Speakeasy forum

General discussion

This is a gross abuse of power

by Dan McC / September 23, 2004 4:13 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: This is a gross abuse of power
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: This is a gross abuse of power
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Was someone talking about ''goons'' recently?
by Josh K / September 23, 2004 4:20 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) That was staged, this is real.
by Dan McC / September 23, 2004 4:26 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re: (NT) That was staged, this is real.
by Josh K / September 23, 2004 4:37 AM PDT

I don't know whether the sign-ripper was a staged incident or not, but I do know that my tax dollars aren't paying his salary, and even if they were, they're sure not paying him to do what he did. Same here.

Collapse -
Here it is, Josh
by Dan McC / September 23, 2004 5:02 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re: Here it is, Josh
by Josh K / September 23, 2004 5:15 AM PDT
In reply to: Here it is, Josh

Hard to tell from the family photo whether it's the same guy or not, but it's an interesting story. Wonder why the "liberal media" hasn't picked up on it.

Collapse -
Isn't it curious...
by J. Vega / September 23, 2004 4:41 AM PDT

Isn't it curious that the Democrats didn't gripe about Patricia Mendoza? Let me refresh your mind:
Mrs. Mendoza and her husband were attending a festival in Chicago on July 2, 1996, when President Clinton, making an impromptu campaign stop, approached her to shake hands with her. Mrs. Mendoza reportedly told Clinton, "You suck, and those boys died"--a reference to the deaths of 19 servicemen in a bombing in Saudi Arabia the previous month. Following this, according to a videotape of the incident, Clinton pointed Mrs. Mendoza out to White House Deputy Counsel Bruce Lindsey, and a black Secret Service agent pulled aside another agent and gestured in the woman's direction. After Clinton's departure, two Secret Service agents questioned her, and the Chicago police arrested her and her husband, alleging disorderly conduct.
Clinton was already well past Patricia Mendoza when he ordered his secret service agents to go back and arrest the woman who had offended him. On the specious charge that she had "threatened the life of the president", the Feds forcibly dragged her away. They arrested her husband when he told his wife he was going to call a lawyer.

Collapse -
Sorry you lose...
by Edward ODaniel / September 23, 2004 4:53 AM PDT

AIDS Activists have been known to attempt to subject the object of their attention with their bodily fluids either in attempts to actually infect or to cause fear of infection.

The Secret Service has a duty to perform and did their duty as did the local police.

Collapse -
You gotta be kidding
by Dan McC / September 23, 2004 5:03 AM PDT
In reply to: Sorry you lose...

And what about the mistreatment of the press?

Dan

Collapse -
Re: You gotta be kidding
by Mark5019 / September 23, 2004 5:06 AM PDT
In reply to: You gotta be kidding

the press are animals should be muzzled as there just as bad as lawyers

Collapse -
Re: You gotta be kidding
by Josh K / September 23, 2004 5:08 AM PDT

Ah....so you'd repeal the First Amendment if you could?

Collapse -
Johs, where exactly...
by Edward ODaniel / September 23, 2004 6:39 AM PDT

does the First Amendment say that officers, home owners, politicians, celebrities, bums or even royalty cann't tell the press to "move along", "get the hell out of here", or anything else?

To ease your search, here is the text of the:
First Amendment (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


I feel it necessary to point out that Congress made no law, and that the people in question were not "peaceably" assembled and that the press was free to either approach the demonstrators or return to the event--THEIR CHOICE!

Collapse -
Mark said the press should be muzzled
by Josh K / September 23, 2004 6:44 AM PDT
In reply to: Johs, where exactly...

Until and unless he clarifies his comment, I can only presume he means they should be restricted in some way from doing their jobs.

Collapse -
Yes and I agree with him...
by Edward ODaniel / September 23, 2004 9:02 AM PDT

there is NOTHING in the First Amendment giving the press unrestricted access to anything and everything.

Are you in favor of media circuses rather than actual journalism Josh? Somehow I doubt it.

Again show me where any group or person OTHER THAN CONGRESS BY VIRTUE OF LAW is prohibited from telling the press or anyone else where they can go.

Collapse -
Re: Yes and I agree with him...
by David Evans / September 23, 2004 12:50 PM PDT

You misread the First Amendment. You see, it empowers the government to require that radio stations play Dixie Chicks...

DE

Collapse -
Ah yes, I forget about the invisible text...
by Edward ODaniel / September 24, 2004 5:21 AM PDT

seen only by liberals.

I also seem to forget that it is a "living document" that can change its content without the legislative action that any other modifications have to go through.

Whatever was I thinking? Devil

Collapse -
Re: Yes and I agree with him...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / September 23, 2004 1:43 PM PDT

Ed, secrecy is the enemy of democracy. A strong free press is the enemy of secrecy, and thus vital to democracy. The Founbding Fathers recognized that -- that's why the First Amendment exists (and doesn't have a delimiting preamble, unlike your favorite Amendment).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

P.S. Since the Bush Administration is the most secretive since Richard Nixon, you can imagine how the Bush Administration thus relates to true democracy...

Collapse -
What was that supposed to mean, Dave?
by J. Vega / September 23, 2004 2:16 PM PDT

Dave, what was that supposed to mean? In the case of this particular story, it said "After Bush campaign bouncers handled the evictions, Secret Service agents, accompanied by Bush's personal aide, supervised the arrests and detention of the activists and blocked the news media from access to the hecklers.". Exactly what part of the First Amendment guarantees the press free access to persons under arrest? Also, "free press" does not mean that the press has automatic access to anything that it desires. If a reporter or crew member is told that they can't go somewhere, they can get in trouble if they get caught doing it anyway.

Collapse -
Nice try but...
by Edward ODaniel / September 24, 2004 5:29 AM PDT

not even worthy of Clinton's favorite cigar.

I have pointed you to where you can actually read the transcripts of the representatives as the Amendments were voted on and have pointed out the fallacy of your "preamble" theory (any--even mediocre--English Comp teacher could set you straight if they weren't too busy laughing at your assertion).

A real knowledge of the First Amendment would allow you to recognize why reporters storys can be censored or delayed for publication.

Collapse -
Re: You gotta be kidding
by Dan McC / September 23, 2004 5:11 AM PDT

And you went to war to support muzzling the press?

Dan

Collapse -
What 'muzzling'?
by Edward ODaniel / September 23, 2004 6:43 AM PDT

the press was given a clear option.

Unsupported claims of an agent (unidentified) saying... "..." are much on the order of the spurious documents of Rather and CBS--unsupported but imaginative.

Collapse -
Re: You gotta be kidding
by dirtyrich / September 23, 2004 5:51 AM PDT
In reply to: You gotta be kidding

Somehow I doubt that the newspaper reported the entire story. It just seems ridiculous and highly unlikely that a Secret Service agent would say something as blatant as that.

Collapse -
Re: You gotta be kidding
by Dan McC / September 23, 2004 6:04 AM PDT

That's the part you object to? What the agent said and not the mistreatment of the press?

Wow.

Dan

Collapse -
Re: You gotta be kidding
by dirtyrich / September 23, 2004 9:01 AM PDT

What mistreatment? They weren't allowed to re-enter? Remind me thats its mistreatment next time I leave Disney World without getting my hand stamped.

Collapse -
Not the same thing at all, DR
by Dan McC / September 24, 2004 1:11 AM PDT

If you had gotten your hand stamped, then went to the parking lot and chatted with a Disney protester and then were refused re-admittance, that would be a closer example.

Dan

Collapse -
Re: Not the same thing at all, DR
by dirtyrich / September 24, 2004 10:10 AM PDT

Still, I don't see how that can be classified as mistreatment, which in my mind provokes images of physical contact or significant verbal abuse.
I like how there were no official statements from a White House or Secret Service representative, well, a published statement. The reporters probably were in violation of some stupid little rule, as in trying to enter a concert/opera in the middle of a performance. Or the reporters might have been rude to the Sercret Service agent, and the guy just felt like a little payback.
Either way its an insignificant story. No harm done, so its not an issue.

Collapse -
Re: Not the same thing at all, DR
by Dan McC / September 27, 2004 12:26 AM PDT

Rationalize this behavior at your own risk.

Dan

Collapse -
Re: You gotta be kidding
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / September 23, 2004 11:29 PM PDT

Hi, DR.

>>It just seems ridiculous and highly unlikely that a Secret Service agent would say something as blatant as that<<

You simply don't understand the contempt that the Bush Administration and its minions have for anyone who disagrees with them, or who in any way helps those who disagree with them. If they could get those reporters fired for daring to interview an anti-Bush demonstrator, they'd do so in a heartbeat with no qualms whatsoever -- just the same way you don't care about destroying the lievlihood of the Dixie Chicks, Linda Ronstadt, or that poor woman from Alabama who was fired for daring to have a Kerry sticker on her car in the parking lot of a business owned by a Republican.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
The problem with your fantasy, Dave...
by J. Vega / September 24, 2004 4:42 AM PDT

Dave, there is an obvious problem with your trip into Fantasyland. Secret Service is a stand alone agency, one of whose duties is the protection of the President. The man in the office changes, and when it does the agents remain in the Service. Surely you have seen interviews with retired agents talking about protecting more than one President. Also, surely you have seen stories about the President and Secret Service having a disagreement with some thing in the protection - John Kennedy and the open convertable in Dallas comes to mind.
Heavens, in your "if they could..." mental construct you even managed to work yourself up into blaming some Bush/Republican attitude/plot for an incident in Alabama that supposedly was due to a bumper sticker (something is missing in that story.).

Collapse -
RRiigghhtt!! The ad hoc response of a Secret Service
by Kiddpeat / September 24, 2004 5:37 AM PDT

agent was planned at the highest levels, and the Secret Service are minions of the Bush Administration. Get REAL!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) The press wasn't 'mistreated'.
by Edward ODaniel / September 23, 2004 6:20 AM PDT
In reply to: You gotta be kidding
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!