More protest activity at Port of Tacoma

Navigation

User login

Online users

Chia
Guglielmo
JMK
Peter Alden Stroble
Just another voice
einmaleins
JstPlnOnry
a.future.with.n...
flyfreeasabird
Logarithm

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...
johnmac
circular_ruins

More protest activity at Port of Tacoma

Submitted by Rick on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 5:48am.

Rick's blog
Login or register to post comments

What Happened?

Submitted by gshafer5571 on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 8:26am.

Wow if there is one thing that I see in this video that is different then the Olympia protests (because obviously sitting in the middle of the road and blocking public flow of traffic isn't one of them)is that your numbers are very very small. What happened PMR. People get tired of being shot with rubber bullets, shot with pepper spray, ARRESTED? Hmmm...I wonder who is winning the battle, PMR or law enforcement. I can tell you on a trip to Tacoma last Thursday that the police number isn't falling. There was a huge police presense in Tacoma. I could hardly get near the port. Every cross street of Port of Tacoma Rd had at least 1 police officer blocking it.

i think you're confused

Submitted by jonjon on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 8:44am.

this isn't about protesters "winning" or "losing" against the cops. they aren't there to protest cops. they're there to show opposition to the war and to the use of tacoma's port in facilitating the transport of military vehicles.

asymmetrical warfare

Submitted by epjmcginley on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 9:09am.

The police have no alternative to arriving in excessive numbers, those numbers are a measure of the success the activists have achieved.

Police in numbers as a

Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 9:23am.

Police in numbers as a measure of success? That's a new one!

Police have no alternative because of reputation, period. I hope to see a day when the presence of hundreds of supporters is a sign of success.

new one

Submitted by epjmcginley on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 10:21am.

... not so new really. Asymmetrical warfare is a well known concept. I am sure the Pentagon is thoroughly familiar with it, although entirely unable to escape its demands on them. The police are not there to protect anyones reputation, they are there to maintain the status quo (business as usual).

No, the police are there, in

Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 10:41am.

No, the police are there, in numbers, because of OPMR's reputation. I didn't mean to imply they are protecting a reputation.

I Agree!

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 2:53pm.

I agree. PMR's reputation definitely calls for police presence in numbers. The conduct of PMR over the past two years, both in Tacoma and Olympia, has demonstrated a pattern of violence, property destruction, and disregard for the rights of their fellow citizens.

Violating the rights of fellow citizens by illegally blocking access of public roads to legal traffic; That’s PMR!
Using infants and young children as human shields by bringing them into the street and deliberately placing them in front of large trucks to stop those trucks; That’s PMR!
Throwing trash and pushing dumpsters into public streets and arrogantly interfering with private citizen’s access to public streets; That’s PMR!
Throwing rocks at Police Officers performing their duty of keeping public roads open for lawful traffic; That’s PMR!

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Dislike of PMR

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 4:00pm.

Jeff, your dislike of PMR is palpable.

I'll like them more when

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 10:24am.

I'll like them more when they realize the obligations that come with their rights and start respecting the rights of their fellow citizens.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Respecting Fellow Citizens

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 9:23pm.

Part of respecting fellow citizens involves respecting the truth. The truth is that President Bush has lied to us over and over again about war and terrorism. The truth is that terrorism is a product of a failed foreign policy. The failure is a foreign policy of global dominance and operates upon the philosophy of power politics - a profligacy of take without asking, of take whatever you can afford without regard for consequence (especially to future generations), or take whatever you can simply get your hands on.

Have you seen the Bill Moyers Journal interview with Andrew J. Bacevich on an Imperial Presidency?

Of Course, Only Your Version of the Truth!

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 11:56am.

Robert,

You say “Part of respecting fellow citizens involves respecting the truth.” And, of course, the “truth” is only what you say it is. I missed your election to the office of County Truth Determiner for Thurston County. Is that new office where you determine what the “truth” is for all the citizens of the county? Sorry, I’m not going along with that. You can write whatever fantasies that you like. You can chant whatever slogans you like. You can hold whatever signs you like. That's protest. But, once again, PMR’s blocking of public streets is NOT protest.

You and the PMR gang seem to feel that your political beliefs entitle you to violate the rights of your fellow citizens. You and the rest of the PMR need to learn that when we exercise our free speech rights we also have an obligation to respect the rights of our fellow citizens. This includes keeping public streets open to all citizens. Your political beliefs DO NOT entitle you to block public streets, destroy public property, or assault other citizens.

This is why the police officers in Olympia, and Tacoma were correct, and will be correct in the future, in swiftly removing those obstructions from the public road to allow lawful traffic on those public streets. If, in the determination of the officers at the scene, this requires the police to use tools such as pepper spray, tear gas, tazers, rubber bullets, or other less than lethal tools, the use of those tools is appropriate and acceptable. It is the actions of PMR that require the police to use tools such as pepper spray, and tear gas, to remove them from their obstruction of the public roads to lawful traffic. The responsibility for this rest 100 percent with PMR. When PMR learns this, they will end up receiving fewer pepper-spray facials and breathing less tear gas.

