• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

G-20 opponents, police clash on Pittsburgh streets

These G-# summits should be held in a country with a real dictator in power.

Then lets see if the anarcho-communists have any balls.

I'd like to suggest Iran for the next G-20 summit. free plane tickets to all anarchists!
 
In both cases, it's really legitimized by color of law...

Seriously, you're saying that Obama's security is not acting under 'federal' control??

Of course, it was the police trained to ask for national guard for anything... jaws of life at car wrecks and other 'reasonable' uses of the guard.

Wow are you this much of amoron did you even go and read the US Code I sited since you ask. I'm guessing no by this post.

First off the President Security detail is handle by the Secret Service who use both Regular Army units and when need State Guard Units, if you had bothered to read Article 1 Section 8 then you would known this fact. Next anytime that the President of the United State is heading to know hostila enviroment Military Units are deployed not only here during the g-20 but when he goes over sea's on trips memebers of both e 82nd and 100st Airborne are detach as Presidental Guards.

Now for you last comment yea allot of Guard folks know how to use Jaws of Life considering that close to 1/3 of the Army Guard Folks thru out the USA are Firefighters and or EMTs so it a better the 50/50 chance that some of the Penn. Army Guard Units have Firefighters and EMT in their ranks.
 
Almost all the G-8/20 summit protest turn out the same way. I'm not about to defend the anarchists, but the riot police in charge look for any pretext whatsoever to shut down the protests. The government leaders don't want there being protests in the first place during the G-20 meetings, and are wiling to suppress activists for any little reason.

I'd like to know why the police asked them to disperse in the first place. That is a key piece of information we are missing.
 
Almost all the G-8/20 summit protest turn out the same way. I'm not about to defend the anarchists, but the riot police in charge look for any pretext whatsoever to shut down the protests. The government leaders don't want there being protests in the first place during the G-20 meetings, and are wiling to suppress activists for any little reason.

I'd like to know why the police asked them to disperse in the first place. That is a key piece of information we are missing.

Because they didn't have a permit to march into this part of the City, it's in the article if you care toi go and read it.
 
Because they didn't have a permit to march into this part of the City, it's in the article if you care toi go and read it.

You shouldn't need a permit to exercise your rights. The riot police and security were in place to prevent the crowd from going further, as they usually are. Dispersing them for lack of a permit is anti-democratic.
 
You shouldn't need a permit to exercise your rights. The riot police and security were in place to prevent the crowd from going further, as they usually are. Dispersing them for lack of a permit is anti-democratic.

No it isn't even in Washington DC you need to get a permit to hold March's the Supreme Court has ruled it no 1st Adm Violation requiring Large Groups to get Permits.
 
The groups involved clearly expressed their desire to attack and/or shut down the meetings. There's a reason that the military feels they are under attack.

Which groups? Where was this announcement made?

There is a huge difference between infiltrating to collect intelligence on groups that have a history of engaging in criminal acts, and being "agent provocateurs," which is what you're alleging.

I showed 2 examples already... how many more do you need before you will concede?? I don't want to have to search for all the relevant videos, but I will... would another video be enough? 2? 5? 10? (ok... I probably couldn't find 10 more concrete examples, but I can guarantee that if I look for them I could find 5 more)

The question is : are these cops that were meant to gather information acting on their own to instigate violence, or under orders??

Because they didn't have a permit to march into this part of the City, it's in the article if you care toi go and read it.

Tell me, is this a problem that no groups asked for the permits, or that none of the groups were allowed a permit?

A small but important distinction... also, note that you don't need a permit to protest, that's protected first ammendment... what they do need a permit for is blocking traffic and to allocate police.

In other words, if these protestors had stuck to holding their placards and sticking to sidewalks and not blocking traffic, then in spite of the millitary claiming otherwise, it would still be a lawful protest...

BTW, you were right earlier... at least mostly right... I'll have to assume that Congress did their job prior to the national guard showing up though...

However, does your point still stand if these national guard checkpoints and all have started to occur nationally??

We're talking, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and washington, among other places I'm sure?

What I mean is that I can see the justification in Pittsburgh, but it's not the only place that this is going on...
 
No it isn't even in Washington DC you need to get a permit to hold March's the Supreme Court has ruled it no 1st Adm Violation requiring Large Groups to get Permits.

This is true, the permit is to allow you to violate the laws against blocking traffic. So, without a permit, if the people had stuck to sidewalks, and allowed pedestrians to pass, and (just to be extra safe) without bullhorns, then the army and police would be acting unconstitutionally.
 
This is true, the permit is to allow you to violate the laws against blocking traffic. So, without a permit, if the people had stuck to sidewalks, and allowed pedestrians to pass, and (just to be extra safe) without bullhorns, then the army and police would be acting unconstitutionally.

First off you need to get off your little kick about the Guard Units they aren't under the contol of the Federal Govn. the State(s) in this case Penn. control them always have controlled them.

No they were issued a permit to gather and march in a certain area they violated the terms of the permit hence they were odrer by the Police to break up or be arrested. Please Note I said the Police under both Federal and State Laws and US Codes the National Guard have no authority to arrest Citz. of the United States what they do have is the right to help the Police which in this case was with traffic control and Delegate Protection.

You really need to go and understand what the Guard can and can't do once again I suggest you start with the US Code I posted in this thread already and then go from their till you do this then I will not discuss this with you anymore because it is clear you have no idea what your talking about.
 
First off you need to get off your little kick about the Guard Units they aren't under the contol of the Federal Govn. the State(s) in this case Penn. control them always have controlled them.

Yes, I understand that part... What's at issue here is that having the army getting into lockdowns of cities, installing checkpoints and such is helping to both blur the lines between millitary and police, which brings us a step closer to martial law. It's not the events of today, but the trends of how the events of the past escalate and continue to escalate into the future.

Better yet, since the G-# protests occure ANYWHERE they meet, it could be fair to assume that there are at least SOME legitimate grievances, and since these are never addressed they grow, and so do the numbers... no matter what this is bassically forcing things to a flash point.

So, while you did make your point that they are acting legally, the trend that's going on here (as well as the use of those sound cannons for the first time in the US, although they have been brought out previously they've never previously been turned on, that I know of at least). If you can't see that the G-#'s among other world elites are using these high profile meetings to force some sort of flash point...

No they were issued a permit to gather and march in a certain area they violated the terms of the permit hence they were odrer by the Police to break up or be arrested. Please Note I said the Police under both Federal and State Laws and US Codes the National Guard have no authority to arrest Citz. of the United States what they do have is the right to help the Police which in this case was with traffic control and Delegate Protection.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the actual details, though previously protesting related permits have been denied... which is why I wanted to know the specifics/

You really need to go and understand what the Guard can and can't do once again I suggest you start with the US Code I posted in this thread already and then go from their till you do this then I will not discuss this with you anymore because it is clear you have no idea what your talking about.

Yes, you are right... though I'm used to, in these types of matters, finding that the actions are always just on the edge of the law.
 
No it isn't even in Washington DC you need to get a permit to hold March's the Supreme Court has ruled it no 1st Adm Violation requiring Large Groups to get Permits.

I was stating my belief, not a fact.

Do you seriously think that the government would give protesters a permit to demonstrate at the G-20 summit so blatantly? Yeah right.
 
I was stating my belief, not a fact.

Do you seriously think that the government would give protesters a permit to demonstrate at the G-20 summit so blatantly? Yeah right.

Yes they actually gave them the permit but they broke that by marching in an area that they weren't allow to go into. See here in the USA we still have these things called freedom(s) you might have heard of ity, I understand you are living in one of those great Commie Countrys so you migh tnot understand this but back when Pitt. was picked to be the host city many group filed permit and all but three were allowed (No I'm not sure which groups and why those permit weren't allowed) so yes the permit(s) were issued sorry you can't understand how things work here in the USA.
 
Yes they actually gave them the permit but they broke that by marching in an area that they weren't allow to go into. See here in the USA we still have these things called freedom(s) you might have heard of ity, I understand you are living in one of those great Commie Countrys so you migh tnot understand this but back when Pitt. was picked to be the host city many group filed permit and all but three were allowed (No I'm not sure which groups and why those permit weren't allowed) so yes the permit(s) were issued sorry you can't understand how things work here in the USA.

You missed the point. If you want to protest, you shouldn't need a permit. It's your freedom to take to the streets. I know that a permit is required, it's the same in "commie" Canada where I live. That's not my point at all. Even having to apply to get permission to hold a protest is unacceptable.
 
You missed the point. If you want to protest, you shouldn't need a permit. It's your freedom to take to the streets. I know that a permit is required, it's the same in "commie" Canada where I live. That's not my point at all. Even having to apply to get permission to hold a protest is unacceptable.

Not according to the Supreme Court and that is the final say here in the Land of the Free.
 
If you acquire a permit to protest you are not protesting.
 
Not according to the Supreme Court and that is the final say here in the Land of the Free.

It's incredibly ironic (and telling) that you are lecturing me on freedom when I'm the one against asking permission to protest.

Some things never change around here.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8CNa_viKg0"]YouTube - Arrest at G20 Demonstrations, September 24, 2009[/ame]


250909top.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you acquire a permit to protest you are not protesting.

The reason why Cities require folks to get permit is if they cause damage to Puplic propurty or private they can be held finacially liable, See the Seattle G# riots and the aftermat.
 
You missed the point. If you want to protest, you shouldn't need a permit. It's your freedom to take to the streets. I know that a permit is required, it's the same in "commie" Canada where I live. That's not my point at all. Even having to apply to get permission to hold a protest is unacceptable.

You do not need a permit to protest. You do need one to block off a street. Protesting is not an excuse to ignore the law.
 
Actually it is, its called civil disobedience:2razz:.

Not in the United States of America it's call getting your arse stomped by PO Police and Folks who live in the area.
 
Actually it is, its called civil disobedience:2razz:.

And civil disobedience is a ticket to jail. If you break the law, you got no room to bitch when you suffer the consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom