Libya: should anything be done?

[Warren Dew]

Yet, somehow I rarely hear of governments mistakenly arresting people that are demonstrating in the government's favor....

How often do people actually protest in favor of a government?

We have demonstrations in favor of the government quite frequently here in the U.S. We have fourth of July fireworks, Memorial day parades, in this particular area Irish American memorial foot races, all sorts of that kind of thing. Never any arrests of the attendees, of course; indeed, the government goes out of its way to support the pro-government demonstrations, as might be expected.

If people think the government is doing its job well they just continue living their lives. Pro-government demonstrations are virtually non-existent in democratic systems. Totalitarian systems might stage pro-government demonstrations, but free people don't have any incentive to demonstrate in favor of their government.

I would agree that if the system were really free, there would be no need for the government to facilitate the pro-government demonstrations I mention. I guess that just shows again how modern democracies aren't really free.

If, somehow, some pro-government group organised a pro-government demontration that would cause considerable inconvenience to public life, I'm pretty sure a competent democratic government like those in Canada, the US or western Europe would take appropriate action.

Every other weekend, our local roads are shut down for some kind of pro-government demonstration. That's way more inconvenience than the anti-globalization protests cause us.

[Warren Dew]

People who failed to watch what they said:

All from the U.S.

[JOZeldenrust]

People who failed to watch what they said:

All from the U.S.

Yes, Kent State was a disgrace.

[JOZeldenrust]

Yet, somehow I rarely hear of governments mistakenly arresting people that are demonstrating in the government's favor....

How often do people actually protest in favor of a government?

We have demonstrations in favor of the government quite frequently here in the U.S. We have fourth of July fireworks, Memorial day parades, in this particular area Irish American memorial foot races, all sorts of that kind of thing. Never any arrests of the attendees, of course; indeed, the government goes out of its way to support the pro-government demonstrations, as might be expected.

If people think the government is doing its job well they just continue living their lives. Pro-government demonstrations are virtually non-existent in democratic systems. Totalitarian systems might stage pro-government demonstrations, but free people don't have any incentive to demonstrate in favor of their government.

I would agree that if the system were really free, there would be no need for the government to facilitate the pro-government demonstrations I mention. I guess that just shows again how modern democracies aren't really free.

If, somehow, some pro-government group organised a pro-government demontration that would cause considerable inconvenience to public life, I'm pretty sure a competent democratic government like those in Canada, the US or western Europe would take appropriate action.

Every other weekend, our local roads are shut down for some kind of pro-government demonstration. That's way more inconvenience than the anti-globalization protests cause us.

That's pretty fucked up. Pro-government demonstrations shouldn't be given more room then anti-government demonstrations. Still, I think governments are justified in using force against violent and destructive anti-government protesters, as long as non-violent anti-government protesters are given opportunity to make their opinions known.

[sandinista]

On the other hand, reasonable and peaceful protests in the west against economic policies (eg. the G20 and G8 summits) have been consistently taken over by a small minority of destructive hooligans who are in it for the thrills. They have set back their putative cause immeasurably, because the public now permanently associates dissent against aspects of globalisation with a violent but vocal minority of destructive fools.

The antiwar and civil rights protests of the 1960s also had a minority of destructive hooligans "taking them over" from the perspective of those who disagreed. The difference wasn't in how the protests were done; it was in the fact that those 1960s protesters actually had valid points, while the globalization protesters are simply mistaken about how economics works.

Of course, in a free country one could protest without fear of retribution even whether or not one's position were mistaken.

Simply mistaken? Wha?? The problem isn't with anyone being "mistaken" about anything, the problem is division. The anti-corporate rallies are not defined enough, they are free for alls. Gay rights, womens rights, animal rights, anti war, anti poverty, etc...all valid movements, but not directed enough at the real enemy, corporate power.

[Wumbologist]

Simply mistaken? Wha?? The problem isn't with anyone being "mistaken" about anything, the problem is division. The anti-corporate rallies are not defined enough, they are free for alls. Gay rights, womens rights, animal rights, anti war, anti poverty, etc...all valid movements, but not directed enough at the real enemy, corporate power.

Ever heard of the phrase "One trick pony"? Seriously, I get the feeling you could be out getting ice cream, and when the scoop fell off you'd find a way to blame it on the evil corporate powers lurking behind the ice cream cone industry.

[sandinista]

Simply mistaken? Wha?? The problem isn't with anyone being "mistaken" about anything, the problem is division. The anti-corporate rallies are not defined enough, they are free for alls. Gay rights, womens rights, animal rights, anti war, anti poverty, etc...all valid movements, but not directed enough at the real enemy, corporate power.

