple of hours or more, waiting for the pRes. to drive by.

[tx_dem41]

8. Yep.....wouldn't have looked right not to have committed some good

old-fashioned patriotic vandalism. :eyes:

I hope those reports are either false or committed by a very, very small minority of protesters I still hope to respect when all is said and done.

[dmr]

10. or done by paid goons to make us look bad

I put nothing past these people. They paid goons during the Viet Nam protests to not only bash a few heads in, but do other acts of violence.

[tx_dem41]

11. You're the first person to suggest that on this thread.

Others seem okay with it. Good thought you bring up though.

[notadmblnd]

95. i was thinking the same thing

but the other thought I have is that.. wouldn't be convenient time to make some records/accounts disappear. I can see the headlines now.

Hundreds of documents and records were distroyed when protesters vandalized Riggs Bank. Authorities say the missing records have put a halt into the investigation of money laundering and the search for hidden accounts of former dictator Pinochet.

[Karenina]

13. You might read up

on Who's who at Riggs...

[tx_dem41]

14. I have....

and I stand by my statement and non-violent principles.

[seemslikeadream]

47. Many Germans felt that way too

or at least that was their excuse for not admitting to the smell of burning flesh.

Riggs and Equatorial Guinea
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=9558&mesg_id=11993&page=

Threads on Equatorial Guinea
Thatcher: Spain 'secretly backed coup by sending warships'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thatcher case twist as list of alleged coup backers vanishes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Mark Thatcher: The money trail
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Financiers conspired to overthrow oil-flush African government
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Scorpions say have more info on Equatorial Guinea coup
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Exiled leader in Spain denies any link to coup attempt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Bank with close ties to Bush administration engulfed in scandal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
NEW details of Thatcher coup plot: London Evening Standard
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Margaret Thatcher's Son Released on Coup Plot Charges (Update2)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Mark Thatcher held over coup plot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
BBC News: Thatcher charged
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
'Petroleum lures dogs of war to Africa'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Terrorist Stocks?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Du Toit admits meeting Thatcher
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
SEC probes Marathon Oil payments in Equitorial Guinea (and HQ burns down)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
WaPo: Allbritton Loses Riggs Bank (front page, day 3)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=9558&mesg_id=18254&page=

Threads on Equatorial Guinea part 2

E Guinea 'coup plot' verdict due + update/result
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
I feel like a corpse in a river, says Mark Thatcher as he faces court...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thatcher to face coup questions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Phone links Thatcher to alleged plot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
There was no coup plot, says Du Toit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thatcher to ask Britain to help halt extradition
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thatcher charged over coup plot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thatcher to be tried in absentia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Britain knew in advance of Equatorial Guinea coup plot: report
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Tories Demand Answers on 'Coup Plot'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Mandelson faces questioning over 'link' to coup plot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Legal Woes Cut Into Bottom Line at Riggs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Mugabe flies to Equatorial Guinea (coup plot latest)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Despots, Deposits & Directors - Riggs Bank
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
SABC asks to broadcast Thatcher court case
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Spain calls on EU to warn Equatorial Guinea - Riggs Bank
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Raids 'break up' £20m theft gang
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thatcher coup plot: Mandelson, CIA & State Department named
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Archer 'link to coup plot'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Britain accused of failing to investigate Africa coup
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Pentagon link to Guinea coup plot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

working links here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=9558&mesg_id=25607&page=

So are you saying you will never raise your hand to protect yourself?
When will YOU fight for YOUR freedom, only when they are breaking down YOUR door?

[tx_dem41]

50. If you feel that the only way to protest Riggs is to...

throw a brick through one of their windows, perhaps you are unprepared for true, effective protest.

As for non-violent principles, it brought the British Empire to its knees in India and 100-year Jim Crow laws to an end in the South. If you wish to belittle Gandhi and MLK on DU, be my guest. Just don't ask me to condone it.

[seemslikeadream]

55. Please answer my question

So are you saying you will never raise your hand to protect yourself?
When will YOU fight for YOUR freedom, only when they are breaking down YOUR door?

And as you can tell by reading my post, no I don't think violence is the only way. I've posted some stuff about Riggs (non-violently), what have you done?

I've never belittle Gandhi and MLK on DU

[tx_dem41]

56. Personally, I have never run across a situation in my life...

where violence was a better and more effective alternative than non-violence. And, that personal belief transcends my political belief.

I have engaged in several non-violent protests including at embassies (re: Apartheid in South Africa) and against businesses that were propping up the tyranny that was East Timor. Both of those non-violent movements achieved their goal. I am ready to do the same in the latest movements, and I appreciate your non-violent efforts in supporting those.