My admiration goes to Police Officers for the outstanding work they are doing to control the PMR rioters and to keep the public roads open to lawful traffic. They are doing a very demanding job with great restraint and discipline.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

This is not protest????

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 12:07pm.

I guess if they ran him over, someone would be talking about God blessing chinese tanks...

Analogy

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 12:20pm.

Jeff,

Your objection to PMR protests is like objecting to the arrest of a suspect in a bank robbery, or a murder, or some such similar crime. Let me illustrate.

The President, evidently and demonstrably (beyond the shadow of a doubt here, Jeff) lied and deceived this nation about the threat posed by Iraq. (((*I know this is a reality that is hard for you to swallow. But take your medicine Jeff, it might not taste good, but you'll feel better afterward.*)))

The matter of intentionally taking the country to war based on false representations of the facts is criminal - period.

Similarly, when a person enters a bank, for example, and commits the double crime of robbery and murder - we do not wait for a Federal Court to declare the act illegal. The suspect will be immediately apprehended.

Jeff. Iraq is like the bank. The people of Iraq are like the bank tellers. The President, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al. are the masterminds. They must be held accountable.

Why are you so willing to give the President a break on his lies and obfuscations? Do you think the President, in his capacity as CEO of the USA, should have special permission to lie and to deceive?

Jeff, it's plain and clear. The Policy is Global Dominance. There is no disputing the fact. What you're saying is that you're willing to put Americans in harm's way in order to fulfill a policy of dominance.

Don't confuse dominance with freedom. Dominance is just that: dominance. And dominance as an end - with all action toward it being justified - is just plain wrong. It's immoral, it's murderous, it's heinous and horrible.

Sincerely,

Bert

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. Albert Einstein

Oh Jeff

Submitted by Laurian on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 12:45pm.

get over it fer Christ's sake. We got your point. You think blocking a street is a denial of rights of others. Others disagree. Got it. Drop it. Move on. You are becoming a one trick pony which is sad because I know you have other things to talk about. Please, let it go.

Restraint and Discipline

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 1:32pm.

This is hardly restrained and disciplined. It is cops beating up on peace activists. Why use pepper spray and strong arm tactics to disperse and do harm to peaceful protesters?

They didn't peacefully

Submitted by Mary Baker Eddy on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 3:44pm.

They didn't peacefully accept arrest, they resisted. Baghdad has no bearing on Olympia.

Well, with regard to lawlessness in Iraq...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 3:50pm.

...the former Secretary of "Defense" said, "Freedom is untidy and free people are free to make mistakes."

His thoughts seem appropriate here.

Accepting Arrest / Baghdad Bearing

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 7:40pm.

First of all, the photos show a blockade in which there was no attempt to make arrests. No attempt was made to arrest any of the participants in this human blockade either before or after the incident. Additionally, no one was cited for any behavior specific to this incident pictured above (Saturday, November 10th, 2007). Accepting arrest has nothing to do with the above incident because there was no attempt to make arrests. If you can document and provide evidence of a PMR protester resisting arrest, I would be very interested.

Secondly, what happens in Baghdad does have bearing on Olympia. Oppositely, and more importantly, it is very clear that what happens in Olympia has a tremendous bearing on Baghdad. The municipal Port of Olympia, a public institution, has been used to enable a war of choice - what is essentially an act of aggression committed by members of our government. The use of the port, and any port, enables, aids and abets, provides for the accomplishment of, the war.

The protesters were justified in their opposition to the Port's enabling of the war effort.

The war is and always has been unnecessary. The men and women of the US Armed Forces have been put in harm's way without just cause. The war is unjustified because Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq did not pose a threat to the security of the USA prior to the 'shock and awe' invasion attack. President Bush, along with others, made comments, intentionally and deliberately, to paint a false picture of the supposed threat from Iraq. We, as a nation, were misled into war. A war of aggression. It's wrongful. Our Congress is derelict in stopping it. Who will stop it if not you and me? Who will protect our soldiers and other military personnel from being abused into serving this wrongful operation?

They had every opportunity to remove themselves.

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 3:37am.

They were blocking a public street from being used by lawful traffic. They were instructed to disperse (multiple times) by the Police and failed to do so. They had every opportunity to stop their arrogant obstruction of a public road. The actions of the Police to clear the public road for lawful traffic were correct. The police did a fine job. Their use of pepper spray was definitely appropriate and acceptable.

You can call them “peace activists” all day long. That does not give them any special rights. They still do not have the right to block a public street. Their views on the nation’s politics are totally irrelevant.

It is PMR, and those individuals, that are responsible for those people receiving pepper spray in their faces. PMR and those individuals need to grow up, stop acting like children on a temper tantrum, and learn to respect the rights of other citizens.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Lawful Traffic

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 7:27am.

That is where we disagree, Jeff. Traffic that enables aggression is not legal.

As far as special rights go, I agree with you. PMR or any other Peace Activists do not have special rights. But they do have the special privilege, as interested parties, in resisting the illegal actions of the government.

The protesters are not responsible for the pepper spraying. The police bear full responsibility for it, and I am sure the karmic consequences will be reaped in time. The police had every opportunity to make arrests peaceably - but they chose not to. Instead of making peaceable arrests, the police made a decision to assault peacefully protesting peace activists who were engaged in a purely passive resistance to dispersal orders.

(to clarify: there are two perspectives on the resistance, which must be understood as separate types. Both types strived toward nonviolence. One was a civil and active resistance to the illegal prosecution of an act of aggression by our government. The second resistance was a purely passive and nonthreatening resistance to orders to disperse. - It must be understood that the nonthreatening protesters would not obey an order to disperse, because the privilege to resist an illegal aggression committed by our government overrides.)

Clue For You

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 8:06pm.

"You and the PMR gang seem to feel that your political beliefs entitle you to violate the rights of your fellow citizens. You and the rest of the PMR need to learn that when we exercise our free speech rights we also have an obligation to respect the rights of our fellow citizens. This includes keeping public streets open to all citizens. Your political beliefs DO NOT entitle you to block public streets, destroy public property, or assault other citizens."

Replace the term "PMR" with "Bush Administration," and "fellow citizens" with "people of Iraq" and you have a succinct argument for why we have a duty to disobey, and disrupt, illegal warfare carried out with monies extorted from us by the US Empire.

Repeatedly you have denied that the people of Iraq have any legitimate voice in how this country occupies their land. You are not pro-democracy, you are pro-dictatorship by coercion. To wit, you celebrate the deliberate harm done to human beings in your own community. And here I speak of pepper spray rather than Caterpillar products. Your pretense to support law is likewise a farce. You and your cohorts at OSOT celebrate thuggery plain and simple.

LeGrand Jones in Court Wednesday

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 2:35pm.

LeGrand Jones, a National Lawyer's Guild attorney from Olympia, was arrested for refusing an illegal demand by police to see his ID at the Port of Tacoma recently. The police have been using demands for ID as one of several harassment tactics towards anti-war demonstrators at the port. LeGrand will use his hearing tomorrow to creatively demonstrate against these tactics by police. Supporters and press are advised to attend.

What: LeGrand's Arraignment

Where: Tacoma Pierce County Courthouse, Tacoma Municipal Building

When: 1:30 pm, Wednesday, August 6th

Media Contact: Wes Hamilton 360-791-7484

Hearing went well

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 3:56pm.

LeGrand appeared in court with his attorney Bill Ferrell, and plead not guilty to obstruction and trespass. He also was interviewed by King 5 news and The TNT newspaper.

He was supported by another 7 or 8 people in the courtroom, as was Jaime Hellerman and KteeO who were arraigned upstairs a few hours later.

The police report claimed that LeGrand was trespassing by being in front of a fence (outside the fence) on which was a trespassing sign. As LeGrand's attorney pointed out, the plain meaning of such a sign is not that one is already trespassing simply by being able to read such a sign, one would need to cross the fence.

The second charge, obstruction, is for refusing to provide identity papers. Washington state has no 'stop and identify' law.

Thanks for the report

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 5:07pm.

Drew, thanks for the report. I am sorry that I wasn't there.

Letting go...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 3:00pm.

me too

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 3:58pm.

I am not at all comfortable with the tone and appearance of that protest.

Yeah

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 7:31pm.

The message they send isn't doing anybody any good.

undefined

message

Submitted by epjmcginley on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 9:17pm.

The message they send, intentionally or otherwise, is that the political and social climate in the US is volatile. It should be noted that these relatively tame and civil demonstrations are a pale reflection of the violence rent around the planet by the executors of US power. Wether New Orleans, Baghdad, Tacoma or some unheard of town in Appalachia or Afghanistan, the Federal Government of the United States in all of its guises has enabled, condoned or perpetrated countless horrors. These demonstrations send a message that is being received by many every day; that patience has worn thin, that scarcity is beyond the next crash, that the quality of life enjoyed by a large portion of the US population for nearly three generations is beginning a precipitous descent. The message sent was long ago received by some, and to many more it will sound very familiar though they have not acknowledged hearing it yet.

I appreciate the intent

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 9:55pm.

but the message is lost. The objective should be to gain popular suport...and PMR is clearly failing in that regard. They appear to have become a self-agrandizing clique. Time to question your leaders..or at least admit you have some.

intent

Submitted by epjmcginley on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 10:11pm.

Intent not to defend. Further, I did not participate, and have no leaders or affinities. The message sent is not necessarily what is intended nor desired by individuals or groups. The message received is one further time removed. What I am pointing to is the message that does in fact exist now, not the ideal or the desired. PMR as you have identified it does exist, and is comprised of very few. It is victim to all of the throes of existence. The resistance as a whole also exists, and is comprised of very many. Let's remain proud to be part of the resistance, and keen observers in addition. Leaders be damned.

Institutions be damned

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 10:23pm.

...