Ever heard of the phrase "One trick pony"? Seriously, I get the feeling you could be out getting ice cream, and when the scoop fell off you'd find a way to blame it on the evil corporate powers lurking behind the ice cream cone industry.

Pot...Kettle ring a bell. Every post you write is "uhhh like the evil socialists like stalin murdered people." I could start a thread about cheesecake and your response would be "oh wait a minute the EVIL commies never even got any cheesecake" ooohhh evil commies

[Wumbologist]

Simply mistaken? Wha?? The problem isn't with anyone being "mistaken" about anything, the problem is division. The anti-corporate rallies are not defined enough, they are free for alls. Gay rights, womens rights, animal rights, anti war, anti poverty, etc...all valid movements, but not directed enough at the real enemy, corporate power.

Ever heard of the phrase "One trick pony"? Seriously, I get the feeling you could be out getting ice cream, and when the scoop fell off you'd find a way to blame it on the evil corporate powers lurking behind the ice cream cone industry.

Pot...Kettle ring a bell. Every post you write is "uhhh like the evil socialists like stalin murdered people." I could start a thread about cheesecake and your response would be "oh wait a minute the EVIL commies never even got any cheesecake" ooohhh evil commies

I hope you're not implying that there was an abundance of cheesecake in the USSR.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People who failed to watch what they said:

All from the U.S.

All from the same event. Notable for its exceptional character.

[Hermit]

People who failed to watch what they said:

All from the U.S.

All from the same event. Notable for its exceptional character.

Yes. Four dead and five injured does not compare to the massive and systematic oppression in so called socialist, single party regimes. And that's been pretty much my point when I said: "Meanwhile I'll just reiterate that life in so-called capitalist democracies is somewhat less oppressive than in so-called communist countries, especially for those of us who have participated in mass protests. Our chances of being rolled over by tanks, machine gunned or spending many years in prisons as a result of such participation are only a tiny fraction in the former when compared to the latter." I also mentioned the role of the FBI when it acted as the US's political police force. You see, I am not good at perceiving the world in terms of black and white.

[Warren Dew]

All from the same event. Notable for its exceptional character.

Unfortunately there were no panoramic pictures from nearby high rises available. Yes, the event was exceptional, but the same is true of Seraph's single example.

[sandinista]

People who failed to watch what they said:

All from the U.S.

All from the same event. Notable for its exceptional character.

And that's been pretty much my point when I said: "Meanwhile I'll just reiterate that life in so-called capitalist democracies is somewhat less oppressive than in so-called communist countries, especially for those of us who have participated in mass protests. Our chances of being rolled over by tanks, machine gunned or spending many years in prisons as a result of such participation are only a tiny fraction in the former when compared to the latter." I also mentioned the role of the FBI when it acted as the US's political police force. You see, I am not good at perceiving the world in terms of black and white.

But, you are perceiving it as black and white. Someone states that capitalist countries indeed do not have the "freedom" espoused by thier leaders and you fire back with, "oh, well..it was worse in some soviet bloc countries". One of the main issues here is not the length of prison time, or the beatings, it's the arrest record. In capitalist countries an arrest record can be a virtual life sentence when it comes to finding employment, or traveling, or doing just about anything. That is the threat western "democracies" place on protests. "Oh ya...go ahead and protest, but you will be arrested and you will be stamped with a criminal record so think twice before speaking out".

[Hermit]

That is the threat western "democracies" place on protests. "Oh ya...go ahead and protest, but you will be arrested and you will be stamped with a criminal record so think twice before speaking out".

My point is that that threat - and worse - is a lot more likely to happen in undemocratic countries such as so-called socialist/communist ones. It's a historical fact. Which is why I have no difficulty deciding under which type of regime I'd rather live.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just thought I'd try that "imgfit" button that was suggested in response to Gawdzilla's posting of the above. I have always loved this picture, and some others like it from the Vietnam era. Seems a foolhardy thing to do, this flower activity...

[Coito ergo sum]

People who failed to watch what they said:

All from the U.S.

All from the same event. Notable for its exceptional character.

And that's been pretty much my point when I said: "Meanwhile I'll just reiterate that life in so-called capitalist democracies is somewhat less oppressive than in so-called communist countries, especially for those of us who have participated in mass protests. Our chances of being rolled over by tanks, machine gunned or spending many years in prisons as a result of such participation are only a tiny fraction in the former when compared to the latter." I also mentioned the role of the FBI when it acted as the US's political police force. You see, I am not good at perceiving the world in terms of black and white.