I'm sorry for missing your question at the bottom of the links. And, I do appreciate the work into making that list. I will try to read some this weekend. Thanks.

[aneerkoinos]

62. Gandhi

Nothing is absolute, not even the principle of non-violence; and even Gandhi himself didn't condemn violence as immoral when he said that "it is better to be violent than to be a coward, if one hasn't the strength for non-violence". I'm open to the idea that uncontrolled aggression is allways morally condemnable, since I can't imagine a situation where it would lead to anything positive.

But that is beside the point, Gandhi's victory was based on creating mass movement of breaking the law and utterly disrespecting the perfectly legal property rights of colonial corporations. Against that, physical destruction of property is a moot point, in most cases it's nothing but counter-productive vandalism, sign of frustration, not of a will to win.

[Clark2008]

74. This is true

My father was a server in a cafeteria in the south in which the now infamous Marion Berry 'sat in.'
They didn't yell or scream or raise fists. That sat at the lunch counter, along with the white people, most of whom were appalled. My dad, a whip of 17, didn't know what to do. He gave 'em coffee, got fussed at. But, hell... they were paying.
It worked, is all I can say.

[Occulus]

93. All right, I can accept that.

Now, that said, where, exactly, is your own, personal "thin red line"?

Reread the Declaration of Independence, and pay attention to the two sentences coming immediately after the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and then consider my question.

[purduejake]

3. What in the hell do they expect when they corner people...

and pepper spray people who have already submitted to arrest?

[tx_dem41]

7. I wouldn't expect them to commit vandalism against a third party.

I guess I thought better of their characters than you did. Alas, you might be right about a few (hopefully very few) of them.

[bowens43]

9. "The tree of liberty

must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Maybe that time has come.

[tx_dem41]

12. Yes....sadly, many times the great TJ's words...

have been used to justify thuggery. I hope in this case, it is a very isolated occurrence.


I have read extensively about the Revolution and pre-Revolutionary time. I can't remember a time when colonists resorted to intentional bloodshed. And the few times they resorted to property vandalism were few and far between (such as the Boston Tea Party...at least there they were attacking the direct target of their protest). When such property vandalism did occur it was usually met with a great deal of chastened introspection and reassessment of goals (away from it).

But, go ahead...bust a few windows. Its sooooo DAMNED patriotic.:eyes:

[Wiley50]

15. Google Riggs Bank Bush Family

This is NO third party

[tx_dem41]

16. I know the story. It doesn't change my sentiment.

I am committed to and a veteran of non-violent protest. If you feel like you need to pre-emptively commit violence to "get your way", feel free to. Just don't drag down the Progressive movement in your quest, please. The pre-emptive use of violence should remain a trait of the Conservatives and Facists, so please keep trending that way.

[aneerkoinos]

18. Violence

Is a strong word for breaking things. I would preserve that word for intentionally harming living beings. Corporations and other legal persons are not living beings, they are just harmfull entities.

Destruction of material things can be powerfull tactic, if used wisely, and not condemnable as such - unless one shares the belief in Holy Ownership. But breaking a window is not very efficient, it's not productive tactic, it's just not a big deal.

[tx_dem41]

19. That's a very convenient way of looking at things.

Would you say the same about a person's house, clothing, books, etc? I commend you for at least trying to put a left-oriented spin on an act that is facistic in nature.

[aneerkoinos]

25. No

I don't equal legal persons such as corporations with living beings & persons.

So your answer is "convenient", "spin" and "fascism", in an attempt to personilize the argument and show the superiority of your moral dogmas over my presumably lower moral standards. Well done!

Yet these things cannot be oversimplified. E.g. is the holiness of Holy Possession so holy to you that you wouldn't destroy a weapon belonging to an other person in a situation where you knew that violating other persons property rights would save some other person from injury or death? Do you really put property rights above compassion towards other living beings, or are there exceptions to your dogma of harm no possession?

As for fascism, no, vandalism is not fascist, fascism is political ideology, vandalism is vandalism.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

26. Violence because you dislike their politics is entirely fascist

It's exactly what the brown shirts used in Germany. In fact, window breaking was their specialty.

There are always exceptions to rules. If I am driving down the road and a child runs out in front of my car, I will try to hit something else, even something that belongs to another.

But deliberately seeking to harm the property of another out of ideology is fascism.

[aneerkoinos]

30. Fascism

I advice you to check up what fascism means, any common definition will do.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

31. And I advise you

To oppose acts of violence.

[aneerkoinos]

35. Well

In my country, which has conscript army, I've refused to service in the armed forces on the grounds of moral conviction, so under common definition that makes me an ideological pacifist.

