Probably just an incredible coincidence that the headquarters for DHS's main bioterrorism lab (the CDC) is located in Altlanta. I'm sure the TB wasn't intentionally introduced into the homeless shelter as a WMD. That would be un-American.
I'm not disagreeing that this seems awfully coincidental, but the CDC was founded in 1942, and is part of Dept of Health. DHS was founded less than 10 years ago.
American Indians were exterminated by gifting them with blankets soiled in tuberculosis. Just take them from TB victims and transport them to the tribes. The war method goes back at least as far as the Roman Empire 2000 years ago. Nowadays we're told that the main Indian cause of death was disease (accidentally) introduced by Europeans. In the late 60s, the FBI often smeared toilet seats used by radical leaders with VD. It worked. A lot of things came out in the Watergate era that was reported once, then never saw the light of day again.
You're a kook, MARIS. I can think of worse diseases to spread at a homeless shelter than TB. TB would be about 20th on the list for the CDC, wouldn't it?
Cowardly cops beat helpless American. Your tax dollars will pay for their crimes. [video]http://occupyportland.org/2011/11/14/occupy-portland-day-39-videos/[/video]
Oakland will now pay the price for operating as a police state: 6:40 p.m. ACLU and National Lawyers Guild file suit against Oakland Police Department Earlier today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the National Lawyers' Guild filed a federal lawsuit against the Oakland Police Department seeking an emergency temporary restraining order to stop police violence against the protesters, according to a news release. The suit was urgent because another police encounter was imminent, following the removal of the Occupy Oakland camp this morning, the news release stated. "Excessive police force is never acceptable, especially when it's in response to political protest," said Linda Lye, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, a prepared statement. The city must respond by 5 p.m. Tuesday, according to an order issued by United States District Court Judge Richard Seeborg. If police use excessive force, the city would need to justify those actions to the court, the news release states. The suit was brought on behalf of videographer Timothy Scott Campbell, who was shot with a bean bag projectile while filming police Nov. 2-3, according to the release. Additional plaintiffs are Kerie Campbell, Marc McKinnie, Michael Siegel and guild Legal Observer Marcus Kryshka. "I was filming police activity at Occupy Oakland because police should be accountable," Campbell said in a prepared statement. "Now I'm worried about my safety from police violence and about retaliation because I've been outspoken." Guild attorney Rachel Lederman called the police department's actions "wholesale and flagrant violations of Oakland's own Crowd Control Policy," in a prepared statement. The suit alleges that Oakland police and officers from other agencies "attacked" peaceful Occupy Oakland protesters on Oct. 25 and Nov. 2, indiscriminately shooting flash bang grenades, projectiles and excessive amounts of tear gas into crowds of people who were exercising their First Amendment rights, including some who were filming police. The suit alleges police violated the Fourth Amendment rights of protesters by using excessive force and violated their First Amendment rights to assemble and demonstrate. The suit also alleges that the recent actions violated the Oakland Police Department's Crowd Control Policy, which was adopted as part of a lawsuit settlement that resulted from a large 2003 protest. http://www.mercurynews.com/occupy-oakland/ci_19331752
I love the notion that the police would have to justify excessive force to the court. Thank goodness the suit was filed! Ed O.
Excessive is in the eye of the beholder. Tear gas, bean bags, rubber bullets, etc., are not extraordinary means of crowd control. There's a lot of precedence to their use. I have no beef with people protesting. It's also in the eye of the beholder that sufficient time has passed that they're no longer protesters but squatters. Your kind has already eroded 1st amendment to the point people need to buy permits to exercise free speech in only a designated time and place. It may suck, but the police are in the right to chase squatters off the peoples' land.
What you mean to say is his kind should have known their places and kept their mouths shut. You seem very confused about who is trampling on Free Speech and who is speaking freely. The 1st Amendment can only be "eroded" by non-use.
I mean to say no such thing. You don't have the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Obviously your right to do anything is abused when you are harming someone else. You can't display the ten commandments on public property because it might offend some small minority of people. What does that say about the 1st amendment? Like i said, I have no problem with people assembling to protest the state of things. When it is no longer an actual protest, no coherent message, it sure looks like people squatting on public land. When even the most left leaning of mayors call out the police to send people home, it says something.
