This photograph:

http://www.qctimes.com/content/articles/2006/07/21/advertisers/doc44bc79c621ba7277586976.jpg

was taken in Davenport, Iowa on July 17th. Vice President Dick Cheney was in town conducting a fundraiser for Mike Whalen, a Republican House candidate, when this vicious mob was spotted descending on Whalen's residence. No, your eyes do not deceive you - those police are *confiscating* those senior citizens' little American Flags, labelling them as 'pointed sticks which might pose a threat to the Vice President'. Their peace flag was labelled a 'harpoon'. Article here:

http://progressive.org/mag_mc073106

Davenport Police Chief Michael Bladel defends his officers. “They thought the Vice President might stop, and because these were fairly long wooden sticks with points on them, they thought they might be a threat to the Vice President,” he says. “This could be considered a weapon.”

If there is any doubt as to what depths of reality-controlling paranoid schizophrenia this administration is willing to sink to (and I have no doubt that Cheney's detail was involved in this), think about all the rhetoric this they have spewed with regard to the 'sacredness' of the flag (the anti flag-burning amendment, repeatedly reminding us how soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms that our flag represents), and note the lettering on that retired elementary schoolteacher's sign.

It reads: "No, you can't have my rights, I'm still using them." In a particular bit of irony, she says that they willingly surrendered the flags "because she wanted to keep the protest positive".

I apologize for this not being a juicier 'debate' thread, but I wanted to share this bit of absurdity because the reality that underlines it is frightening. At least the police supervisor 'got it', and prevented the cops from confiscating the Quad City Times journalist's camera (although the beat cops wanted to).

Regards,
Nydia

Well if it makes you feel any better I feel absolutely rediculous for haveing to take off my shoes at the airport.... but I do it anyway :)

Maybe they should have wrapped themselves in the flag...after all Cheney does.

I'm guessing they weren't in the "free speech zone" conveniently located in nearby Idaho.

C'mon, did you see those sticks!? They're HUDGE!

Yeah, you could put an eye out with 1.
Or something....

Now there's a video I want to see...a 90 year old grandma assaulting the VP with a minature flag. :eek:

Sometimes common sense is in very...very short supply in this country.

Taking away flag poles and sticks may seem overreaching, but there is a point to it (pun intended haha!) There are plenty of examples of seemingly peaceful protests turning ugly.

However, this pisses me off...

“Don’t take any pictures,” one of the officers told him, he recalls. “I asked to clarify. ‘Of Who?’ He said him and his partner.”
Cook went about his business, and the police told him three or four more times to stop.
“I kept taking pictures,” says Cook, “and then this officer walked toward me and said, ‘I told you again not to take any photographs. I’m going to have to ask you to stay behind.’ ” And then he called his supervisor.”
Taking pictures of public officials and officers should never ever be forbidden... unless there's some very real national security risk... like staking out the VP's hotel the day before he's due to stay there.

Unfortunately, more and more city police around the country arrest and confiscate cameras just because their activities are being recorded.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html

I was thinking that maybe one of them could be involved in some undercover work now, or maybe in the future.

But hey, unless there's some super top secret material involved, you should be able to take a picture.

You're not really allowed Union Jacks in public places most the time here.

Multiculturalism, or something.

I don't know what's funnier (or more absurd) -- the Police Chief's absurd decision to confiscate the flags because the VP "might" stop by or your absurd belief that Cheney or Bush ordered the flags to be confiscated. I suppose if you believe Bush/Cheney orchestrated and carried out 9/11 you can believe crazy things like this.

*adjusts tin foil hat*


http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060806/ids_photos_ts/r2549462231.jpg;_ylt=Ajh_RU5r49L4aA5cPBT3RsMDW7oF; _ylu=X3oDMTA4Y20zOW1jBHNlYwNtZXBo

Dear Furtivus:

It'd be funny if Bush and Cheney didn't have a *long* history of similar 'excessive' security measures following them through the last seven years of appearances at fundraisers, etc: Cheney in particular regularly makes attendees at any functions he attends pass 'loyalty litmus tests' in the form of questionaires (or signed loyalty statements), and has repeatedly had people arrested for carrying signs, or ejected for wearing T-shirts that were 'confrontational':

http://www.refuseandresist.org/rnc/art.php?aid=1567
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_101504_news_bush_teacher_peaceful_protest.3303 5f77.html
http://www.blogd.com/archives/000743.html


I'll put my tinfoil hat on when these offenses aren't real, egregious, and documented. In the case of the medford, OR, schoolteachers, the T-shirts didn't even say anything 'anti-republican' - they depicted an American flag and a plea for their civil rights.