So you can keep your uppity advice to yourself.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

37. Uppity advice

In case you didn't notice, you were the first in that category.

So, which nation are you from?

[aneerkoinos]

38. Duh

You can take a factual correction re meaning of the word fascism as uppity advice, thats your choise, but in any case it's of different order of uppitiness from moralizing lecturing.

I'm Finn.

[tx_dem41]

27. For one thing....

I should have put a paragraph break in my post. The charge of fascism was not meant to be personal at all, only ideological.

As for the following:

"E.g. is the holiness of Holy Possession so holy to you that you wouldn't destroy a weapon belonging to an other person in a situation where you knew that violating other persons property rights would save some other person from injury or death?"

I know a recent President who thought the EXACT same way about things. His re-inauguration was protested yesterday.

[aneerkoinos]

33. Gullibility

I see you believe the real reasons for invasion of Iraq where the ones stated for fear-mongering propaganda reasons. What does believing in such obviously Goebbelsian lies make you? Or was that just a rhetorical stunt for collecting points in some rhetorical game?

I also see that you refuse to take back the charges of "conventionality" and "spin", meant to be very personal. All the best for your self-righteouss superiority... :)

BTW, out of curiosity, does your ideology of Holy Corporate Property mean that if by chance a democratic majority would choose to collectivise such property and destroy some corporations by disbanding them, that would also be fascism? In other words, is socialism fascism?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

34. No Socialism isn't fascism

But taking things without paying for them is theft. So collectivism is indeed a violation of your rights to property.

[aneerkoinos]

36. Theft

And what do you call privatization of property formerly owned collectively (as in tribal lands etc.)?

Try denying you are a thief by belonging into a nation of thieves -trying to raise thieving and greed into moral obligation in the form of ownership society of Holy Property.

Socialism makes crucial distinction between belongings and property. Collectivism is by no means violation to my rights to belongings, on the contrary. Your country, worshipping sociopathic legal persons such as corporations, is so insane that you've turned even genetic code into property, and you seem to be OK with that and other forms of thieving.

[G_j]

40. yes privatization is often theft

yes,yes,yes
and we in the US are living on stolen land, it is a fact.

& for that matter, pollution is the grand theft of our air, water etc.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

64. Who isn't?

What part of the world has had such a pristine past that it's never been at war, never been conquered, never been subjugated?

As far as I can tell, we ALL live on someone else's land. That doesn't mean anything in the current world.

What does mean something is what we own now as accepted by the current rules, laws and policies of our society. Someone who tries adverse taking of my property has to pay for it. If they don't, good luck trying to get it.

[aneerkoinos]

69. What it means

It means that moral condemnation of all collectivization is empty, without sense of history and hypocritical.

Property is not a god given right, it's a social fact, and societies change, it's their nature. Nobody is interested in taking away your belongings, but if you are e.g. shareholder of Monsanto or other such harmfull, thieving entity, there's nothing morally condemnable in nullifying such property, on the contrary. Monsanto steals the life of Earth by privatizing it, turning it into private property, I'm part of life so Monsanto and it's shareholders steal also from me, of me.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

78. Nothing empty about taking property

Monsanto is a company, authorized by U.S. law. I don't happen to own it, but many people do. While that law is not a god-given right, it is a right nevertheless. It's a right enshrined in our Constitution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[aneerkoinos]

91. Crap

That amendment has nothing to do with legal persons called corporations. US laws allows badly behaving corporations to be disbanded, though in ideological ownership society those laws are never used.

And hey, you just said that when taking property (theft), has happened in the past, it's empty, but now it's not???!!!

[AliciaKeyedUp]

96. We can't correct all the sins of the past

We'd be blaming each other for everything endlessly. The people who committed the sins of hundreds of years ago are dead. So are their victims.

Crimes of the present can and should be dealt with. Crimes of corporations as well as crimes against them.

Corporations are simply proxies for the people who own them. Those people have rights and, included among them, is the right to property.

[aneerkoinos]

98. So what?

Corporate theft and vandalism (water, energy, biological information, pollution of air, land and sea etc.) of collective property of human kind and all of the biosphere is going on as we speak. You just refuse to consider it crime (against life and humanity).

Property is a right as a social convention, there are many forms of property, and in many situations property is in conflict with other rights (also social conventions).

By your one-eyed support for corporate fascism and ownership society you make value based judgements on which rights surpass other rights, and end up siding with most destructive forces causing immeasurable suffering and threatening the future of the whole human race.

There's nothing simple about corporations, by their very nature they must behave like sociopaths, in ways that are harmfull to interests of others. If indeed, as it seems, you put the right to property above the right to suffer no harm from extensive property rights, I don't know what to say.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

99. Huh

What exactly do you mean "biological information?"