Agreed

Submitted by epjmcginley on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 10:26pm.

From The Seattle Times...

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 2:53am.

12 anti-war protesters arrested at Tacoma-area demonstration:

20-year-old Forest Student, was part of a group of protesters surrounding a police vehicle and making threats, Williams said. An officer struck Student in the chest with a Taser after he and other protesters ignored repeated warnings to back off, [Tacoma police spokesman Tom] Williams said.

Wasn't this person arrested in Olympia? I can't recall if it was during the port protesting or the Dead Prez concert, but the name sticks out as having appeared in The Olympian.

MayDay 2008

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 3:52am.

Yes, you are right! It was MayDay 2008. Here is one of the Olympian's articles that mention his arrest.

http://www.theolympian.com/570/story/437817.html

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

I know what could have taken care of them...

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 5:17pm.

Jeff, do you think it's too bad that there weren't any bulldozers in the vicinity? Isn't that how you would prefer to take care of people like these protesters (who object to the President telling them lies and taking the country to war without justification of national security?) [Iraq did not attack, or pose an imminent threat of attacking, the USA.]

Boo... Let go and move on.

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 5:17pm.

Boo... Let go and move on.

appetite for murder

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 5:20pm.

Jeff demonstrates an appetite and approval for murder. Do you think it's appropriate to just mosey on about my business? Murderous inclinations deserve to be confronted.

You're leading him, Rob.

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 5:22pm.

You're leading him, Rob. Just stop already. This has been confronted in the past, has it not? If your pursuit is personal, I suggest you take it off Olyblog.

I'm with Rob on this one

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 7:23am.

Some things are so socially inappropriate that they can never be forgotten. Sadistically teasing grieving parents with a sign endorsing their daughters' death is one of them. As a community, we would be remiss if we didn't remember that Jeff's behavior has been known to fall well outside the range of what is normal and acceptable.

I agree. Jeff's sadistic inclinations and behaviors,

Submitted by Sandy M on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 7:42am.

especially his endorsement of Rachel's killing, are way beyond what is normal or acceptable and must not be forgotten.

must not be forgotten?

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 8:07am.

I'm not a big fan of Jeff, he's a little too loud for me. I find him far easier to forget than PMR though. I think that 20 years from now very few people will remember Jeff or his bulldozer sign...the loathing for PMR will probably still exist though. Take that comment as you will PMR.

Give it a break

Submitted by Laurian on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 8:36am.

Mr. Whitlock's taunting Mr. Bingham is bullshit. In Mr. Bingham's post about the current situation in Tacoma he said nothing about Israel/Palestine, bulldozers, or Ms. Cory. Those who bring up earlier posts that have nothing to do with the current topic are engaging in slime level debate. Stick to the issue at hand folks. Those without sin...

It's not bullshit

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 2:52pm.

I am totally willing to forgive Mr. Brigham. If he genuinely apologizes for his advocacy of killing and violence. If he makes amends in a sincere, genuine and truthful manner, I would be willing to forgive Jeff. But I will never forget his hateful signs. His advocacy of hate and division. His meanness needs to be remembered and remarked on as he operates within the community. It is important background from which to understand his commentary.

If you desire to see

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 8:55am.

If you desire to see violence, arrogance, and destruction, you don’t need to look over in my direction. You and your PMR associates can study violence, and destruction by simply gathering together and observing each other. You should study PMR’s culture of violence, arrogance, destruction, and their demonstrated lack of respect for the rights of their fellow citizens. It is important background from which to understand the community's disgust with PMR.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Desire to see violence

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 9:10am.

I don't desire violence Jeff. I don't know where you picked up that idea, but I am sorry and I would like to disabuse you of it if I can.

Have you had a chance to read this comment?

In it I posed a hypothetical question for you.

peace,

bert

We can add to the list of

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 10:28am.

We can add to the list of disgusting PMR measures with their actions that, in effect, attempt to disenfranchise the voters of the Port Districts for the Port of Olympia and the Port of Tacoma. Port Commissioners are elected by the citizens of the port district to set policy for the Port. This is true for both the Port of Olympia and the Port of Tacoma.

The citizens of Thurston County have elected the Port Commissioners to run the Port of Olympia. In the last election for Port Commissioner, the only candidate that stated a preference for refusing military shipments for the Port of Olympia, Suzanne Nott, was defeated in the primary!

In the general election last November, a total of 55,743 citizens voted in the election for District 1 Port Commissioner. A total of 51,840 citizens voted in the election for District 2 Port Commissioner. The Port Commissioners selected in both District 1 and 2 both supported military shipments through the Port of Olympia.

Yet none of that matters to the members of PMR. They could care less about who their fellow citizens have selected to determine Port of Olympia policy. PMR wishes to substitute their will in place of the will of over 50,000 citizens of Thurston County. In effect, to disenfranchise those citizens from their control of their port. This is one more example that demonstrates PMR’s disregard for the rights of their fellow citizens.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Great point, Jeff

Submitted by JT on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 12:00pm.

n/t

If you are bored with Olyblog, come have some fun at the cool forum spot in Olympia, "olyforums.org/forum"

itchyhitch.blogspot.com

That's strange...

Submitted by Rick on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 12:15pm.

...I must have missed where it said "Support Iraq War" on the ballot.

Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt

It was right next to ...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 12:27pm.

...the Israeli Bulldozer question.

You are more than sharp

Submitted by wilson on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 12:46pm.

You are more than sharp enough to understand his point, just because you may not like the man does not mean he doesn't have a point

Yes...

Submitted by Rick on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 7:50am.

...his point seems to be that protesting in a free democracy is "disgusting."

Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt

The way I took it was that

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 9:44am.

The way I took it was that blocking traffic or taking part in other acts of civil disobediance is a way to thwart the will of the people, I think we would be hard pressed to find someone who does not passionately support a citizens right to protest. I had the same thought when Alpine Experience was vandalized, you may call it a protest, but in reality it was an attack on an elected officials building and therefore an attack on the will of the citizens of Olympia. Make sense?

Not really

Submitted by Rick on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 10:14am.

There is an obvious difference between vandalizing private property (as was the case with Alpine Experience or Capital Playhouse) and blocking traffic (as with the PMR). To conflate the two is unhelpful to say the least. One may not agree with the tactics of the PMR (myself included), but there is no argument that it was an exercise in political speech, not vandalism.

Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt

The election that you are

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 1:32pm.

The election that you are thinking of happened in 2004. That's when the citizens of the United States re-elected President George W. Bush for a second term.

Glad to help you out with that.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

GWB was elected Port Commisioner?

Submitted by Rick on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 7:48am.

That must have been quite a pay cut!

Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt

Elected?

Submitted by Tenzing on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 11:37am.

Jeff Brigham writes:

"The election that you are thinking of happened in 2004. That's when the citizens of the United States re-elected President George W. Bush for a second term.

"Glad to help you out with that."

Sorry—both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were rigged. Remember Florida? Ohio?

Nor would mere election or voting, however democratic or not, rigged or not, really matter anyway when it comes down to questions of overriding morality, ethics, the supremacy of international law, etc.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal, and the occupation of Iraq is an abomination. And just because something is legal doesn't make it right in any case, doesn't make it immune from dissent (witness slavery, legal until the 1860s).

Hitler was elected chancellor, after all, and a later vote gave him unsurpassable power by consolidating the positions of chancellor and president. By the logic expessed by a few posters here, no one should have taken to the streets in protest against what Hitler and his henchmen did after that.

Those who supported Hitler were complicit in crimes against humanity that have now been replicated to a great extent in Iraq. What can we say now about those who support the occupation of Iraq, or who remain silent?

The use of public ports as a means to further U. S. imperialism must be resisted by men and women of conscience. PMR undertakes actions that should be commended, joined, and emulated at ports throughout the nation and wherever U. S. war ships dock.

----

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

—President George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., August 5, 2004

The presidential elections

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 3:52pm.

The presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were definitely NOT “rigged”. In our society legal questions on the conduct of elections are brought to and settled by OUR COURT SYSTEM. The questions/accusations in the 2000 election went through our COURT SYSTEM all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Questions/accusations on the 2004 elections were also brought to court and were settled by our COURTS.To say now that the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were rigged is frivolous nonsense.

To compare the political situation in the United States today with Hitler and Nazi Germany is also frivolous nonsense. We have had regular elections every two years without interruption. President George W. Bush was ELECTED TWICE to the office of President of the United States. We also have elections every two years for all U.S. Representatives and every U.S. Senator faces an election every six years. Our Rep. Brian Baird was elected by the people of the 3rd Congressional District in the fall of 2006. If he does not represent the people, why are the people re-electing him?? There is now a “Peace Candidate” running against Brian Baird. If a majority of the citizens in the 3rd Congressional District believes as PMR, she will win the election. Let’s see if that is the case or if the people continue to choose Brian Baird to represent them.

Exposing the “Illegal War” lie is the fact that NOT ONE FEDERAL COURT has determined that President Bush's use of military force in Iraq was then, or is now, illegal. NOT ONE! The reason is that our President’s use of military force in Iraq was and is now LEGAL!

Our military action in Iraq was, and is, definitely legal. Our military action in Iraq was ordered by a President that has been elected twice. The military action was approved by our Congress of Representatives and Senators that we the people have elected. The House of Representatives has the power to impeach President Bush. They have not done so because there are no legal grounds to do so. There is only the fiction of booksellers like Bugliosi and de la Vega, and the fantasies of fringe extremists like PMR.

PMR undertakes actions that require the police to use tools such as pepper spray, and tear gas, to remove them from their obstruction of the public roads to lawful traffic. The police are right to do so. My admiration goes to Police Officers for the outstanding work they are doing to control the PMR rioters and to keep the public roads open to lawful traffic. They are doing a very demanding job with great restraint and discipline

Citizens have the obligation to respect the rights of other citizens. All too often we see these so-called “protesters” act as though their political beliefs allow them to break the law and to not respect the rights of their fellow citizens. Examine their conduct during the riots at the Port of Tacoma and Port of Olympia last year. When these people block streets, trespass, and destroy public or private property, they are not longer protesters, they are rioters.

This is also why many of these PMR rioters are on the receiving end of tazers, pepper spray, and tear gas. These “protesters” that were at the Ports of Olympia and Tacoma need to grow up, stop acting like children on a temper tantrum, and learn to respect the rights of other citizens.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

...and now for something completely different.

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 5:14pm.

undefined

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is I - Sam the American Eagle. I would just like to say a few words about "nudity" in the world today. And I for one am just appalled by it. Why, did you know that underneath their clothing the entire population of the world is walking around completely naked? Is that disgusting? And it's not just people, although goodness knows that's bad enough. Animals too, even cute little doggies and pussy cats, can't be trusted. Underneath their fur - absolutely naked! And it's not just the quadrupeds either. Birds too - yes, beneath our fine feathers, birds wear nothing! Nothing at all. Abs... oh m... could someone, hand me a robe? ... Mmmhmm

hee hee. just kidding...

Tee hee...

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 5:25pm.

Great idea - use democracy here to defend empire there. How many mothers in Mosul got to vote whether our port shipped weapons which went to her homeland and killed her sons? How many in Najaf? How many in Falujah?

You know as well as I that we've asked for a public vote on the issue of military use of the ports, and would welcome that. When you ask the commissioners for that vote as well, I will know that you actually value democracy.

The people do have a public

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 4:35am.

The people do have a public vote on the policy of military use of the Port of Olympia. They determine that when they elect Port Commissioners. So far, the candidates that have been elected are the ones that flat-out stated that they supported military shipments through the Port of Olympia. If you believe that the citizens of the port district oppose military shipments, then find a candidate to run that holds that position. Or run for Port Commissioner yourself! We will really see how valid your "no military use of the port" position is then.

Another step you could take is to petition for a ballot measure to change the name of the port to something like "Peace Port". RCW 53.04.110 states how you can do it. If the citizens of the port district have anywhere near the "stop military shipments" beliefs that PMR seems to think, then you should have no problem at all with this.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Missed the point (not surprising)

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 11:44am.

The people who should vote on an issue are the people directly affected by that issue. I pointed out that in the case of US military adventures in Iraq, the people there did not elect us to intervene and have - repeatedly - voted for people who are asking us to give them a timetable for our withdrawal.

Meanwhile, you claim that if the majority of Thurston County wanted to change the policy, they would have elected the one Port Commission candidate we could find and did run, despite the fact that she did not make it to the General Election or have much in the way of money or exposure. I challenge you to advocate for just such a candidate or a special election, explicitly to decide whether the people of Thurston County actually support empire through the use of our Marine Terminal (Port). But further I challenge you to answer - if they also voted to steal all of the land and homes of the Jewish community of Thurston County, should that be allowed? Would you stand by and let a popular, but wrong, opinion destroy people's lives?

Drew, Your “one Port

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 8:40am.

Drew,
Your “one Port Commission candidate” did not make it to the General Election is because most of the voters do not support her positions. If the majority of the citizens of the Port District wanted military shipments stopped, they would have elected a candidate with that position.

Your question asking “if they also voted to steal all of the land and homes of the Jewish community of Thurston County, should that be allowed?” is not applicable and you know it. Those citizens, AND YOU, have access to our courts.

I challenge you to petition for a ballot measure to change the name of the port to something like "Peace Port". RCW 53.04.110 states how you can do it. If the citizens of the port district have anywhere near the "stop military shipments" beliefs that PMR seems to think, then you should have no problem at all with this.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

What is Disgusting.

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 08/15/2008 - 10:23pm.

I'll tell you what is disgusting. President Bush and other members of the Administration telling us lies and putting US troops in harm's way to fulfill their energy policy. "energy security" they call it. But it's really energy insecurity - especially for the millions of affected Iraqis.

Jeff. It's wrong to lie. period. When American soldiers and innocent Iraqis are put in harm's way - many of their lives completely upended - it is flat out criminal.

Would you continue to support the war if you knew that President Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq? Take this as a hypothetical question.

I'm sure...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Fri, 08/15/2008 - 10:29pm.

...he'll be real quick to respond to that.

While you're at it Jeff, if you could just spell out where you are with regards to international law and how it applies to our military action in Iraq, that would be great, okay?

That is an issue for our

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 9:44am.

That is an issue for our federal courts to determine. As of yet, NOT ONE FEDERAL COURT has determined that President Bush's use of military force in Iraq was then, or is now, illegal. NOT ONE!

There you go!!

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Interesting argument...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 11:04am.

..it sounds familiar.

Which court heard that case? Oh yeah, none. NOT ONE!

The fact is that no federal court has determined that the military action is legal at all! NOT ONE!

In fact, Richard Pearle has admitted that the Iraq war is ILLEGAL. To say otherwise without proof is an oft repeated LIE!

Try again...

Crime and the Court

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 3:37pm.

So, to extrapolate your argument, the act of BANK ROBBERY would NOT be ILLEGAL unless the perpetrator was found to be guilty in a court of law.

Jeff. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, then does it still make a sound?

Your "extrapolation" is way

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 7:19pm.

Your "extrapolation" is way off base. It's more like the legitimate account holder (the President) submitted to the bank (Congress) a request to conduct the withdrawal (the use of military force). The bank (Congress) approves the withdrawal and gives the account holder the money (Congress approves the use of military force).

Our military action in Iraq was ordered by a President that has been elected twice. The military action was approved by our Congress of Representatives and Senators that we the people have elected. There is no doubt that our use of military force in Iraq was, and is now, legal.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

The President Lied Jeff

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 9:11pm.

The problem is that the President has been lying to the Congress, Jeff. He has been lying over and over again. He was telling the American people of a threat from Iraq to the national security of the USA. No such threat existed, and there is abundant evidence to support this. There is evidence that the President and his associates engaged in a pattern of deliberate deception. They did this under the auspices of energy policy ("energy security" - really it's energy insecurity) and foreign policy ("global dominance" - yes it sounds ridiculous, but it's true.)

The bully policy "global dominance" is just wrong (in a moral as well as a practical sense.)

And true energy security involves investing in alternative energy technology - sustainable and environmentally benign technology, as well as programs to promote conservation of limited resources and efficient use. True energy security will not be found by militarism and invading foreign nations and propping up pseudo-democratic governments in order to protect pipelines and mineral resources.

The enormous gap between what US leaders do...and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments... Michael Parenti

The threat posed by Saddam

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 9:37am.

The threat posed by Saddam Hussein was clear. As far as the question of whether Iraq had WMDs? Not only did Iraq have WMDs, they have USED WMDs! Iraq has killed thousands of their own people with chemical weapons. Some of these same chemicals, much diluted, were found in the Tigris river by our forces right after the invasion. And, No, we did not give those chemical weapons to Iraq. That is another oft repeated lie.

PMR’s blocking of public streets is NOT protest. You and the PMR gang seem to feel that your political beliefs entitle you to violate the rights of your fellow citizens. You are wrong. You and the rest of the PMR need to learn that when we exercise our free speech rights we also have an obligation to respect the rights of our fellow citizens. This includes keeping public streets open to all citizens.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Jeff, WTF!

Submitted by Laurian on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 10:26am.

What threat did Hussein pose to the US? None. Zip, zero, nada, the null set. His army was in shambles and his population starving. Not a threat to us or his neighbors. And where did you pull the diluted chemical weapons chemicals nonsense from. Sources please.

I'm no fan of the PMR but blocking the streets IS a form of protest, a legitimate form of protest I add. I'm not sure what important rights of our fellow citizens the PMR violated other than the right of travel, a right noticeably unarticulated in our state and Federal constitutions.

The war in Iraq is wrong. We have squandered lives and treasure and destroyed our military in what is in fact George Bush's vendetta. This nation is poorer for it.

Not only did Iraq have WMDs,

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 2:45pm.

Not only did Iraq have WMDs, they have USED WMDs! Don’t you get it? He USED THEM! Saddam killed thousands of his own people with chemical weapons. Examples; The Halabja poison gas attack and the Al-Anfal Campaign with the widespread use of chemical weapons. See http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm#7 Want more? Go to Google and do a search for “Halabja” or “al-Anfal Campaign” and you will find tons more.

We had a decade of the UN and various UN “inspectors”, including Hans Blix and his merry men, running around Iraq like a game of find the nut under the cup. They were rendered totally impotent after years of Saddam’s “cheat and retreat” tactics. As Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, said in 1998; <i>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."</i>

Again, PMR’s blocking of public streets is NOT protest. When these people block public streets to lawful traffic they have crossed the line of protest. Their political beliefs DO NOT entitle them to violate the rights of their fellow citizens. Their political beliefs DO NOT entitle them to block public streets, destroy public property, or assault other citizens. This is why the police were correct in removing them from the public road to allow lawful traffic on those public streets.

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Saddam posed no threat...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 11:09am.

...to merely say so does not make such a statement anymore than a plain LIE! Furthermore, the White House asked the CIA to forge documents to make their case that Iraq had WMD. It is illegal to use the CIA to spin propaganda on Americans. No investigation ever had shown that Iraq had WMD nor has any shown that Iraq was a threat. None! To say otherwise is an absolute LIE!

Not only did Iraq have WMDs,

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 3:04pm.

Not only did Iraq have WMDs, they have USED WMDs! This is clear. To say otherwise is an absolute LIE!

Saddam killed thousands of his own people with chemical weapons. Examples; The Halabja poison gas attack and the Al-Anfal Campaign with the widespread use of chemical weapons. See http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm#7 Want more? Go to Google and do a search for “Halabja” or “al-Anfal Campaign” and you will find tons more. Educate yourself.