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. If you'd rather dismiss out of hand 'crackpot liberal' examples of documented offenses of this nature, I'd urge you to read John W. Dean's (of the Nixon administration) book Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George Bush. Dean's command of the facts is unimpeachable (pardon the pun) and he details how at public appearances, as in every other facet of the Bush/Cheney administration, reality control and unaccountability are paramount, the driving force behind this modus operandi being Cheney himself:

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=17-031600023x-0

Dear Nydia:

Apparently you have trouble distinguising between those who set security measures for closed events (e.g. sometimes you have to actually pay to go) and protests along roadsides.

Here's your quote: "Davenport Police Chief Michael Bladel defends his officers. 'They thought the Vice President might stop, and because these were fairly long wooden sticks with points on them, they thought they might be a threat to the Vice President.'"

English may not be your first language so you may have been confused as to his multiples references of "they". I agree -- his language is not entirely clear. The first two theys in his quote (i.e. the ones that made the decision to confiscate the flags) are not referring to Bush or Cheney. The third they is referring to the long wooden sticks (hence perhaps some of your confusion).

If you have to worry about getting stabbed by senior citizens with pointy flags, then maybe you have a problem you need to work on. :D

Furt....they have a long history of banning anyone they see as being oppositional from all their functions, private and public. Of course, at this point the opositions is the vast majority of Americans.:devil

Dear Furtivus:

No need to be an ass, seeing that I quoted that exact paragraph myself. You misunderstand the point completely, which Ailwon has been kind enough to reiterate, which was/is an inference:

If: Cheney has a long and documented history of barring anyone bearing anything even remotely objectionable from any event he is attending;

And: Local police suddenly behave in irrationally paranoid behavior (note that it states in the article that the cops are *embarassed* to be confiscating the flags, and attempt to prevent documentation of the incident which suggests it wasn't their idea) when Cheney 'happens' to be in town;

Then: It seems reasonable to conclude that the Vice President, via his personal retinue, had something to do with the unusual activity.

I also 'got' what the sticks were (and where they were referenced), thanks, hence the reason for the post in the first place.

Please feel free to post my (third ever negative) rep hit, if you like, as it won't be polite :).

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. I also 'got' Sixee's reference to the free-lance photographer who unethically doctored the picture from Beirut this week (and her insinuation that perhaps these photos by extension were doctored); I think that the supporting article and multiple eyewitness accounts put the lie to that insinuation in this case, however.

No need to get defensive at misunderstanding the officer's quote -- the confusing use of multiple pronouns can be hard to follow. I have no idea how to post "rep" hits nor would I for whatever reason regardless of your desire to get one.

As to your inference, your "logic" does not add up.

Your first statement of "fact" is that Cheney's group bars objectionable material from events he is attending. Assuming that is true, are you arguing then that the flags were confiscated because they constituted "objectionable" material? Cheney has regularly appeared with U.S. flags (see, e.g., http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/photoessay/400-cheney-01.jpg). It makes no sense to argue that because Cheney bars objectionable material he would ban the flags as being objectionable but not the posters. Were the posters confiscated? How do you explain away the discrepancy? Were these protesters attending the event (which Cheney bars objectionable material from) or were they protesting on the side of a road?

Your second statement of "fact" might lead to a conclusion that the ones confiscating the flags didn't make the decision but gives absolutely no evidence that the decision maker was Cheney -- particularly where one of the officers said it was a policeman that made the decision. What do you have to show that Cheney made the decision? Did he even know that people had U.S. flags at the event?

But Bill Clinton never had anyone ejected from anything he was in....
http://www.actupny.org/reports/clinton97zap.html

Responding to Clinton's statement that New Yorkers' lives would depend on who is elected Mayor, activist John Riley shouted, "What about the lives of thousands of injection drug users endangered by your Administration's refusal to lift the ban on needle exchange funding? When are you going to act to save lives?"Riley was promptly ejected by security.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/6/92929.shtml

Two Pace University students were questioned by Secret Service officers after they heckled former President Clinton during a speech at the school, a university spokesman said.

Dear Furtivus:

I was concerned, as I laid down for my nap, that if I didn't state this explicitly, it would be misunderstood, and so it has. It is *my opinion*, based on previous evidence at similar events, that Mr. Cheney was more concerned with the presence of Amercian flags being displayed along with the protest signs, rather than the 'sticks' attached to them, as this might imply some sort of 'patriotism' on the part of the protestors, and potentially gain them sympathy. This administration has been very fond of misusing 'patriotism' to mean 'blind allegiance to the Administration's positions, no matter how antithetical to democracy' and to paint anyone who doesn't agree with them as 'unpatriotic' or even 'with the terrorists'. Does *anyone* really think that the 'sticks' presented a threat? Even the policemen couldn't swallow that one, and came up with the silliest and lamest sounding excuse imaginable as they confiscated them...

