Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 192 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Incoherent Protest Is Worse Than None At All

A small number of protesters stood outside a federal courthouse in New York City yesterday. Their demand: People suspected of involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 must not be put on trial as the Constitution of the United States requires.

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution reads, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

The standards of justice set by this part of the Constitution are very clear. A trial is to take place where the alleged crime took place, according to a previously-established, not a kangaroo court military tribunal arrangement set up after the fact. The small group of protesters in New York City was essentially demanding that the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution be overturned, to satisfy their thirst for vengeance.

Once the Constitution is dismissed in one instance, it’s more likely that it will be dismissed again, in another case. Would these protesters be willing to accept it if the government accused them of crimes, and then refused to acknowledge their constitutional right to a fair trial?

protesters wont obeyIn reading about this protest, my attention was captured in particular by the photograph you see here, which features a protester lifting a sign that says “We the people won’t obey”.

Won’t obey? Won’t obey what? What is this protester being asked to obey?

Oh, yes – the Constitution. The words “We the people” constitute the very first phrase of the Constitution of the United States of America. Do you think that protester has read the Constitution recently?

I submit this protester as Exhibit A as I make the case that an incoherent protest is worse than no protest at all.

36 comments to Incoherent Protest Is Worse Than None At All

  • GP

    See the blog post, and see hwo the picture of my protest sign is PARTIALLY SHOWN to drive a distorted view of the clear message, even though it has been featured in numerous photos and videos by the lamestram media:

    Watch Exhibit B, for bias:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/05/national/main5903851.shtml

    http://ny1.com/9-staten-island-news-content/news_beats/law_enforcement/109949/9-11-victims–families-protest-city-terror-trials/

  • GP

    You are sop way off, the sign talks of unconstitutinoal laws, not existing laws (read the sign if you can) the US Constitution does not cover enemy combatants.

    Your blog, your bias, and I will make sure you are unmasked for that.

    • GP, think for a second. How can a law be unconstitutional if it does not exist?

      The Constitution covers all people under the jurisdiction of the United States, not just citizens. There is no use of the phrase “enemy combatants” in the Constitution, and no exemption for such a class of people.

  • GP

    You are right, your so called news are unfit for print, and incoherent does not even start to descruibe it…

  • GP

    J. Clifford,

    You are wrong, they were all apprehended outside the jurisdiction of the US, and, as a group of terrorists they do not have a legal affiliation with a specific nation, they were not part of a national, uniformed and recognized armed forces, hence not even the Geneva Convention rules apply to them.

    Clearly, the views here are what they are, I will not waste time with what is a clearly biased blog which distorts even what is so clear and simple as my sign to drive a false perception of the protest.

    • The standards of the Geneva Conventions and the standards of the Constitution are completely separate. You can’t argue that the Constitution doesn’t apply because the Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Besides that, your claim about the Geneva Conventions not applying remains very controversial, by no means a universally accepted legal interpretation.

      The Sixth Amendment’s wording clearly sets rules for trials conducted by our government, not restricting those rules according to the type of defendant. Try reading it again, GP.

  • qs

    I can’t tell what they’re protesting from that picture.

  • GP

    You surely cannot tell, the way it was “presented” in the post;try to watch the pics and videos I have posted, from mainstream media, in full cntext, unless the irregular eye is the obstacle here.

    It is the post that sets out to distort the intended protest sign’s message, but the reality is out there, should you care to join it, or live in a parallel universe of your own choosing.

  • GP, the words on your sign are simple, but the meaning is vague. Rather than taking a political stance on an issue, it promises you will not obey unspecified laws. You were trying to protest a trial, yes? The laws that allow that trial to happen do not require any action on your part. I think you would have to kidnap someone in Guantanamo who is about to be moved & tried if you wanted to break some relevant laws in this case.

    Regarding the situations of the suspects’ capture:
    There is no place where agents of the US government may legally perform unconstitutional acts. There is no place where civilians can kidnap and torture anyone without breaking international law.

  • Jacob

    Hendrix,

    You are wrong, if there was legal precedent in conducting such trials in civilian courts, as compared to military ones, why were there congressional hearings recently and why was Holder grilled, as he excelled at being incoherent and could not offer a legal precedent for such decision.

  • GP

    Attorney General Eric Holder testified at an oversight hearing. Among the topics addressed was the decision to try five Guantanamo Bay detainees in federal court in New York City, the shootings at Fort Hood, and cyber security. Several senators challenged Mr. Holder on his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court rather than by military commission, as well as his statement that the New York court would be the best venue to get a conviction. Part 1 of 2.

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/215577

    Attorney General Eric Holder testified at an oversight hearing. Among the topics addressed was the decision to try five Guantanamo Bay detainees in federal court in New York City, the shootings at Fort Hood, and cyber security. Several senators challenged Mr. Holder on his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court rather than by military commission, as well as his statement that the New York court would be the best venue to get a conviction. Part 2 of 2.

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/215619

  • I don’t believe the protestors were against their being a trial.

    They were against enemy combatants who were detained outside the US brought into a major metropolitan area to stand trial in civil court. Why?

    This is granting enemy combatants the rights of citizens. They’re not.

    This is treating enemy combatants as “regular” criminals. They’re not.

    This is encouraging additional terrorist attacks by bringing the terrorists back to New York, instead of keeping them outside the US.

    Finally, this is nothing more than a feeble attempt at showmanship. The “Trial of the Century, Live at Madison Square Garden” instead of a proper military trial.

    • Right, like I said, they were protesting a trial. I think we agree on which trial they were protesting. Also, we all agree the accused have not been part of a proper military during the relevant span of time, so I cannot see how a military trial would be proper.

  • GP

    Well said JennyD,they will ignore both facts and reason, even in spite of the arguments and the photos, video clips and reports from the left leaning media.

  • Kevin

    Why? Because we the people of the US try criminals in courts.

    If they were soilders they should have already been released by now. If they are criminals then we try them in a court of law.

    The biggest problem is the the Admin is picking and choosing which captives to give trials to, and which to just hold without charges. and, they’ve already said that even if the defendants are found innocent, or guilty and punished with time served, the Admin is prepared to sieze these persons and hold them indefinately, even after aquital with no recourse…

    so it is a sham. we should release all our hostages except those that we have any actual evidence against…and charge them with crims…

    and no, torture confessions DON’T COUNT!!

    • Jim

      When the Soviet Union set up its “trials” to ensure conviction of the accused with indefinite detention the assured outcome regardless, the United States called these “kangaroo courts.” What’s it called nowadays?

      • GP

        Jim,

        Is the mixing of apples and oranges a prerequisite with all here?

        The previous posts show the distinction being drawn between US citizens and “enemy combtatants”, see the Judiciary Oversight Committee’s videos if you wish to discuss things in the proper perspective.

        If you want balance, also watch the movie “Nothing But The Truth” with matt Dillon; makes for great “ideological drama”, except it would only apply to the Bush admin Valerie P. case, surely the media would forsake their freedom to do same and be as critical towards Obama. Funny how HollowWood makes powerful, moving movies which somehow only indict the president if he/she is a conservative, the same powerful idealistic issues vanish when the harm is done by a left, radical, fascist Kenyan usurper.

        Justice does not run on drama, which is what this trials would be, rather on legal precedent and the issues which concern national security, something those with irregular eyesight do not ever see.

      • GP

        Again you do not present anything new on substance, just the same twisted liberal parallel realities, there is surely some OTC medication to treat irrgular eye condition, but I fear you commies are beyond that stage.

        Now return back to follwoing the Kenyan usurper’s orders, mmm mmm mmm, he neds you for his civilian army of thugs, surely to all of you it is all just so cool and unquestionably constitutional, in your world of farce, deceit and dellusion,

        • Jim

          Comradesss! He hasss found ussss out! What wassss it? Did he ssssee our deadly cudgels? Or did he interssssept the communique from our Dear Leaderssss Obama and Pelossssi? Cursssse him and hissss freeeeeeedom!

  • GP

    Kevin,

    You are the poster “poster” for incoherence and lack of ability to draw distinctions based on logical analitical process.

    You mix apples and oranges, surely you have irregular eyes, which seems to be a prerequisitte here, and speaking of the so called “hostages” just who are they, in your parallel universe?

  • GP

    Jim,

    If you can see beyond my words and watch the videos and the pics, you can draw some conclusion.

    The sources for them are your beloved mainstream media, not me.

    So if C-SPAN’s Judiciary Oversight Committee’s taking up the issue and if all else revealed in those video clips are pesky little inconvenient facts, then you can surely post atuff about me and my political views.

    At the end of the day, my views do nto matter, the issues do, but look at thsi blog, distoted protest sign meesgae and astory to go with it, you are at home here, not a single word about that inconvenient fact.

    Better yet Jimbo, why not simply erase all of my posts, and JennyD’s that way your distorted post will hold, no one will bother to check the YouTube videos or the photos from the rally, after all:

    “In a time when old landmarks crumble, established roads no longer lead the way, but new paths of progress open to those travelers who have an irregular eye.”

  • GP

    You are only so lucky to have me post here, for the first time ever this pathetic blog gets some activity, today it can be your best day yet ever, a well distorted protest sign message and the summit of intellectual dihonesty, all under one irregular eyesight.

    I am not surprised though, there is hardly any debate on the real issues – editing out the sign to drive a distorted view of me and of the protest and the illegality of the terror trials in the federal criminal courts in NYC.

    The proof can be found in the video clips and photos, from your trustworthy “relaible and objective, unbiased mainstream media”, but even in spite of all of that the alternative and parallel realities is what you chose, as the blog’s motto here instructs you.

    I guess it si a Pavlovian reflex, how many of you fainted during the Kenyan usurper’s “campaign”? love to see those sweet YouTube clips, I am sure you made your comrades so proud…

    So go on delete my posts, this distorted thread will only then hold up, absent all basic scrutiny and reality.

  • jojo

    Go GP and JennyD. holder, obama and all their co-conspirators are terrorist-loving, America-hating Marxists. You radical, left-wing Liberals suck!! You don’t have the balls of real men like our great founding fathers and our military – you’re so pathetically gay it’s disgusting.

    • jojo,

      whose real balls did the founding fathers have? which men did they take them from? I think that’s kind of ghoulish, don’t you, to have a collection of testicles?

      or, do you mean that we are pathetically gay in the sense that we don’t get our homosexuality right, like the founding fathers did, because when they went out seeking men’s balls, they found real men, whereas we’re just playing around with pansies?

      please elucidate this political theory further. thanks.

    • Jim

      A corporate lawyer who worked for Chiquita Bananas is a Marxist? Now I know, and knowing’s half the battle, comrade (oh, what a giveaway!).

  • Anonymous

    Mebee this is wy they are loosing to fox

Leave a Reply