Secret service drills a kid over his "anti-Bush" photo

[SuchAFob]

alternet.org/walmart/26503/#thumbtack

This is why I tell people I am Canadian.
Seriously, WTF?

[Sgt_Stadenko]

You’d prefer that they just pepper sprayed him and moved on?

[Steeevieboy]

This is just the beginning

[Mucha_Man]

@Sgt. Stadenko

You’d prefer that they just pepper sprayed him and moved on?

Or a government that equates paintings of nude children with photographs of them? Or gay and lesbian literature with pornography?

Yes, what happens is disturbing, but Canada has also erred on the side of paranoid police action on many occassions. Of course when it happens there, most people just shrug (if they even hear about it) and go about their daily life, assuming (often incorrectly) their rights to full expression are guaranteed. Few newspapers, and fewer citizens, take up the challenge of defending civil liberties.

[TheGingerMan]

@Steeevieboy

This is just the beginning

Classic.

“Not so long ago, in a galaxy not very far away,…”

[Tigerman]

The student was not indicted, and the Secret Service did not pursue the case further.

Seems like the proper ending, IMO.

[bob_honest]

Now we used to make jokes about getting arrested when you step on the king’s portrait on Thailand money …

Setup more palm trees in Washington!

[stan]

The ‘secret service’ could perhaps spend its time more fruitful patrolling the skies above the US? Perhaps use some of its energy meaningfully to give its own troops on the ground correct, accurate and reliable intell?

Maybe the ‘secret service’ bunch of useless wankers are reading this message? Good on yer mates!

[TainanCowboy]

[quote=“stan”]The ‘secret service’ could perhaps spend its time more fruitful patrolling the skies above the US? Perhaps use some of its energy meaningfully to give its own troops on the ground correct, accurate and reliable intell?
Maybe the ‘secret service’ bunch of useless wankers are reading this message? Good on yer mates![/quote]Stan -
Here you can find out the mandates of the U.S. Secret Service. Might clear up a few mis-conceptions for you.

ustreas.gov/usss/index.shtml

[Comrade_Stalin]

On July 2, 1996, Clinton had 2 people arrested at the Taste of Chicago fair.

Pat Mendoza, who was at the “Taste of Chicago” food fair in July 1996, was actually arrested along with her husband Glenn for merely speaking her mind . . . “You suck and those boys died,” Mrs. Mendoza erupted, referring to the still unsolved Khobar Towers bombing a month earlier, which had taken the lives of 19 Marines stationed in Saudi Arabia . . . Seconds before the Secret Service swooped down, a videotape shot by Chicago’s WMAQ-TV shows Clinton pointing out the Mendozas to White House enforcer Bruce Lindsey. That video has never been broadcast nationally. After their arrest, the Mendozas spent 14 hours in a Cook County lock-up. Though the Secret Service eventually dropped all charges, the couple, who ran a small electronics business, was soon audited by the Clinton IRS.

prorev.com/hillary1.htm

---

This occurred at the Washington National Cathedral, Christmas Eve, 1996.

The Washington Post reported Rev. Schenck’s account of it, that “while waiting to receive communion, he leaned over the altar rail toward the president’s nearby seat and quietly told Clinton: ‘God will hold you to account, Mr. President.’” Apparently the comment was intended in reference to the president’s notorious veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. There was no further interaction between the two men, but Rev. Schenck was nevertheless physically detained by the Secret Service while leaving the cathedral, had his wallet searched and his driver’s license extracted, and during this search was told he could not contact a lawyer. One of the agents “quoted the president as having complained . . . that Schenck had ‘said words’ to him.” Not surprisingly, a Secret Service spokesperson later vouched for the appropriateness of the agents’ actions.

members.aol.com/basfawlty/shake_bc.htm

I suggest people read 18 USC Sec. 871…it gives the Secret Service a lot of latitude.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ … -000-.html

[Tetsuo]

Ah, the classic “Well, he did it first so that makes it alright” non-argument.

[jdsmith]

@Tetsuo

Ah, the classic “Well, he did it first so that makes it alright” non-argument.

I think he’s pointing out that the SS has in fact been doing shit like this for a while…on Clinton’s watch just makes it sweeter for CS…he’s a sugar junkie.

[Tetsuo]

Doesn’t make the what happened to that kid any less messed up though, does it. It’s just him trying again to justify it by going “Well Clinton did it too!” Much like with just about anything anyone says against Bush.

[jdsmith]

@Tetsuo

Doesn’t make the what happened to that kid any less messed up though, does it. It’s just him trying again to justify it by going “Well Clinton did it too!” Much like with just about anything anyone says against Bush.

Down! Heel!

Maybe it’s me, but I don’t see CS’s example more about Clinton pointing the people out, although that does show the SS listen to the boss, than it does about the SS’s power to remove and detain pretty much anyone they want.

Seems to me that the SS is acting pretty much the same now as they did before: like dickheads. They were cool when Clint Eastwood was one of them though.

Although, I have heard that Comrade Stalin doesn’t really like Clinton, but that may be a rumor.

[Comrade_Stalin]

@Tetsuo

Ah, the classic “Well, he did it first so that makes it alright” non-argument.

Where did I say it was “alright”? Show me where. I guess it was just [i]too[/i] difficult for you to read my entire post or the included link, right?

[quote=“Comrade Stalin”]
I suggest people read 18 USC Sec. 871…it gives the Secret Service a lot of latitude.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ … -000-.html[/quote]

[j99l88e77]

Now that kid is going to grow up hating Geoge Bush even more and will become a terrorist and assasinate him.

[j99l88e77]

Oh… someone’s knocking on my door…

[Comrade_Stalin]

Jarvis had assigned her senior civics and economics class “to take photographs to illustrate their rights in the Bill of Rights,” she says. One student “had taken a photo of George Bush out of a magazine and tacked the picture to a wall with a red thumb tack through his head. Then he made a thumb’s-down sign with his own hand next to the President’s picture, and he had a photo taken of that, and he pasted it on a poster.”

I seem to remember there were lots of squeals here when it was proposed to post photos on Flickr of members at Forumosa Happy Hours and activities. People were afraid to have their photos taken and published. I can’t find the thread but here is Maoman’s announcement:

[Forumosa - Taiwan's largest and most active Taiwan-oriented global online community in English … ckr#361849](Forumosa's got Flickr!

So.

I wonder…

If I took a photo of someone posting on Forumosa or maybe their wife or child…and then tacked it to the wall with a red thumb tack through their head and then made a thumb’s-down sign with my own hand next to the photo and posted it here at Forumosa, I’d be banned and people here would be calling the police.

BTW, I posted a photo of my arm (with Photoshopped [color=red]red[/color] lines and a knife) being deleted. I think it offended someone.

[Chewycorns]

I guess it is not “high maintainance” if “Friends of Cindy” do it.

[maoman]

@Comrade Stalin

If I took a photo of someone posting on Forumosa or maybe their wife or child…and then tacked it to the wall with a red thumb tack through their head and then made a thumb’s-down sign with my own hand next to the photo and posted it here at Forumosa, I’d be banned and people here would be calling the police.

Probably proposed for a suspension, at the very least. I doubt anyone would call the cops, just because a post like that wouldn’t last long enough on the forums to attract any attention, I hope. We try to get rid of the nasty stuff as quickly as possible.

This has nothing to do with dissent, BTW, but rather the privacy of our members. I think it’s a good policy, but there’s always the feedback forum if you think there’s something wrong with it.