As far as your "CIA / forged documents"; We will see. Just because a "journalist" says it does not make it so.

The fact remains, to say "No investigation ever had shown that Iraq had WMD" is an absolute LIE!

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Jeff...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 3:35pm.

...you're exactly right. He did have them. No one disputes that. It's a matter of tense. You see, he used them (and no one disputes that it was a horrible thing to do), but then he didn't have them any more. So, it is indeed true that no weapons were found by the inspectors after the invasion: i.e., there no WMD's to threaten us with. Your dogged adherence to this notion that SH was somehow a threat to the US is difficult to understand. Not even most conservatives (and certainly not a majority of the people in this country) believe that anymore. None of this is to say that SH was a nice guy, but is removal, with no contingency, will go down as one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, foreign policy mistakes this country has ever made.

Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt

I’m glad that you admit

Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 6:46pm.

I’m glad that you admit that Saddam definitely possessed weapons of mass destruction. The evidence is in the thousands of dead bodies--the thousands of men, women, and children that he killed using weapons of mass destruction. He repeatedly used chemical agents on Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war (and no, we did not provide them to Saddam). He used them in his campaign of genocide against the Kurdish people in northern Iraq. His widespread use of chemical weapons, among them mustard gas and nerve gas killed tens of thousands of Kurdish men, women, and children. In one chemical attack on the town of Halabja, he used nerve gas to exterminate over 5000 real men, real women, and real children. These actions show that Sadam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had no reluctance in using them.

The problem we faced is that Saddam Hussein was not the type of ruler to voluntarily give up those weapons. Instead of cooperation with the United Nations to verify elimination of his WMDs, Saddam successfully used his tactic of “cheat and retreat” to continually stymie the spineless United Nations Security Council. Saddam would obstruct the UNSCOM inspectors to impotence and then turn into the soul of reason just prior to strong US reaction. Again and again and again, etc, etc. This grand scavenger hunt continued with Hans Blix and his merry men running around Iraq trying to find out which cup has the nut under it. Saddam would have been happy to play this game indefinitely. These “inspections” did not work for over 10 years and would have never worked.

We played games with Saddam Hussein from 1991 to 2003. That was long enough. One thing is now certain. Those weapons are no longer in the hands of Saddam Hussein, the man who can best be described as the “Hitler of the Middle East.”

Jeff Brigham

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues.”

President George W. Bush

Saddam and WMD

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 9:01pm.

It looks like you know a lot about Saddam Hussein and WMD. What do you know about his rise to power? Did the US government (State Dep't, CIA, other?) play a role in the rise to power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. Marcus Tullius Cicero

oh those WMDs

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 10:06pm.

Maybe this is what Jeff is thinking of:

"Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."

>snip<

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war." ...FoxNews. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

The real WMD were Bush's "words of mass deception".

"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

President Gerald Ford (Never Elected Twice!)

All that may be true (Jeff)...

Submitted by Rick on Tue, 08/19/2008 - 5:59am.

...but you fail to make the case as to why we should have been manipulated into a war that was unnecessary and so very, very costly. Do you now admit that it has made us less safe, not more?

Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt

Tyranny of the majority...

Submitted by epjmcginley on Fri, 08/15/2008 - 10:09am.

is the greatest risk of a Democracy. In the system in place in the US, it is in fact a Tyranny of the minority, since so few participate, and many of those who do are actively mal-informed by an even smaller minority perspective. As Drew noted however, they (this smaller still minority interest) are well equipped with resources and therefore exert the most influence.

has anyone posting on this thread...

Submitted by chad360 on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 10:02am.

...even been to the Middle East during war?

I'm thinking not-

A bunch of arm-chair know-it-alls with nothing better to do?

>what a waste of space & energy<

pls close this stupid fucking thread already! >grump<

chad360

Been to the Middle East?

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 2:06pm.

I don't have to go to the Middle East to have an understanding of what is happening there.

And, maybe I shouldn't speak for him, but it's my understanding that Jeff B. has been to Northern Iraq (with the CIA) if I heard him say so correctly.

Just because someone has been to Iraq doesn't automatically make that person an expert on the situation there. Travel to Iraq also doesn't necessarily imply that a person's perspective or opinion is more valid, or more trustworthy.

There are people who have never been to the Middle East whose opinions I trust far, far, far more than some who have spent years and years there. Think about the opinion of a man like Ahmed Chalabi, who is wanted for extortion in Jordan - the same man who was poised to be thrust (by the Bush Admin. into the Presidency of Iraq). Then there is L. Paul Bremer. I wouldn't trust that guy!

Nothing better to do? Nothing better to do than speak out against and oppose the biggest capital offense currently in the commission of our government. I can't think of anything as important or meaningful as resisting the most intolerable acts of violence as they are supposedly committed in our names by our government.

"There comes a time when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us." Martin Luther King Jr.

Silence (in the form of inaction, etc.) - on a certain level - is complicity.

The situation is really, really bad. It's terrible!

That's why you'll find me speaking up, and speaking out, on these matters - now, and on into the future.