As for the rest: theft of property is a crime. If you build on land no one owns, it's not. We DO have laws about pollution, so society has already taken action on that issue.

Property is a right by law, enshrined in our Constitution. That's not just a social convention like saying, "Have a nice day" to people you meet.

Yes, there are many situations where rights conflict. That's why we have courts and legislators.

I don't have one-eyed support, whatever the hell that phrase means, or even two-eyed support for fascism. But I do support the right to own property. It's a pretty basic right as far as American society goes.

At their most basic, corporations are simply groups of people acting in concert. That does not make them sociopathic. It makes them proxies for those peple.

[aneerkoinos]

100. Enemy of the mankind

>>>What exactly do you mean "biological information?"<<<

DNA, ownership of life-forms.

>>>As for the rest: theft of property is a crime. If you build on land no one owns, it's not. We DO have laws about pollution, so society has already taken action on that issue.<<<

Law is how you write it, what is crime is defined by those holding power. Don't let laws of the powerfull cloud your judgement on what is right and wrong.

>>>Property is a right by law, enshrined in our Constitution. That's not just a social convention like saying, "Have a nice day" to people you meet.<<<

Your constitution is piece of paper, a social convention open to interpretation (and abuse) by social conventions. "Our Constitution!" is not the end of discussion.

>>>Yes, there are many situations where rights conflict. That's why we have courts and legislators.<<<

Sure you do. Irrelevant, as they are as corrupt and evil as the rest of your society.

>>>basic right as far as American society goes.<<<

Which you can't think beyond, but consider Constitution and American Capitalism the highest good that cannot be put to question. You are not thinking clearly, if you would, you would see the chains of cause and effect that make American society, here and now, the mortal enemy of the whole mankind.

>>>At their most basic, corporations are simply groups of people acting in concert. That does not make them sociopathic. It makes them proxies for those peple.<<<

No, corporations take a logic of their own and make men slaves of that logic, and by being a collective proxy that frees the owners of most of their liabilities (you can't put every owner of a corporation in jail for a murder ordered by corporation) and thus responsibilities towards others, corporations are sociopaths in the full meaning of the word.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

101. Not hardly

Of course laws influence me on what is right and wrong. Laws were written by people like you and I. Without them, we have chaos. I am no anarchist.

While the Constitution is open to interpretation, it is still written in English and can only be twisted so much.

Oh, so you damn our courts and legislators now? Would you kill them all or just jail them in your fantasy revolution?

I can and do think beyond America. But that doesn't mean I have to obey laws or cultural rules of another society.

Sorry, Bush is horrible, but American society is not, "here and now, the mortal enemy of the whole mankind."

Corporations actually take a logic of law, not of their own. Flawed though they be, those constructs you despise also helped bring prosperity and innovation.

[aneerkoinos]

102. Well then

What's the point on being judgemental, if you can't go all the way, but stop at your own social conditioning? No point.

I'm not "people like you and I", laws don't influence me on what I perceive as right and wrong and I don't write them.

Truly, there's no point in condemning anything, not vandalism, not even American way of life. If American society self-destructs and even all the life on Earth with it by willfull ignorance of cause and effect, then so be it, that is the way of the world. Condemning and being judgmental just makes me frustrated, which in turn spreads suffering to those people I affect, and it certainly will not change the way you act and think. So it is of no use, condemning and being judgemental is a product of social conditioning I can do better without.

Live your life best as you can and bother me no more. :)

[G_j]

72. you missed my point I think

I was agreeing that privatization can be "theft" and there are many other forms of theft that we often overlook or forget about.
You say that what matters is what "we own now as accepted by the current rules, laws and policies of our society"
So what happens as those who are "connected" change the laws to privatize the public land or water? What do you say when they change the rules and turn people into modern day serfs?
Corporations were not always given the same rights as individuals, but now they are. Do you know any single individual who has the power of a corporation?
Bush is all about furthering the "ownership society" but only the few will enjoy that ownership.

"Theft" is still stealing even if the rules have been written to allow certain privileged people to steal from you or I and call it something else.

And it matters not that the winners write history, we DO live on stolen land gained through violent conquest. It may be too late to right the wrongs, but it doesn't change the story.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

79. Again

Most of the world is the result of combat and conquest since mankind first took form on this earth. I am sorry about that, but I spend no more time anguishing over things that happened 130 years ago than I spend over the European conquest of Africa or the Boxer Rebellion.

They all make interesting history, but everyone involved is dead.

I am not pro-corporation, but neither am I anti-. Corporations are a collective expression of individual stockholders who are citizens with rights. Those rights are in our Constitution and one of them is property.

