News Item Showdown looms in 'treasonous' Berkeley - Page 2

ThetaBurst · 02-13-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teri B.

this is anti-military, and seems to me to be unconstitutional. Now cities can decide who's allowed to enter?

Falsely hyping things up again, huh, Teri? You're getting good at this. Maybe there's a future for you in the tabloid press. You could hook up with the National Enquirer and do lines like, "Martians stole my baby!" or, "Obama reveals third ear!"

The protest was not anti-military, Teri. It was a response to marketing deemed as predatory.

The action -the protest itself- is not unconstitutional. Contrary to your false characterization, the action of the protest is in fact made possible and protected by the Constitution.

Your statement "Now cities can decide who's allowed to enter?" is, again, entirely bogus, entirely flammatory, more chicken with the head cut off. Never was there a ruling in place prohibiting by any law the entrance of any entity into Berkeley, California. How absurd you are. The truth is, there was a previous resolution specifying that Marine recruiters -deemed by many nationwide as predatory- were "not welcome" in the city of Berkeley. That's a far cry from, what, "MARINES PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING BERKELEY CALIFORNIA!"

As the update below from CNN notes, the Berkeley City Council held a vote (and, "voting" is a also process yielded and protected by the Constitution) and, in a 7-to-2 measure it rescinded the previous vote. So, all of this -the entire process- was followed to the full letter of the law and the full word of the Constitution and the full voice of the people.

You can calm down, now.

Again.

Quote:

(CNN) -- The Berkeley City Council voted early Wednesday to rescind a previous vote that said Marine recruiters are "not welcome in this city," but held tight to its anti-war stance.

Military supporters and anti-war demonstrators began gathering in Berkeley early Tuesday.

The vote came after more than three hours of animated citizen input and council debate. More than 100 speakers took turns at the podium. Each speaker was given up to a minute to comment.

In a 7-to-2 vote, the council said it would no longer send a letter to the local Marine Corps Recruiting Station and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway saying recruiters aren't welcome in Berkeley.

Instead, the city is now simply stating it's opposed to the war and the billions spent on it. However, "we recognize the recruiter's right to locate in our city and the right of others to protest or support their presence," the council said.

The council also said it supports and respects the men and women of the armed forces.

Ahead of the vote, passions ran high on both sides of the debate as pro-military demonstrators squared off with anti-war protesters. Berkeley police reported four arrests before the meeting began, all misdemeanors. Police said there were minor scuffles between the anti-war and pro-military camps.

An American flag was set aflame outside the City Council chambers, damaging a pair of bicycles, police said.

Inside, members of the anti-war group Code Pink lined up at the podium to speak. Their salmon-colored signs read, "Berkeley says No to War" and "City Council - We have your back."

But others scolded the City Council. "City Council -- shame on you," said one sign, and "Don't surrender to terrorists," read a T-shirt worn by a Vietnam veteran.

Debbie Lee, whose son Marc was the first Navy SEAL to die in the Iraq war, demanded an apology from the council.

"My son gave up his life for you," Lee told the council as she clutched his framed picture.

"I'm appalled at what you did," she said, referring to the council's vote on Marine recruiters.

"It's very, very sad. Shame on you."

But Jean Stewart called the council's stand "courageous and gutsy," saying the war was "immoral." And Judy Christopher said, "We need to stop the war. We need to stop recruitment."

In the measure passed by the council on January 29, Marine recruiters were called "uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

It went on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that "volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley."

Protesters with Code Pink have been camped outside the Marine recruiting office on Shattuck Avenue for the last four months, singing peace songs and chanting slogans for an end to the Iraq war. See photos of Code Pink protesters outside Marine office »

Republican lawmakers in Washington fired back last week, threatening to recall more than $2 million of federal funding to the city as well as money designated for the University of California-Berkeley, the campus that became a bastion of liberalism during the Vietnam War.

The Marine Corps has said it has no plans to move its office, which is located about a block from the college campus.

Berkeley City Council moderates anti-Marine position - CNN.com

guest1234567 · 02-13-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babylonDon

Meh. I disagree. The scenario described here is action movie stuff. And these people are engaging in a pretty bold (albeit, symbolic) gesture.

Actually, the Oakland area has had a history of radical groups. And all of the groups like the Weatherman Underground sprung up during a period of unrest about a war.

Quote:

They are confronting an extremely well-documented problem, aggressive, near predatory recruiting practices. In their city. Lawfully.
Their city council wrote down their grievances on a piece of paper, and approved it.

They have expressed their feelings to the military, they disapprove of their recruitment practices. It's non-binding. They have no plans to force the recruitment office out of town.

But isn't this exactly their stated goal? I'll go out on a limb here, the military doesn't attract the best and brightest. I should know, I did well in the military and I'm neither one of those.

Quote:

It wouldn't even have been a story, if not for the Bush-ite policy of over reaction to any questioning of their tactics. Both parties know the recruitment office in question isn't going anywhere.

They attracted the media on a slow news day, I guess.

Quote:

You can't even correctly call it 'civil disobedience', it's that mild. While those of us who have been appalled by the occasional stories of these recruiting sit around and 'tsk', they did something about it. They said 'These are our children, and if you refuse to comport yourself with morality and honesty, we'd prefer you stay away from them.'

Or they could do exactly what I did, teach my children that there is no way in hell I would approve of them going into the military. It all starts at home.

Quote:

No burning flags. No ROTC buildings seized. No effigies.

It's actually kind of quaint. Their gesture comes across as rather calm. The reactions to it, will tell the rest of the story.

babylonDon · 02-13-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guest1234567

Actually, the Oakland area has had a history of radical groups. And all of the groups like the Weatherman Underground sprung up during a period of unrest about a war.

Different times. These people ARE those student radicals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guest1234567

Or they could do exactly what I did, teach my children that there is no way in hell I would approve of them going into the military. It all starts at home.

Same here. And it does START at home. But with the deck stacked the way it is, I'm gratified someone's seeing it doesn't end there.

They used their public forum to make a valid statement. This IS democracy. I love it. They did a little something to remind the powers that be, that someone's paying attention.

guest1234567 · 02-13-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babylonDon

Different times. These people ARE those student radicals.

Same here. And it does START at home. But with the deck stacked the way it is, I'm gratified someone's seeing it doesn't end there.

They used their public forum to make a valid statement. This IS democracy. I love it. They did a little something to remind the powers that be, that someone's paying attention.

As I said in my first statement, protesting is not unconstitutional or treasonous. But I would ask what is more predatory, the current recruitment practices or the draft? One was born out of the elimination of the other.

babylonDon · 02-13-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guest1234567

As I said in my first statement, protesting is not unconstitutional or treasonous. But I would ask what is more predatory, the current recruitment practices or the draft? One was born out of the elimination of the other.

Perhaps, but that's a different question.
Lots of 'lesser predator' analogies, leap to mind. I'm sure you can imagine them.

'...when right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right.', eh?

Teri B. · 02-13-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.M.DEEEZ

I thought we had a similar thread, but couldn't find it.

In that mystery thread, I described how our local recruiters aggressively pursued my stepson a few years ago.

A 4.0 student, and the valedictorian of his class, they kept calling him, using any bullshit story they could, to entice him into signing up.

Some of the claims of this recruiter were laughable. Clearly, he was no match for my stepson's intelligence.

The issue here, as Don correctly points out, is the predatory practices of a desperate military. They should not be allowed to make promises that they know they can't keep.

These are our kids they are preying upon. Signing up for the marines, is probably an even bet that your kid will be killed, or mamed.

You know why they're so predatory, particularly now? If they can't recruit their share, they get transferred, and they'll likely end up in Iraq. Recruiters have always been a bit slimy, but now they're positively desperate.

Still, I don't see how they can ban them. There's got to be a more rational way.

babylonDon · 02-13-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teri B.

You know why they're so predatory, particularly now? If they can't recruit their share, they get transferred, and they'll likely end up in Iraq. Recruiters have always been a bit slimy, but now they're positively desperate.

Still, I don't see how they can ban them. There's got to be a more rational way.

They don't have legal authority to 'ban' them. Again, it was a symbolic gesture. It was nothing more than a public, 'shame on you'. And i find it entirely rational.

They worked within the system, to the best of their ability and authority, to condemn actions they found egregious. It was a very mild way to attempt social reform, in their community.

SaraW · 02-13-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teri B.

Still, I don't see how they can ban them. There's got to be a more rational way.

They didn't ban them. They told them they are not welcome. There's a difference.

The rational thing to do is not spread troops so thin by fighting a war of choice.

ThetaBurst · 02-13-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaraW

They didn't ban them. They told them they are not welcome. There's a difference.

Don't waste your time, Sara.

Teri can't be bothered with facts.

Teri B. · 02-13-2008, 12:02 PM

And Theta can't be bothered to read or LEARN anything. As the article states.

Quote:

Military supporters descended on Berkeley early Tuesday, demanding the famously liberal California college town rescind its vote that says Marine recruiters are "not welcome in this city.

. . .

The City Council is to meet at 7 p.m. PT on whether to take back its previous measure urging the Marine recruiters to leave town.

Now, that may not be a "ban," but it's darn close. STOP following me around and harassing me Theta. I mean it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode