What is Digg?187 Comments
- Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -6/+99Finally, a story about our country that makes me smile.
- UtahApocalyse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+53I don't care what the protest was about. At least the judge understands that its a constitutional right for them to protest.
- jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -7/+53That judge will be fired by Gonzales by orders of the White House....oh wait, no he will be fired b/c of performance issues.
- omnithought, on 10/10/2007, -2/+45Good. This sets a current precedent.
As much as I think protesting is ineffectual and annoying, we can't call ourselves free if we don't have the right to do it. - Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -2/+37I'll take "upholding our civil rights for $1 million dollars well-spent," Alex.
And let me know when you get around to being upset about all the BILLIONS we're pissing away in Iraq and elsewhere. - pictureDIGGER, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33Did anybody else have a strange feeling that we wanted to go to war with Iraq since 1997?
- canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32sitting at a bar on election night when they called bush over gore, i turned to my girlfriend and said "looks like we're going back to iraq."
if you didn't see the iraq war coming, you don't know bush. - RonDeline, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Ah, good for them. This abysmal policing by Chief Ramsey. I remember they just surrounded 100 people at the park, barked "disperse", and of course they weren't allowed to leave the park, so they started arresting them all for failure to comply with an officer's order.
They got random people not even involved in the protests, just people going to work. Got to be one of the stupidest things I have seen and I'm amazed that it took 5 years to award them this judgment. - zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19That's far cheaper than the loss of liberties.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20The war was authorized by congress in October 2002, but everybody knew we were going in long before the official declaration. The bombing campaign had already started at that point.
- brklynmark, on 10/10/2007, -9/+26My first glance had me wishing this had something to do with "Arrested Development."
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19You are deeply confused. You seem to think that the content of protester's speech matters. Our Constitution disagrees. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in Saudi Arabia or Iran or South Korea.
Why do you right-wingers hate America? - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Gee whiz, it sure is "annoying" when people express their political views in a public area, isn't it?
- RonDeline, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Calm your ass down. Only tax paying Washingtonians are paying for this debacle because it comes out of the city funds.
The rest of you just visit our STATE, walk around the mall for a week and leave without even thinking about the half a million people that continue to be taxed and have zero voting representation in Congress. The highest city tax rate mind you, in the country. So the only people that should be complaining about the "cost" of this award, are Washingtonians alone. The rest of you freeloaders, go to a museum or something and chillax, or do us a favor and help us get our representation. - floppyparty, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15The Article:
Protesters arrested during a rally five years ago were awarded $1 million on Wednesday.
In September 2002, 100 people who marched on D.C. to protest the war in Iraq and World Bank policies. They were arrested. They later sued, claiming their arrests were unlawful.
A judge agreed.
On Wednesday, the judge awarded them monetary damages and threw out their arrests.
The demonstrators claimed police trapped them along Connecticut Avenue, then arrested them.
Since the incident, the D.C. Council has enacted legislation clarifying that it is legal to parade on the street without a permit. - ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Yup, I want to consume and these liberals want me to actually think. Horrible
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12What is "pro-just-choice"? A clever way of saying "pro-life"?
- TheeOne, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Pro-choicers aren't locked away because they don't go around blowing ***** up all the time.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14I would rather my tax dollars go to these protesters, and not an illegal, unjust war.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12sweet victory
- LethalAmbition, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12But we need to reward our justice system finally doing something right. So, Dugg.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Finally a victory for the people. More, give me more!
- LethalAmbition, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10It came from the city that arrested them. It came from the taxpayers of that city.
- sonaboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10the people who pay public taxes in D.C. pay for that ***** on the part of local police.
You didn't pay anything. Just because you're too much of a cheapass to acknowledge unlawful actions on the part of police doesn't mean pursuing justice isn't commendable.
And the D.C. police got off cheap, considering how things usually go. so kindly STFU. - JlmAWP, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Can't we just skip the initial arrests? Now-a-days, instead of $1 million, you'll get arrested again!
- RonDeline, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You mean the ones that bomb clinics? I hope so.
- alphabetagaga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7As nice as it would be to think this is a positive change in the trend of the current state of politics, I tend to believe it's an anomaly rather than a shift. Sad.
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7http://zfacts.com/p/780.html
Jan 26th, 1998 to be precise. That's the date of the infamous "get Saddam" letter sent to Clinton by PNAC. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Yeah, & no one had *any* idea that it was going to happen. It was a total surprise. /sarcasm
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Do you have *any* shred of a moral compass left after 20 years wandering around in the Right-wing intellectual desert?
