Protesters pressure Homeland Defense Budgets

WMAL Radio (ABC affiliate in Washington DC) | 3-29-2003

[ReleaseTheHounds]

During the noon news update (just before the Rush Limbaugh show) today, WMAL reported (and I paraphrase): DC Mayor Anthony Williams is complaining today that the city is quickly going through the funding it received for first-responders as part of the Homeland Defense appropriations "because of all the demands placed on DC police due to the recent Anti-War protests." The Mayor indicated he would be going back to the Administration to seek more funds.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I'm sorry I don't have a more precise quote and a link, but WMAL hasn't published this news item on its website. But I heard it: and everyone should note that these Anti-War Protests don't come without a price-tag. At a time when there are so many demands on First Responders and Democrats were screaming that President Bush was late in providing needed funding -- we now see that all these Anti-American protests put significant additional burden on our cities and our economy... just as Saddam-apologists and sympathizers would hope. Just as the Soviet-sponsored "peace movement" during the 1960's was anything BUT a peace movement.

[GoldMan]

Arrest the protestors and bill them.

[talleyman]

Arrest the protestors and bill them.

My thoughts exactly.

[RicocheT]

The city mayors and state governors who want to dip into the federal money pot (mostly Democrats) care a hoot about our safety. It is just another way to fatten their budgets with our tax dollars. We need TAX CUTS !

[KantianBurke]

If the cities were to take serious steps against the protestors and actually prosecuted them instead of slapping their wrists these problems would dissappear. A 5 year sentence in prison has a way of making college kids behave.

Of course cities like DC and Mayors like Anthony Williams won't do that as more often then not they're sympathetic to the protestors, throwing the protestors in jail sucks away much needed pay off cash and the cops certainly enjoy the overtime.

[craig_eddy]

Michael Savage has been discussing the past several days how these protestors are guilty of sabotage. Looks like the mayor of D.C. is just confirming that for us.

[Lucas1]

Are you for real????? Arrest protesters? For WHAT????? Demonstrating? THIS IS AMERICA - HELLO PEOPLE. They have their right to protest against the war...and we have our right to protest in FAVOR of taking out Saddam.

Your statement is scary. We do not arrest people for protesting. It is and always will be a part of this Great Nation we live in.

The only reason for arresting a protester should be if they break the law.

[KantianBurke]

I believe everyone who is posting on this thread is doing so by terming "protestors" as those who engage in violence, destroy private property and generally violate the law.

[Kenton]

Perhaps a class action taxpayers lawsuit should be filed against A.N.S.W.E.R and their fellow travelers to recover the costs of security.

[Lucas1]

Well I don't think that is the problem...with these local governments running out of money. I think the problem is that when you have a protest that you have to send out the police in order for there to be crowd control - and other things like that. I don't take it to mean just those protesters (protestors - whichever you choose) who are breaking the law.

Those that are posting are also not saying anything about it meaning just those who break the law.

I think there are plenty of people on this forum...that would just soon see them all dead. Read some of the posts...concerning the subject (which I am sure you already have). There are people among us wishing death on each and every one of them.

[GoldMan]

Your statement is scary. We do not arrest people for protesting. It is and always will be a part of this Great Nation we live in.
The only reason for arresting a protester should be if they break the law.

Ok, I over simplified.....
Bill the ones who are arrested.

[UncleHambone]

'The only reason for arresting a protester should be if they break the law.'

I assume that it what they are referring to. I hope no one here would suggest someone be arrested merely for protesting, but the clowns who have been impeding traffic/commerce should pay a stiff price.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Send the bill to CANSWER.

[EdReform]

Excellent idea

[Paul Atreides]

From what I have read, a lot of the anti-war protestors are protesting without permits, blocking traffic, trying to shut down the flow of business, and puking and defecating in the streets. I don't know of anyone here who has a problem with protesting in itself, regardless of the idealogy, as long as it is peaceful and legally.

[M_TEN_FORTYFIVE]

The only reason for arresting a protester should be if they break the law.

Actually quite a few of them DO break the law.

If the Little Angels didn't break the law & destroy property, the city wouldn't need to beef up law enforcement at the scene.

So arrest them, book them, and put them in the jug until Dear Old Dad coughs up the damages or they have served an amount of time appropriate to their actions, and made arrangements for restitution for the damages.

Make them responsible for their actions!

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I agree with you -- we don't want to arrest protestors just for protesting. But I would hope this "news item" might get their attention that there are costs associated with their actions. I assume they are sympathetic to the budgetary concerns associated with defending the homeland -- they should be aware that some of those costs are diverted when they decide to make their protests.

It is also interesting to note the knee-jerk response of the Mayor: "I need more federal dollars" when the costs associated with demonstrations should certainly be a part of the DC Mayor's expectations.

Now I haven't heard this report repeated on the local radio program (this is an ABC affiliate, so the distortions reported about ABC's coverage is reflected with the "top of the hour" snippets on the radio), so maybe the higher-ups at WMAL are recognizing "we can't be reporting that the Anti-War protests are impacting Homeland Security budgets" (especially when it's only been a few weeks since those funds were released).

So, Lucas1, choose what you want to find offensive in this posting: I find a few things. But then again, I'm a right-wing Clinton-hating zealot, I suppose.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Actually, I heard that Chicago has dealt with these protestors in an appropriate fashion: they've hauled them off to some of the less desirable precincts in Chicago's inner-city, held them until an appropriate length of time (til around 1:00 in the AM) and then released them out on the street, having taken bail, etc. If they can't find a taxi right away, I'm not sure how they find their way to the closest El-station... Way to go, Chicago, sweet-home Chicago!

[anymouse]

If you spot a post that is advocating violence against protestors, please hit the abuse button. It is a violation of the FR posting rules, stated clearly below the posting dialog box.

During war time there is a surge of pent up frustration that tends to make many of us vent on-line. We do have to be careful to not cross the line. If nothing else, it makes us all look bad to newbees and casual lurkers.

[CyberAnt]

Somebody call this idiot and tell him to start issuing fines to the organiziers of these protests. Why should the taxpayers have to fork over more funds for these people who we don't even agree with.

The DA of SF is in the process of doing this. He said it was costing them $900,000 per day for the extra police and emergency personnel. The city is not happy.