P.S. I understood that these protestors were not *at* the home where the fundraiser was taking place, but merely on the approach to it. This does in no way invalidate the fact that Cheney's entourage may (probably had) have had the potentially offending scene (juxtaposition of American flags with protests for freedom and civil rights) removed from his sight.

Regards,
Nydia

Dear Sixee:

Just as a point of fact, the students weren't arrested, nor were they ejected from the event until *after* they vocally disrupted an event in progress, just on the basis of their looks. But gee, thanks for bringing up the oh-so-predictable, knee-jerk "B-b-but Clinton!" This doesn't justify any inappropriate harassment they may have received, but if you search the record, you will find that Clinton has had a very good record as far as the rights of protestors go in comparison to this administration, despite constant hounding on mostly personal, non-Constitutional issues, and he has *never* made anyone sign any sort of 'loyalty oath', or fill out a 'loyalty questionaire' before attending a public speech.

Regards,
Nydia

You can safely disregard Sixee. as most of the rest on these boards do. He is only tossing up whatever he can find to build his post count, rather than actually contribute to anything (witness the posts of "puts on tin foil hat", and so forth).

In his feeble effort to say Clinton did the same, he quotes an article that says nothing about Clinton doing anything; some debate over the issue might be a welcome diversion, but he has offered nothing, as usual.

Dear Nydia,
You will also note that none of the people who were asked to leave the current Administration's speeches were not arrested either.
Nor do I think Mr Cheney had anything to do with the removal of the "potential weapon stick thingies" which just so happened to have American flags attached to them.
The Secret Service can be a bit touchy when it comes to the safety of the President and Vice-President, as the articles I posted pointed out.
The Clinton reference was meant to be a little tongue in cheek; He actually didn't grab anyone by the coat and toss them out, nor did he scream "Guards! Get that man!!!"
It just seems a lot is laid at the feet of the President, and Vice-President.
The Secret Service is the entity in charge of thier safety. Perhaps in the course of trying to keep them safe in a post 9/11 world, they have been a little too reactive to seemingly minor things.
But then again, who knew you could kill 3,030 people and injure 2,337 more with just some box cutters?

Regards,
Sixee

P.S. Clinton was used, because the Democratic candidate for President, John Kerry seemingly never had an issue with protestors from the other party being at his rallies. Just food for thought.

But then again, who knew you could kill 3,030 people and injure 2,337 more with just some box cutters?



No one knew and no one killed 3,030 people with box cutters they were killed by using commercial airliners as guided missiles, of which people knew and had warned that this could happen.

Once again, you're comparing apples to monkey shit.

Well if it makes you feel any better I feel absolutely rediculous for haveing to take off my shoes at the airport.... but I do it anyway :)

The last time I took a flight, I had to remove my shoes, belt, jacket, empty my pockets, and allow them to rummage through my cloth briefcase which held nothing but papers....

If I have to take off my jacket and let them rummage through a cloth briefcase (with plastic closures... no metal at all in the case), what does that tell me about their metal detector I had to step through? I'm reasonably sure that if I had a two-foot long 2x4 tucked in my pocket that it would be visible even if I had a jacket over it.

I am all for making sure that passengers have a right to enjoy a safe and secure flight, but let's not go over the edge with this. I'm suffering the indignities of "modern" travel and Homeland Security can't find eleven Eqyptian students who walked off of an airplane and disappeared? Way to go there, Sparky.

They talk about racial profiling.... let's see... eleven young men between the ages of 18 and 25, all of Middle Eastern descent... oh.. nevermind... you all know the argument...

Once again, you're comparing apples to monkey shit.

Did the monkeys eat the apples?

You mean to tell me that if the hijackers hadn't had box cutters that 3,030 people wouldn't have lost thier lives and 2,337 more would not have been injured?
Funny thing about those box cutters, they gave the hijackers a distinct advantage over the unarmed passengers.
The only ones that fought back were on United flight 93, and it was after some of them found out what was happening through cell phone conversations with loved ones on the ground. They decided that it was worth rushing and overpowering the hijackers to prevent a greater tragedy from happening.
Regardless, it was a lesson that the Secret Service has seemingly learned:
seemingly innocuous objects can be used to great effectiveness in overpowering unarmed people.
In this case, however, I think the police would have had the advantage. I think a gun is a better weapon than a "potential weapon stick thingy" any day of the week.
:rolleyes: