slapnose.com

What about some hype for the Ivory Coast protesters. It's not their fault the media consrues them as rebels; they're still being ripped apart by French imperialism. I was surprised, too: French imperialism?

Of course, what do you expect when an ex-prized colony starts bombing opposition during a long duration of peace? Were they amassing weapons of mass destruction? Getting in the way of diamond mining?

While bringing in a tank may be ridiculous, calling in the French is infinitely more bizarre.

According to your logic: Hey man, there's cops hanging around all the time. I see them driving around in their cars, looking all repressive in their uniforms and with their guns openly worn on their belts. I'm sure those bastards are just waiting for a chance to shoot someone. Let's get the cops off the street!!!

According to my logic: maybe the cops are there to keep people safe. Maybe the tanks were there to make sure the protestors didn't unfairly interfere with the rights of folks trying to get home from work. Maybe the tanks were there because they thought the protests was something it wasn't (violent, out of control, un-premited) and left as soon as the situation was clear.

In essence, I think it's okay to have officers of the law running around with guns as long as their not shooting innocent people.

Just to debunk the whole tank issue:

I wasn't there at the Tuesday night demonstration in Westwood, but I did do some follow-up investigation this morning about the two armored vehicles.

Turns out the West Los Angeles Veterans Administration was having a Veterans Day parade and celebration this morning (Wednesday). I drove over and walked in to the WLA VA to look around at 10:50am.

Lots of marching middle school ROTC "cadets" (including 11-to-14-year-old boys and girls from Mt. Vernon Middle School all in US Army uniform, some shouldering parade "rifles") and a high school band and antique cars filled with VAFW members. And two USMC Striker armored vehicles complete with 6 or 7 Marines in fatigues and body armor giving junior high ROTC kids and adults tours of the vehicles.

I talked to one Marine with one of the "Striker" vehicles. He told me they had driven the vehicles up from Camp Pendleton the night before (Tuesday) on the freeway. Getting off the 405 Freeway North taking the Wilshire East (instead of WEST to the VA) offramp, they would have passed Wilshire and Veteran where the anti-war rally was underway protesting the attack on Fallujah in Iraq.

I asked him if he was "rolling around Westwood" Tuesday night. He said, "Yeah, and we drove past that anti-war demonstration. We was lost. We're not from L.A. We didn't know where this place (WLA VA) was. We were trying to find it."

"Did you drive around the block twice?" I asked.

"Yeah, we did. We stopped to ask them (the protestors) directions, but they weren't very nice."

There was more conversation, but that was the gist of it from the Marine side concerning the armored vehicles. For what it's worth.

I've also been receiving emails from friends who were at the rally who tell me the LAPD officers said they had no idea why the Striker armored vehicles had shown up.

Dude, lay down the pipe and read the paper:

Military's Presence at Antiwar Rally Is Called a Coincidence
By Wendy Thermos
Times Staff Writer

November 12, 2004

Photos and a video posted on the Internet this week depicting tanks at an antiwar demonstration in front of the Federal Building in Westwood provoked hundreds of outraged postings.

But police and witnesses said the armored vehicles were on their way to a Veterans Day event at the nearby Veterans Affairs grounds on Wilshire Boulevard, stopping only for a red light near the Federal Building.

"It's a whole lot of nothing," said Officer Kathy Simpson, a Los Angeles Police Department spokeswoman. "The 'tanks' were there for Veterans Day. They ride in the parade and wave."

The antiwar protest, sponsored by the group Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, was held Tuesday evening near the VA grounds, where a parade and exhibit were staged Wednesday.

Blurred photos posted on the Internet showed military personnel in battle gear standing at their hatches, behind gun turrets mounted on two tank-like vehicles rolling through traffic. Closer inspection showed the vehicles were not tanks but light-armored vehicles, which are smaller than tanks and ride on rubber tires instead of treads.

Several websites denounced the vehicles' presence and accused the military of trying to intimidate peaceful protesters. "There was absolutely no excuse to deploy tanks against a law-abiding crowd," said one site.

A statement posted Wednesday by Answer said, "It is an outrage to see tanks rolling through the streets of Los Angeles."

By Thursday, however, a representative fielding phone calls for the nonprofit group was considerably calmer. "I can't speak for everybody, but I think people are overreacting a little bit," said Darrin Downey, who saw the vehicles driving by. "It didn't seem hostile. I believe they were just going around the corner."

The demonstration was already over, he added.

It's not clear which branch of the military the vehicles belonged to. A Camp Pendleton spokesman said he believed his base sent one or two armored vehicles to the exhibit and parade, which celebrated Veterans Day and the Marine Corps' 229th birthday Wednesday. "I can guarantee you we didn't send them over there to scare a bunch of protesters," Sgt. Mark Ledesma said.

Just to clarify (as not to take credit for what isn't mine), I didn't write anything after "Just to debunk the whole tank issue:". Everything after is a quote. I found it on the web and will look up the source post haste.

Touched a nerve, there, did I Fritz?

This is easy.

It does appear that the tanks showing up at the protest was a mistake. Fine. That's not the point.

I decried their presence on the assumption (now shown to be incorrect) that they were there specifically for the protest. More importantly, you DEFENDED their presence on the same basis. The fact that it has since been shown that they were not there for the protest but were lost (a bit scary in it's own right) is irrelevant.

The police are on the streets for good reason. Tanks are not equivalent to city police. Police are routinely sent to monitor protests -- I have no problem with that. Tanks, again, are a completely different matter. Tanks are used by the U.S. military, which is not an domestic, urban peace-keeping force, but a national defensive force. Our military's purpose is to protect us from foreign invasion, not to protect us from potentially unruly sign-holders.

Comparing the use or display of force by the police to the same by the military is ridiculous. They have different roles, and if those boundaries start to become hazy (which it turns out they did not in this case) we're in a lot of trouble. When a government starts using it's military against it's own citizens, particularly when those citizens are expressing an anti-government viewpoint, democracy is severely threatened.

I can think of dozens of instances where using the military, and by military I mean National Guard. Let me emphasise: National Guard, not the full force of the United States Army and Marine Corps. I think that is an important distinction, and I want to emphasis it. If I wasn't clear on that point before, I want to absolutely clear now.

Where should the National Guard be used? Large protests where the manpower of the police department is not enough to protect the protestors or the public at large. The LAPD is continually complaining that they are undermanned. I'll believe them in this case. I think it's clear that Los Angeles has a low per capita number of police officers.

Large riots where the police department is undermanned. See above.

Protests near areas that demand a certain sensitivity: whether it is public buildings that might be attractive to a terrorist attack, or near areas that need a level of protection because they might be the subject of an attact by the protestors (a consulate, embassy, or counter-protest might be good examples).

I could go on, but even I'm bored by this discussion. To sum up, I think the National Guard should be used to monitor and control protests in situations where the manpower of the local police force is insufficient to ensure that security concerns are adequately met and to make sure that the rights of protest and assembly are protected at the same time the right of the general public to get on with their lives is protected as well.

re: Brad Liang

What in the history of the world would make French imperialism surprise you? You will probably die of shock when you hear about the Dutch... omg the Portuguese too!

By the way, I don't think the vehicals the Marines were in counted as tanks. I think that a fair classification is Armoured Personnel Carriers. I think their designation is "Striker APC." If there is a military type reading this, they might chime in with the essential differences between the two.

Slapnose Merchandise! At last!