[G_j]

82. not expecting anguish

just saying that our concepts of ownership and theft are often dictated by the 'winners'.

As for Corporations being the "collective expression of individual stockholders who are citizens with rights" I agree that individual citizens have rights according to the Constitution. However "collective" rights are something else. Considering a corporation to be an individual makes for a completely stacked deck. I believe Jefferson would be outraged to see corporations granted that amount of unbalanced power. It is almost impossible for an individual to stand up against the "collective" power of a corporation and I don't believe the Constitution was written to enhance the rights of the powerful over the individual citizen.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

83. Of course society is dictated by winners

The losers often haven't been left around to do so.

But those concepts still exist and we collectively and Constitutionally embrace them.

Sorry if individuals banding together bothers you. It's not a stacked deck. It's a business form -- imperfect, but a reality nonetheless.

[G_j]

84. "To Restore Democracy, First Abolish Corporate Personhood"

--the debate we are having goes way back btw.
Here is a very good article. There are countless other articles and discussions about this online.
----

http://www.thomhartmann.com/restoredemocracy.shtml

To Restore Democracy
First Abolish Corporate Personhood

By Thom Hartmann

Thomas Paine said it best.

“It has been thought,” he wrote in The Rights of Man in 1791, “…that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”

Thus, Paine and others of the Revolutionary Era reasoned, any institution made up by and of humans - from governments to churches to corporations - must be subordinate to individual living people in terms of the rights and powers held by the institution.

<snip>

For twenty years corporate personhood was debated. Across America, politicians were elected repeatedly on platforms that included the regulation of corporations, particularly the railroads. But the legal fight continued - and in 1886 the railroad hit paydirt.

The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court - a man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad - wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that corporations are persons.

And in so doing, he - not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder - inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis’s headnote, which had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists (including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote but not the decision.

<snip>

[Clark2008]

75. I don't live on stolen land

I'm 1/4 Cherokee.
My Cherokee family married with my Irish family.
This is not ALWAYS the case, you know.

I do agree with you about pollution and wish I had the money to purchase a cleaner car. Or move to an area where I don't need a car.

[G_j]

81. yes, thank you

for pointing out that my assertion was not absolute. I live near Cherokee and visit there sometimes and know a number of Cherokee people. I had a friend, a Long Island, NY native whose tribe was listed as extinct. Obviously that was not true.
I was speaking about the rest of us. I don't expect that the land can be returned to the families of the original inhabitants, but I was attempting to point out how concepts of ownership and theft are often dictated by those in power, quite often the 'thieves' themselves.

And yes, I sure wish I could afford a cleaner car also! :-)

[rinsd]

66. And what pure and innocent country would you reside in?

What do you call collectivisation of formerly private properties?

Well that all depends on where you would like to stop.

"Try denying you are a thief by belonging into a nation of thieves"

Try coming down off that high horse, I fear a nose bleed.

[aneerkoinos]

68. Don't worry

I can ride quite well. :)

I call collectivisation returning of property to the rightfull owners, from sociopathic corporations to society of men.
Of course, everything is context dependent. Would you call Bolivian people's attempt to renationalize natgas theft?

The real problem is not so much the property of good old fashioned robber barons, there's a human owner with human liabilities, with a conscience. Corporations, limited companies are the real problem, they should be got rid of alltogether. Mussolini, who should know something about fascism, defined fascism as corporatism. And history is showing that in the long run corporatism with human face is impossible.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

80. Yes, it is theft

If you take something without paying the owners for it, there's no other word for that.

And anyone who tries to take property without paying should be opposed.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

41. No, I certainly don't believe that was the only reason.

But you seem to have taken his playbook to heart. Possibly a Presidential medal is in your future, along side Tenet, Bremer et. al.

As to your point about a "democratic majority". Possibly, you have forgotten that the U.S. is not (and never was) a democracy where a majority should be able to wield power, mercilessly, over a minority. We are a republic where the minority has rights (thank goodness). And, one of those rights is a right to property.

As for socialism vs. fascism. They are not equivalent. But, they surely can overlap, as several on this thread have demonstrated.

[aneerkoinos]

46. Get real

I'm not the one believing the fascist lies of the US governement, I've never have. I see your moral back-bone doesn't have problems with presenting stupid strawmen as arguments.

As for your self-centered world-view, I was not talking about US but generally. As for US all the best, but if you look outside, in your ownership society the richest 1% has all the rights over rest with none or little BECAUSE of right of ownership made the holy highest value surpassing even human dignity.

[Swamp Rat]

48. Alien lizards are very possessive too!

They ARE the ownership society!

[tx_dem41]

53. Thanks, Swamprat...

that danged green-headed * always gives me the willies! And, I haven't even had my first cup of coffee yet. 15 yd penalty on you!

Lol.

[tx_dem41]

52. But, alas, this thread was about protest in the U.S. against

a U.S. president, so perhaps basing arguments on the U.S. form of government is germane to this issue.

And, if you believe that the President et. al. did not use the strategy of "preemption" to sell this illegal invasion to the American people, where the heck were you in 2002-2003???

[aneerkoinos]

58. Pre-emption

First, general discussion about ethics, what this morphed into, is just that, general, not about US form of governement.

Second, I'm too well aware how the pre-emption was misused for fascist fear-mongering, I never believed those lies and it's perfectly clear that neither the cabal believed their own lies. They just did what fascists do, tell a lie big enough so the people will believe.

It was you that brought the whole thing up (implying that you accepted the argument), not to counter any of my reasonable arguments, but to divert discussion by cooking up a strawman ad hominem, which based on this exchange seems to be a habitual thing with you. Or perhaps that is how withdrawal symptoms of caffeine express themselves through you... :)

[tx_dem41]

59. Lol....yep, its the lack of coffee.

Or maybe I just love arguing with people halfway around the world early in the morning. Okay, its most likely both of those things. :-)

BTW, I would love to travel to Finland one day. I'm making my first trip to the Netherlands and Belgium this spring.

Oh, and I apologize for any ad hominem attacks. I didn't mean them that way, but possibly I didn't write very clearly.

[aneerkoinos]

60. No problemo

I enjoyed them, actually, playing these games gives me sick, perverted self-gratificating kind of pleasure. :)

Wellcome to Finland, hope you can make it some time. And happy perusing of Dutch Coffee Shops for something else besides that obligatory cup of Java, if your into other pleasures too... :smoke:

[rinsd]

67. The right to own property is connected to many other rights...

...and has been throughout history.

Even the quasi-socialist countries of Europe have extensive property rights.

And funny enough even the US right to property is not set in stone, as emminent domain is still part of our Constitution(and being abused in some parts)

[G_j]

28. words from MLK

"I am aware that there are many who wince at a distinction between property and persons--who hold both sacrosanct. My
views are not so rigid. A life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and
respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on; it is not man."

Martin Luther King, Jr., The Trumpet of Conscience, 1967.

-Obviously MLK never advocated property destruction, but he was wise enough to see the important distiction between people and 'things'.

[tx_dem41]

29. Yes...and wisely he never advocated property destruction, as you stated.

And, his was a movement that met its goals and moved mountains.

I wonder if there is a lesson in all that?

[G_j]

32. property destruction would have greatly hurt

and undermined the cause. MLK and his fellow activists followed a highly disciplined code of non-violent civil disobedience and resistance. Property destruction would have demonstrated a breakdown in focus and discipline and would have been considered tactically foolish.

I really have no 'feelings' for a bank window, but tactically, breaking one is foolish. In the present atmosphere, it is not hard to imagine that things like this can happen. We are living in nasty times.
Not every citizen has the awareness and deeply held dicipline of an MLK.

-These words from JFK are very sobering. (IMO, we are not at this point yet, and in the spirit of non-violence I would always search for peaceful solutions)

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

[tx_dem41]

39. We agree, G_j.

I just hope that we, as protesters, always remember that we are always responsible for our own actions (or reactions).

[diamond14]

63. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible,

will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy, 1962


OUR Nation's Capital, January 20, 2005

[rinsd]

65. Vandalism is vandalism...

That I will agree. It is not inherently fascist. But when vandalism(and let's define it as property destruction to end arguments dealing with graffitti etc) is used for the means of political message/intimidation, it gets a little trickier.

When anti-abortion activists decide to trash a clinic(ie: vandalism), that is using politcal violence. While I wouldn't argue that the degree is different in this case, it is hypocritical praising of the tactic because its used in a cause one agrees with vs. when it is used against interests one supports.

Not that I am accusing you of being a hypocrite but these justification things get real hard to defend when you put the shoe on the other foot.

[aneerkoinos]

70. Agreed

It's tricky. But sometimes vandalism works as a tactic, for example destruction of Monsanto GM crops in some situations has been very efficient form of resistance, together with other means. Monsanto has been largely forced to retreat from Europe, and in India they are doing the same. So I cannot agree with categorical condemnation of vandalism as tactic.

[Occulus]

94. Would you say the same thing about Boston tea? n/t

[whatelseisnew]

97. Violence is also defiined as abuse of power (n/t)

[JanMichael]

71. If you know Riggs it isn't a "third party". It's the "Bank".

Not some innocent bystander.

[tx_dem41]

85. I know the story behind the bank....

...I stand by my previously stated sentiment. Vandalism is wrong. Do you believe in vigilantism?

[satya]

4. Kick.

:kick:

[NJCher]

5. These protestors are the true American patriots

I know what it's like to penned in like that with helicopters flying overhead. The helicopters fly down low to try to intimidate the protestors. It's very loud. And yes, they are black helicopters and very ugly. The riot police look like Darth Vader. They stand arm-to-arm and prevent anyone from leaving. This happened to us when someone broke a window in the 2000 inauguration protest.

Yeah, celebrating democracy. That's what we're doing.


Cher

[undergroundpanther]

6. Kick

they can't arrest all the people of DC,or all of maryland.
They can't arrest 20,000 at once. Remember that.They fear the people that is why they have riot cops.They know what evil they do.To us.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

21. Celebrating democracy

Doesn't result in vandalism.

[tx_dem41]

22. Agreed...it sounds more like...

facism to me. I am hoping that this report was either incorrect or very isolated. I have great respect for a large majority of the people that protested non-violently yesterday.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

23. What I saw mostly on C-Span

was legitimate peaceful protest. Unfortunately, what many will remember are scenes like this and the one where the idiots were throwing things at the police.

[tx_dem41]

24. Alas, with the help of a lot of editing I have seen from local...

and national newsrooms last night and this morning. That's one selfish reason to not commit violence. Of course, there are moral ones as well.

[ShaneGR]

17. Yes, throwing bricks through windows will certainly help our cause....

I'm sorry, but if they insist on vandalism and mayhem rather than peaceful protest then they got what they deserved.

[tinanator]

42. Ive always felt that way as well about the Boston Tea Party

trying to frame the indigenous and doing property damage to innocent oligarchs. These days you dont need to do that sort of thing to get arrested. Of course, if theyre going to arrest you anyway...

[tx_dem41]

44. Well, if they are "going to arrest you anyway"....

...by all means, throw away personal responsibility and lose all self-discipline. Go ahead and justify their actions in their mind.

Your equating of the Boston Tea Party and smashing a brick through a window is dismaying and insulting to the founding of this country. Surely, you didn't mean to equate the two?

[No Exit]

43. When you seek to take ALL power away from a group,

this is the sort of thing that results.

A while back, I probably would have agreed with your statement. But I care less about such things as the days pass. Call it a feeling of desperation.

[tx_dem41]

45. Well...

.....if you really believe that..."When you seek to take ALL power away from a group, this is the sort of thing that results", then you have really swallowed the */NeoCon playbook quite well.

Bravo, Karl...it seems you have another convert.

[G_j]

51. When you seek to take ALL power away from a group...

I think that statement echoes JFK's words that I quoted above.

I just don't feel that ALL power has been taken from us...yet
But we better watch out, because it certainly will be if we aren't vigilant.

edit, here is the quote:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

[tx_dem41]

54. We agree again, G_j.

I don't think JFK's word were condoning violent revolution. They were promoting peaceful revolution as well as condemning those that would oppress it.

[diamond14]

61. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible,

will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy, 1962


OUR Nation's Capital, January 20, 2005

[No Exit]

86. Let's try this again

First of all, those who posted the JFK quote said it best. I think that quote sums it up nicely.

Would *I* have thrown the bricks through the windows? No. Can I understand the feelings and thoughts of those who did throw them? Yes.

I merely sought to explain, not to excuse, the behavior. I admit I feel a kinship with those who were apparently so fed up that they lost it for a while.

Terribly sorry if this sounds like Karl Rove-ism to you. Considering that I abhor every single thing that Karl Rove stands for, I think your calling me a "convert" to Rove's ways is the verbal equivalent of throwing a brick in my direction.

[tx_dem41]

87. I understand the quote completely.

Everyone seems to be misinterpreting it. Its a condemnation of the suppression of peaceful revolution. It is NOT a condoning of violent revolution.

And, I do apologize for the brick thrown your way. As I remember, I hadn't had my coffee yet. :-)

[No Exit]

89. Thank you, and

I agree--by no stretch of the imagination could JFK have ever been said to condone violent revolution. At least, not from those of his speeches I ever heard, and I heard a lot of them (on TV, of course.)

Besides, I imagine Riggs Bank is far more worried about those indictments than it is about a few bricks through a branch window. Indictments--lots better than bricks.

[tx_dem41]

90. Agreed.

Great talking with you!

[laylah]

20. Kickin' it! n/t

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

57. Vandalizing and destroying OUR own property!!!

A bank run by little georgie's uncle, Jonathan Bush who was funding terrorists and overthrowing governments, Equatorial Guinea, for one?

Wasn't my bank :shrug:

[Chovexani]

73. Agent provocateurs perhaps?

Gods know this wouldn't be the first time it happened.

[Mist]

76. Yep. My first thought

When I read it was Riggs Bank, my antennae went up.

[tlcandie]

77. Truth out .. right here! Disruptors deluxe and they were NOT us!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/21/1531230

Undercover Police Dressed Like Activists Arrest Anti-Inauguration Protesters



<snip>
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, Amy, we were in the streets quite a bit yesterday, you and I and the crew from Democracy Now!, and we got caught in some of the most violent exchanges that occurred yesterday at the heart of a scene early on in the day when about 1,500 or so Black Bloc protesters broke off from the main dawn march and held a spontaneous march through the city and attempted to gain access to the parade ground. Then the police responded with quite a significant amount of brutality, hitting people, using some form of chemical agent, spraying people with high velocity, sort of mini cannons. And so we were kind of moving with that crew throughout the day.

AMY GOODMAN: I have to say, in that situation, what we found, one of the things as we were pushed up against the stores, people we thought were just passers-by, who were also there, suddenly at the moment where the police moved in were pushing us into the crowd, and it turned out, they were undercover police officers. They were dressed in suits.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. And they also as well were people in military uniform. I remember one naval officer guy who was about in his 40s shoving people, methodically shoving them back into the direction of what was being sprayed at the crowd. The police were also using these metal whips that almost look like a larger version of an antenna on a car. They would whip them out and they were hitting people with them. So there were a number of these exchanges that happened in this area around 13th and Pennsylvania, ultimately is where it ended up, at one of the main access routes to the parade grounds where people were lining up. There were a number of confrontations throughout the day between Black Bloc protesters and then women in mink fur coats, men in cowboy hats, and some of the most creative demonstrations took place there where people were charging toward the lines where the supporters of Bush were lining up to get in, and some of the protesters would charge toward them. Then they would flee and they actually forced the police to shut down two of the access points for people going on to the parade ground. We were sort of monitoring the situation in that area, and as the day moved on and the parade ended, people started filing out of the parade grounds, and there was some people burning an American flag, and there was some arguments going on between Bush supporters and protesters. And we were interviewing people, and I noticed that a large column of riot police were sort of in a methodical way exiting the parade ground through a security tent. It appeared as though they were marching in formation, not simply leaving. And so I thought, I'm going to go check this out. This may be another attempt to confront demonstrators. Perhaps spray them again. So I started to walk over there. As I walked toward this column of the riot police that were coming out, I noticed two, what I thought were, activists who seemed to be kind of swaying into the line of riot police. So I paid attention to them, because I thought this was extraordinary. They looked like they were about to fall into them, and I thought they were going to get their heads cracked. One of them was a young woman, who had a very colorful mohawk, and the other was white male, about 6'2", who was wearing a kafia, an Arab scarf, and a ski jacket. Both of them looked like any number of people we had seen in the streets. And so I thought they were falling into this column of riot police and that the riot police were trying to arrest the woman and that the man in the kafia was pulling her away, but as I watched it more closely, I realized that the man in the kafia, the Arab scarf, was actually trying to get this woman with the mohawk to the ground. And ultimately he put his knee in her back, he pulled out metal pair of handcuffs, not the plastic cuffs, from behind himself and he cuffed her. And the riot police seemed like they had no idea what was going on. Another man comes over also dressed like a protester, wearing a black leather jacket, also with a kafia, an Arab scarf, around him, and he sort of intervened and essentially got the riot police to understand that these two were officers who were arresting this young woman, with the mohawk. Once the demonstrators, other demonstrators, realized what was going on, they began to chant, let her go, let her go. And so surrounded by this massive riot cops, these two undercover police officers dressed not just like protesters, but like protesters wearing Arab scarves around their necks, which is very common now among Palestinian solidarity activists who are opposed to the war in Iraq. It has sort of become a symbol of the resistance in this country and around the world. And so they marched this young woman all the way up the street and put her into a police wagon, and the police beating people along the way. So this is very similar to what we also witnessed in Miami when we saw at the F.T.A.A. meetings, a plain clothes officer arrest an activist, actually taser another activist.
<snip>

I believe in non-violence and in NO-vandalism, but I have to honestly say if I was being pressed against walls and felt extremely threatened I might just take a brick and break a store window to get some relief for fear of being trampled or something!! I can't say what I would do if put in that situation...

These descriptions above are once again .. police state tactics!!!

[Vidar]

88. Applauding the protesters. We are no in the streets again.