The simple fact that they are using these orders of protection in the first place to stifle protest.
3 Likes
Now youâre just being impertinent and intentionally insulting. Good day.
2 Likes
No, see, that is what you are arguing. Your argument is not evidence of itself.
Try again. Take your time.
The protection order is evidence of the tactics being used to stifle protest. Choose to argue otherwise, I care not.
2 Likes
That is a logical fallacy, specifically a non sequitor, latin for âit does not followâ.
Given: 1) An order of protection could conceivably be used to stifle protest.
Given: 2) This case involves an order of protection.
Conclusion: 3) This caseâs order of protection is being used to stifle protest.
This is a logical fallacy because you cannot logically arrive at the conclusion based only on the information present in the two givens. There are other uses for an order of protection, therefor the simple face that an order of protection has is involved does not logically mean that it is being used to stifle protest.
Your argument is demonstrably irrational.
The collective will of people translates to fewer campaign contributions than the military industrial complex. Good luck getting something changed this way. Online, unfettered by physical distance⌠and a ctrl-F4 away from being ignored, if even seen; thatâs good for talking to an echo chamber of a few supporters but rather impractical for actual change. Unless used in a support role for communication/coordination. Physical presence on the site of the problems is so far undeposed as the king of protests.
Besides, where else you can âtalkâ directly to the base staff, to show them that despite what their work and probably also social environment tells them, there are people who think that their actions are wrong? Or is it wrong to let soldiers and their support staff to start doubting their activities?
She did not intend to violate the Holy Restraining Order. Even the prosecutor did not know The Line is in the middle of the road, and not logically at its edge.
I work in civilian logistics, tangentially. It is not that complicated. Complex, maybe. As of military, even the weapons systems can be described as Door-to-Door Just-In-Time shipment delivery.
As of psychology, that is the factor that explains the Khaki Brainâs irritation with a group questioning the morality (and international-law legality!) of throwing explosives at civilians from unmanned aircraft.
Many members of the military already doubt about their âmissionâ; killing civilians sucks for normal people. A public show of support can be a good thing for those. Hence a justification for the protest location.
You asked who would protest at a military base. I wanted to say that people who want to attract attention to something, to make a point, to try a change⌠but then I realized it is the definition of a protester. Given the prevalence of such protests, I cannot find a better answer to the question as posed. Can you? Or can you restate the question?
Which is what the base commander is learning about just now. He apparently did not consult with public relations specialists, and his military training apparently did not involve PSYOPS.
It would be enough if he stopped asking for restraining orders against peaceful protests.
I thrown an insult on him. He ordered missiles thrown on living people. Whoâs worse?
Unlike you, I never claimed to not have any. I openly admit a dislike to projection of force, warmongering and imperialism. I consider the drone warfare the apex of cowardice (despite understanding the tactical and domestic-political advantages), and a rather bad strategic thing as the affected civilians of the Pipelinistan are more likely to join the adversary instead of being neutral or even friendly. Another example of the US militaryâs tendency to win the battles and lose the wars.
Yes, so badly that the Khakibrain had to get the other gate opened! Now THAT is a high-grade crime-scale interference.
Does this involve all laws? Even the silly ones (see the lists of stupid laws), or the corporate-purchases like e.g. DMCA? Did that one ever stop you from copying or format-shifting a DVD, unlocking a phone, obtaining a âcompany confidentialâ service manual off the Net, or doing an equivalent thing? I know it, nor its European alternatives, did not stop me. Should it? Should I blindly obey The Laws just because some bunch of crooks in suitânâties wrote them that way?
5 Likes
Here is why I find this whole thing so disingenuous.
This is a site that not all that long ago was, quite justifiably, up in arms about the fact that SCOTUS wasnât prepared to allow a state to have a law following a federal law to provide protection to women entering abortion clinics â from peaceful protestors. SCOTUS did get that wrong, and Iâm still ticked off.