- RonDeline, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Well, you figure Chief Ramsey was making $150,000 for the 9 or so years he was working here, he's got some cash he should contribute. Maybe he should be fined since he ordered this debacle.
- ClosedCaption, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Since the incident, the D.C. Council has enacted legislation clarifying that it is legal to parade on the street without a permit."
Wow so you mean, I no longer need a permit to have my rights? Things are looking up! - rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Um, so your argument is that the protester's First Amendment rights should be trampled by overreaching government authorities, and that they should not have the right to an attorney to defend them? And judges should not be allowed to rule on blatant violations of the Constitution by the Executive Branch?
And this is supposed to be a "libertarian", much less a "strict constructionist" argument?
Does Ron Paul have *any* supporters who are not completely comfortable with, and to ignorant to notice, their own cognitive dissonance?
See, it is people like you, who don't seem to care at all about rational consistency or actual issues but merely blindly supporting a demagogue whose rhetoric flies in the face of his own legislative record, that scare the rest of us.
As a Democrat, I should be delighted that Ron Paul is acting as the Nader of the Right, splitting support for your candidates, polarizing opinions and conducting an unethical campaign for the hearts and minds of zealots and thugs.
However, as an American, I am alarmed at the fascistic overtones and the historical resonances.
Sorry, that was probably way too many big words and complicated concepts for you, so here's the short version: You are an idiot. - Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's not about the f'n money. A million is NOTHING these days (especially when government funds are concerned).
I'm happy the court upheld their right to protest and punished the government for taking that right away for them. - solidwhitedevil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Ca-CAW, ca-CAW!"
- AxeSwinger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Okay, I'll bite sure taxpayers pay for that court decision. But this is one way to hold our government accountable. Now the city council will have to explain to it constituency why they don't have enough money to run the local government; they we're operating in an unlawful manner. When it comes election time it will be discussed that do to mismanagement of government services they accrued a liability in excess 1million dollars including legal fees.
I see this is a good thing the populace can see the damage of having overbearing government and the victims are compensated for the lose of their Constitutional rights. Another option would be multi-year imprisonment of those people who took those rights away up to the Police Chief and council members that supported the previous policy. But as we've seen in recent years the buck stops with the low level worker and not the head of an organization. - dannyapplesauce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yea, "I'm against picketing, but i don't know how to show it ..." Mitch Hedberg
- apologeticus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Good news, but buried for absolutely horrid journalism. Very few details are given, and this isn't even a sentence since it doesn't express a complete thought: "In September 2002, 100 people who marched on D.C. to protest the war in Iraq and World Bank policies." Please, let's not reward such terrible journalism by digging it.
- hmmmok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So ur saying there are no paid activists?
I see your -1, and raise you -1... - williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Absolutely. There is no difference between tasering people to herd them into "free speech zones" and swabbing mace directly into the eyes of abortion protesters.
Both are symptoms of a police state. Cops that are willing to do that to their fellow man are animals and should not be surprised that their lives are, in the end, no greater than that of cattle. - RonDeline, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5From half a million taxpayers that live in Washington DC and don't have a vote in Congress, that's where.
- Gr8Pumpkin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That wasn't much of an article. It was more like "Did you hear...?"
- ClosedCaption, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is the answer to the right wings question "what rights have been violated under Bush?"
But of course they have many dodges used nto justify this such as "the judge is a liberal" or "activist judge". It doesnt matter what the law says, to them every action taken against anyone they perceive or accuse as being a "liberal". - jimbren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Federal judges can be impeached, but they can't be fired. I think the lovely and talented Mister Rove will be busy trying to stay away from all impeachments to worry about this one.
my .02
kisses,
jimbo - megarobotguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Justice has been served, the American way.
- neosparticus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I hope you don't really think that judges can be fired :P
- krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3pro-just-choice?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The judgement certainly. Mistaken arrest is not a 1 million dollar crime when innocnent people spend tens of years behind bars and are released with a sorry and have a good day.
- josman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There were 100 people... not 10. plus You forgot the lawyers cut... Final check $5000 Chaching. Chedda' comin' ya'll
- wishninja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2they should throw the police making the arrest in jail for grave violations of the law like this case.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is