But, you are perceiving it as black and white. Someone states that capitalist countries indeed do not have the "freedom" espoused by thier leaders and you fire back with, "oh, well..it was worse in some soviet bloc countries". One of the main issues here is not the length of prison time, or the beatings, it's the arrest record. In capitalist countries an arrest record can be a virtual life sentence when it comes to finding employment, or traveling, or doing just about anything. That is the threat western "democracies" place on protests. "Oh ya...go ahead and protest, but you will be arrested and you will be stamped with a criminal record so think twice before speaking out".

I think, actually, he stated it not in black-and-white terms, but in relative terms. It seems you, on the other hand, are stating the issue in black and white terms because you seem to espouse the view that ANY limitation on freedom is equivalent to any other limitation on freedom. The point he was making is that in the US and other western countries, the amount of civil liberty is vastly greater than in real-life communist and totalitarian nations. The fact that we had a Kent State here in the US speaks to a failure of the system, a failure of leadership and training in the national guard, and not a purposeful oppression. The President didn't order the shooting at Kent State, a political leader did not order it - it was a situation that got out of control, and it was national guardsman that fired, and it

I don't see your statements regarding arrests and protests as being in accord with reality, at least not in the US. Protests and mass protests occur all the time and the vast majority of people never get arrested. Protests in a town, however, are subject to reasonable time,place and manner restrictions - you can't go to a private person's house and scream at them all night with bullhorns - you can't break in the barber shop's windows because you don't like GATT or NAFTA - but, you can stand on a soapbox in a public place and state your case - you can march - you can carry signs and sing songs. And, you won't get arrested, normally. And, if you do get arrested, there are legal protections for you, and redress for wrongful arrests is available. Are there injustices - Yes, by all means. Does that mean that it's as bad here in the US as in China? Only black-and-white thinking could make that equivalence.

I don't see anyone claiming that the US is an anarchic society wherein people are perfectly free to do as they please whenever they like. We're not. We have a republican government of imperfect elected officials who govern by making laws which limit or regulate people's behavior - fundamental liberties are protected by a Constitution and a system of checks and balances all of which work imperfectly. I can't see as you're offering anything better, and if we look to China and Iran and North Korea and Venezuela and Cuba and Algeria and Libya and Saudi Arabia and Yemen and Syria, we see far worse.

As for Kent State - the details are important there. Eight of the guardsmen there were indicted by a grand jury, and they all claimed self-defense. One of them, Larry Shafer, specifically stated that "I never heard any command to fire. That's all I can say on that." Based on the self-defense claims, the federal judge dismissed the charges against the guardsmen, so presumably there was a basis to the claim of self-defense raising a reasonable doubt as to the crimes charged. Civil actions were also attempted against the guardsmen, the State of Ohio, and the president of Kent State. The federal court civil action for wrongful death and injury, brought by the victims and their families against Governor Rhodes, the President of Kent State, and the National Guardsmen, resulted in unanimous verdicts for all defendants on all claims after an eleven week trial. So, apparently, a jury couldn't even be convinced that it was "more probable than not" that the guardsmen et al were responsible for wrongful death.

In 2010, there was an audio analysis done of a tape found of the incident —which concluded the guards were ordered to fire. It is possible that this will lead to further legal action. On May 10, Alan Canfora, who with others is or was considering launching new civil actions, said he will ask United States Attorney General Eric Holder and Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to review the tape. So, stay tuned.

The only equipment the guardsmen had to disperse demonstrators that day were M1 Garand rifles loaded with .30-06 FMJ ammunition, 12 Ga. pump shotguns, and bayonets, and CS gas grenades. In the years that followed, the U.S. Army began developing less lethal means of dispersing demonstrators (such as rubber bullets), and changed its crowd control and riot tactics to attempt to avoid casualties amongst the demonstrators. Many of the crowd-control changes brought on by the Kent State events are used today by police and military forces in the United States when facing similar situations, such as the 1992 Los Angeles Riots and civil disorder during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. We do need to be mindful that there ARE legitimate reasons to control crowds - we have laws in this country - and some of those laws restrict the use of violence, disruptive noise, blocking traffic, damaging property, etc. There is danger in a riotous crowd - danger to innocent people who live and work where the riotous crowd seeks to do its thing - if I run a business at Main and Maple street, I don't think you have a right to smash my windows, no matter how pissed off you are about GATT or NAFTA or the G20 - the people who live there and work there have a right to not have the sidewalks blocked - the protesters have a right to be there, and those who aren't protesting also have a right to do their thing and live their lives too. It's the government's job to maintain order in accordance with the law and protect innocent people from harm, and at the same time allow and protect protesters and speakers in the public square. Sometimes, this can be difficult to do effectively or fairly. That is NOT to say that there is never government overreaching and injustice - there is - there absolutely is.