This time the politics are different, but that shouldnât change the law being applied.
The woman in this story was enough of a problem that this Order of Protection was issued against her by a judge. At the time, her group was protesting weekly outside the workplace of Colonel Earl A Evans. This had resulted in blocking the entry gates at least three times â thatâs not legal. As a protester, you canât block access to a facility.
You may or may not approve of what the Col. does, but a judge did send down an order, and Ms Flores didnât have it removed before showing up on the property again.
Think for a moment about precedent.
A judge cannot simply ignore a standing Order of Protection, because if one does, that means the door has been opened for every other Order of Protection to be questioned if someone chooses to ignore it. So while this Order may be for someone you feel doesnât deserve it, by upholding this Order, the judge and jury protect every other person relying on this legal safety net.
You guys may want to argue this is all about free speech, but what really is going on here is the need to equally apply the law â and they did.
You see this? This is called â[moving the goalposts][1]â.
You asked me âWhere else but in front of a military base can people protest drones?â
I gave you perfectly good answers, and your response was to completely change your argument to âProtesting is futile anyway because the military industrial complex spends more on campaign funds!â
You then used this as a sort of jumping off point for another completely separate argument about protests only working when held at the physical site of the problems.
(Which is nonsense by the way - basic examples include anti-war advocates protesting foreign wars without having to go to places like Vietnam or Iraq, or Civil Rights advocates protesting the Southâs racial segregation in decidely non-segregated Washington D.C.)
You then change arguments yet again, saying the point of protesting at a military base is to engage the staff there and âtalkâ to them - a dubious prospect at best for a number of reasons, not least of which being that military decision making operates in a top-down fashion, not a ground-up one.
Iâm not going to continue this aspect of the discussion with you until you stop moving the goalposts.
See my [previous post][2] regarding this exact point.
What does any of this have to do with anything? My entire point was that people treating the phrase âmilitary intelligenceâ as an oxymoron doesnât mean a damn thing because itâs a bit of vague notional humor that reduces the topic at hand to absurd oversimplification to get a laugh out of people who arenât actually knowledgeable or concerned in any way about actual âmilitary intelligenceâ.
Itâs like someone saying âwomen driversâ to get a misogynistic laugh out of their buddy. Just because people say and use phrases like that in this manner doesnât make them truths.
Somehow, I donât think protesters calling you a muderer and a jackboot while youâre trying to do your job is what most people think of as âa public show of supportâ.
And as I mentioned above, the military operates in a top-down fashion. The opinions of the lower ranks only matter insomuch as they affect morale. If youâre going to try to influence people, it only makes sense to aim for those with actual pull - like the voters who re-elect the politicians whom the military answer to. All the campaign funds in the world donât matter if the public is outraged at you for supporting an unpopular cause.
Are you suggesting it was the base commander who granted himself the restraining order, and who handled her court cases, and who even made her violate her own restraining order, all by himself?
Or are we just back to the conspiracy theory again, instead?
To correct you, Iâve never claimed not to have any prejudices, and I too dislike projection of force, warmongering, and imperialism.
None of that has anything to do with your willingness to make sweeping and insulting generalizations. You were literally just arguing for protestors âtalkingâ with soldiers a moment ago, and now youâre trying to defend your labeling of soldiers in general as âtestosterone-poisonedâ macho elitists?
I canât take anything you say seriously. You admit to falling prey to your biases, and in fact take active pride in your irrationality and prejudice, and in the same breath you try to arguing for the merits of communication and dialogue.
No, Iâm sorry, I can only take so much absurdity and intentional muddling of an issue. Iâm done discussing this with you. Good day.
[1]: Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia
[2]: Drone protesting grandmother gets a year in prison in Syracuse - #20 by Glitch
Do you know the legal basis on which various Putin critics were sentenced to years of prison in some siberian work camp? Itâs always something inconspicious like tax evasionâŚ
2 Likes
Did you honestly just compare a person receiving, and then willfully violating, a Restraining Order with being sent to a Gulag?
Did you honestly misread my intention or are you willfully ignorant? I compared throwing dissenters/political opponents in prison for (possibly made-up) unrelated overblown charges.
4 Likes
What you may be missing is that soon our enemies will be able to build drones from off the shelf products. Built on American soil in garages or hotel rooms, and deployed against American targets.
Then the precedent that itâs okay to target individuals for assassination will come back to haunt the USA.
If you are okay with whoever wants to kill you being able to do so, remotely and without any danger to themselves, then keep supporting drones.
I can definitely say yours are. As has been stated above, many, many protests are held at military bases. Viz. Greenham Common protests that happened here in the UK, where exactly the same kind of tactics were employed (and worse). I know this, as I was there. I know those people, as HMSGoose knows these people. Why is it not a valid form of protest to try and sway the minds of the people doing the thing you are objecting to? Not to mention alerting the world that this thing is happening in this place? The Law is not magic. It is what it is. Once again, large swathes of it are either very unpleasant, or are deliberately applied in unpleasant ways.
To reiterate anotherâs question, have you never broken such laws? DMCA? Bought a beer under the age of 21? Smoked a joint? Attended a gathering deemed illegal due to press hysteria? No? Never?
4 Likes
Dress it up how ever you choose. Seek shelter behind your version of how the law is apparently the victim here.
Rest easy knowing others are actively using their freedom to try and change inhuman policies. At least until they have been locked up.
1 Like
You mean itâs not enough that US soldiers are supreme cowards and deal death casually with little risk or fear of reprisal but that they can now do it from another continent altogether. You must be really convinced that the US is absolutely right to kill those it does and that every death of a US soldier is an inestimable tragedy.
Me, I wouldnât let those war criminals fight with anything more advanced than an 18th C musket. Then see how keen they are to wage wars against the weak and innocent.
You know I was soft-pedalling it with that, for the incontrovertability.
Itâs most certainly not entirely implausible this is a politically-motivated judgement, Iâm sure youâll agree. Itâs pretty plain thereâs an element of the US judiciary thatâs corrupt if not insane. (Not mentioning any names, -cough-Antonin Scalia-cough-.)
So, are you saying itâs actually unlikely here? Why should that be any more unlikely than this activist and mother, whoâs had one of our posters personally vouch for her, deserving a year behind bars for harassing poor widdle soldiers, representatives of the government, who are trained to deal with people who actually want to, you know, kill them?
Youâre a smart guy, Glitch. Are you playing devilâs advocate or something? Cause otherwise I donât quite get it.
Hey, maybe she does deserve a year in jail. But I know what Iâd put my money on. What about you, if you had skin in the game, huh?
With the maximum possible penalty?
1 Like
Funny!
I tend to discount news whose verbiage (including titles) employs terminology attempting to bias opinion via irrelevant stereotypes - in this case, the word âgrandmotherâ. The implication is something like this: âHow could anyone possibly victimize some frail old woman with grandchildren?!?!? (OH MY!)â
To me, a serious article title interested in presenting rational facts would have read âDrone protester gets a year in prison in Syracuseâ. But instead, we get this typical media attempt to invoke instant irrational hysteria.
I look forward to collective refusal to acknowledge such news driving trollies for knee jerk reaction that tends to lead unto readers missing facts, gists, etc.
Tag: âsock puppetâ
This monstrous government has divorced itâs self from the population they are to serve. In many ways they never represented the American people at all. We need to organize and develop institutions that will serve the American people. We need a pension system for political victims harmed by this government. We need to find a way to compensate those who suffer crimes of the government.
Getting the government and society we want is about institution building.
1 Like
Yes, what we have here is a very nice example of the recognizable style and tactics of mil-trolls, with the usual propaganda/âstrategic communicationâ/âpsyopâ stupid little technics. Both shameful and laughable, really.
1 Like
