Top Military Commander and Courts Support Right to Protest

Protest

In response to comments from those supporting the police crackdowns on peaceful protesters exercising their constitutional rights but violating local ordinances (see comments here), reader Purplemuse writes:

The Constitution supersedes local ordinances that are being used to OBSTRUCT 1st Amendment Rights. The camping ITSELF is in order to MAKE A STATEMENT – a First Amendment Right. Protesters are not camping because it is fun to expose yourself to the elements and hardship and you want to roast wienies and marshmallows and drink beer while swapping ghost stories.

Would you listen to Colin Powell, retired four-star general in the United States Army, Powell also served as National Security Advisor (1987–1989), as Commander of the U.S. Army Forces Command (1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993) when he says, “It isn’t enough just to scream at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. We need our political system to start reflecting this anger back into, ‘How do we fix it? How do we get the economy going again?’” He also states that the Occupy Wall Street Protests are “As American as Apple Pie.”

Does he go on to qualify his statement by saying, “as long as they obey local (misdemeanor) ordinances. No, he does not. He actually goes on to say that he “gets” it.

If a man, well above your rank, that you’d likely drop everything to stand up in a room to honor, “gets” that peaceful protests, by design (that’s why they are referred to as ‘civil disobedience’) infringe on ordinances and make the public uncomfortable in order to be heard, are as American as Apple Pie; do you think you could set your fear of disobedience aside long enough to defend those protesters against physical harm for exercising those American as Apple Pie Rights? If you can’t than I think you need to join the ranks of officers who simply “do as they are told” and jab petite women in the spleen with billy clubs (as in Berkeley) in order to incite a riot. (BTW: They did not succeed, Berkeley stood firm in determined peace).

(Watch Powell’s statement here).

Of course, it’s not just Powell.  Veterans from every branch of the military – and across 3 generations – are coming out to support the “occupy” protests.

And in response to the Berkeley police saying that linking arms and resisting attempts to clear a space is an act of “violence”, reader David writes:

It is every citizen’s duty to resist false arrest

There is no such crime as “resisting arrest.” This is a fictitious crime dreamed up by law enforcement to accuse a citizen of a crime when they refuse to surrender to the illegal demands of the police.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that resisting a false arrest is not merely a citizen’s right, but his duty! In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that if a law enforcement officer is killed as a result of actions stemming from a citizen’s attempts to defend themselves against a false arrest, it is the fault of the officer, not the citizen.

Here’s a short collection of relevant court rulings on false arrest and resisting arrest:

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

Do individuals have the right to come to the aid of another citizens being falsely arrested? You bet they do. As another court case ruled:

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

And on the issue of actually killing an arresting officer in self defense:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

I believe that violence discredits the entire protest movement.  I therefore hope that the protesters remain peaceful, even when confronted with unlawful arrests. However, as David points out, the police have no right to make unlawful arrests in the first place.

Leaked email to Bachmann campaign indicates decision to limit air time for certain candidates was deliberate CBS News policy

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 13, 2011


Congressman Ron Paul was a victim of what later transpired to be a deliberate policy on behalf of CBS News to restrict the air time of certain candidates during last night’s Republican debate, after he was afforded just 90 seconds of speaking time during the course of the event in South Carolina last night.

Paul’s campaign reacted furiously to the Texan being limited to 90 seconds in what was a 90 minute-long debate, with Campaign Manager John Tate blasting out an email entitled “What a Joke,” in which he stated, “It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election. The one dissenter to a decade of unchecked war. The one candidate who stands for true defense and actual constitutional government. Ron Paul was silenced, in perhaps the most important debate of the cycle.”

A scientific study undertaken by the University of Minnesota last month confirmed that Ron Paul had been given the least speaking time out of all the Republican candidates during the debates, even less than the likes of John Huntsman and Rick Santorum, who have routinely been beaten by Paul in national polls.

As Marc Fortier points out, an email inadvertently sent to Michelle Bachmann’s campaign clearly indicates that certain candidates were given less air time as a result of a deliberate CBS policy.

When a CBS staffer referenced how Bachmann’s campaign had made representatives available for an after-debate webshow, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson responded by saying, “Okay let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”

Dickerson’s admission that CBS had deliberately ensured Bachmann was “not going to get many questions” during the debate indicated “a planned effort to limit questions to Michele Bachmann at tonight’s CBS/National Journal Debate,” the Bachmann campaign said in a statement.

Obviously, that policy of limiting air time to certain candidates was also applied to Congressman Ron Paul, despite the fact that he has consistently won straw polls and proven himself as a top tier candidate in national polls.

As we have documented, despite his popularity the establishment media has deliberately downplayed and sidelined Paul’s campaign.

After Ron Paul finished a close second to Bachmann in the highly regarded Ames straw poll, and was subsequently blacklisted by the corporate press, Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”

“We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race,” CNN host Howard Kurtz responded.

Video: Ron Paul Gets 89 Seconds In Tv Portion Of CBS Debate

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 13, 2011

Once again, Rep. Ron Paul represented the voice of reason at the latest Republican debate held on Saturday in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Asked about attacking Iran, Paul said the president is obliged to follow the Constitution and go through Congress before attacking the country. He compared the current situation to the one before the United States launched its invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq,” he said.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich strongly advocated going to war with Iran. Romney said that if “crippling sanctions” fail, military action would be used because it is “unacceptable” for Iran to become a nuclear power like the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” said Romney.

Last week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Romney said that as president he would send war ships to the region and work with Israel to undermine Iran.

Gingrich advocated “maximum covert operations” and assassinating Iran’s scientists. He said the United States should destroy Iran’s “systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable.”

He previously said as president he would “green light” an Israeli attack on Iran. He doesn’t think it right for the United States to tell an ally and one “whose people have already endured one holocaust” that it may not do what it deems necessary for its own survival.

Gingrich has also called for bombing Iran’s oil refinery in addition to its nuclear facilities.

Herman Cain did not advocate attacking Iran directly but said the United States should increase sanctions, deploy ballistic missile warships, and assist the CIA’s color revolution effort to topple the country’s government.

Prior to the latest debate, Rick Santorum released a radio ad bragging about his experience on the Armed Services Committee and his efforts aimed at Iran. He also called for covert attacks on Iran and the murder of its scientists.

photoIran has accused the U.S. of orchestrating a color revolution.

In 2009, Iran said it discovered an effort by the CIA to orchestrate a “soft revolution” in the country. The plan was based in Dubai and similar to a U.S. plan that targeted the Soviet Union in 1959, according to the director of the counterespionage department of the Intelligence Ministry.

Iran blamed the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Soros Foundation, AIPAC, and said agents in the Azerbaijan Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait were used in the effort.

At the time, the Brookings Institute produced a report calling for provoking war with Iran, arming and supporting terrorists within the county, and funding and organizing a color revolution.

A terror campaign against Iran’s nuclear scientists is already underway. In August, Iran prosecuted a man it claimed was part of an Israeli assassination effort.

A source in Israel’s intelligence community told the German magazine Der Spiegel earlier this year that Mossad was behind the assassinastion of Dariush Rezaeinejad, a member of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Iran has blamed Mossad, the CIA and MI6 for assassinating its scientists.

In May of 2007, then president Bush gave approval to the CIA to launch a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, according to current and former officials in the intelligence community.

The United States has supported and encouraged the Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran.

The al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni terrorist group has launched a number of attacks, including one in October of 2009 that killed over forty people. The CIA has supported other terrorist groups in Iran as well, including Mujahedeen-e Khalq.

On Saturday, Iran’s FARS News Agency pointed to research conducted by Prison Planet.com and Paul Joseph Watson citing “several credited and credible individuals, including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel” revealing that the United States is currently conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.