Civil liberties speech draws catcalls

USA Today newspaper ^ | December 17, 2001 | John Bacon with staff and wire reports

[johnandrhonda]

Hecklers drowned out a commencement speech when the speaker said the federal investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks might threaten civil liberties. Janis Besler Heaphy, president and publisher of The Sacramento Bee, was speaking Saturday to 17,000 people at California State University-Sacramento. When she raised questions about racial profiling, limits on civil liberties, and the establishment of military tribunals, the audience interrupted by heckling, clapping, and stomping their feet for five minutes. Heaphy stopped speaking but said she plans to continue to voice her concerns about potential civil liberties violations.

[johnandrhonda]

I wonder how this clueless, liberal, media mogul expects to sell any newspapers in her home town when she has such a talent for offending her audience. And, is Sacramento and California State University an oasis of rational thought on the left coast?

[Le-Roy]

I wonder how the clueless, 'conservative' masses expect to ever regain any semblance of Constitutional gov't., when they seem all too willing to cheer from the sidelines as tyranny encircles them. Can that many people truly be that naive? It is disgusting to watch the crucifixion of this great American experiment in liberty, occasioned not by outrage and defiance, but great acclamation.

[gg188]

Even freaking NEIL YOUNG ***GETS*** it! Even far-left, brain-damaged drugged out toadies GET it: that---and I paraphrase---we may have to be inconvenienced (e.g., profiling, for example) as part of our unprecedented, life-and-death confrontation with terrorism.

Profiling is not the end of the world as we know it. One or two successful terrorist strikes using nukes or chem or bio wiping out a city or two---THAT CAN be.

The most important thing is to defeat this enemy, to annihilate him, to remove the cancer that he is from the planet.

When I read stuff like this Sac Bee woman, it convinces me that most people have no CLUE how serious this is, don't know what a MEAN world it is out there, and just think that the reality they live now is the way reality will be forever, in spite of all of history to the contrary.

Who is supposed to protect the rights of the Sac Bee or of Hampshire college or peaceniks? The terrorists are just going to go away because of our righteous indignation at being inconvenienced because a private company like an airline wants to enforce rules about what they allow us to carry on THEIR property?

As I have noted before: legalize pot, and you wouldn't hear another word from most of these people. They want to keep government out of their stash. The other civil liberties concerns they express are red herrings.

[billbears]

I wonder how the clueless, 'conservative' masses expect to ever regain any semblance of Constitutional gov't., when they seem all too willing to cheer from the sidelines as tyranny encircles them. Can that many people truly be that naive?

Unfortunately yes.

Remember though. We're safe. And that was a promised over and above freedom in the Constitution < /sarcasm>

[Ragin1]

I need a shot of KoolAid.

[Moby Grape]

Unlike you alarmist, the general citizenery does NOT believe your sky-is-falling rhetoric, and KNOW that the government needs certain powers to assure that we do not all get killed by terrorist, or become slaves to a foreign power. This reaction to the speech in California should, but it won't, be a notice to all the broad brush Chicken Littles of the world, that those who disagree with you are not a bunch of mindless dolts, who just aren't was ALL-SEEING and ALL-KNOWING as you.

[Ragin1]

"ALL-SEEING and ALL-KNOWING"

No of course your not. Your just supporting every effort of the Federal Government trying to be. Some animals are just more equal than others.

[billbears]

And that's what they said before the War of Northern Aggression and just look at the wonderful powers the national government has taken upon itself since then. Destruction of the states to establish a state religion AND require that elected officials be of a certain moral character(1866), Federally funded education(1867), federal taxation(1916), Socialized security(1935), Medicare(1965), just to name a few

Yeah looks great to me, statist

Deep in the EMPIRE,

[Kevin Curry]

Remember though. We're safe.

Yes, we are. Ashcroft has implemented reasonable measures designed to enhance our safety with minimal impact on the freedoms of legitimate citizens pursuing legitimate aims.

But please fell free to squeal, piggie, squeal!

[Tricorn]

It's a different world, post-911. This nation is collectively exercising its long-witheld right not to listen to this liberal sh*t anymore. Liberals, you're not in Kansas anymore.

[Moby Grape]

Do you have a lighting rod for your tin foil hat?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Now we are at war.
Do no wrong, nothing to fear.
It's for the children.

[Ragin1]

And for the moment, perhaps acceptable. Does everyone really think Hillary and Chucky have no political future? What a web we weave.

[billbears]

But please fell free to squeal, piggie, squeal

LOL!! That's what I love about you guys. No Constitutional argument for the use of military tribunals, no rational argument just name calling. Please point to me where in the Constitution of the United StateS that gives the POTUS the rights he has assumed upon himself. Use any argument prior to 1860(and trust me you won't find one!!), because after that we were no longer a Federal Republic, but a democratic empire

[Kevin Curry]

statist

The dipwad libertarians' favorite all-purpose insult: it slices, it dices, it makes julliene fries!

Many libertarians here accuse Reagan of being a socialist and statist. Do you?

I believe that Reagan (Meese) would have implemented subtantially the same security measures that Bush (Ashcroft) have. Great minds think alike.

[billbears]

You believe? We don't live in lala land where maybes might have happened. All I ask is that you please point to me prior 1860 ANY Constitutional argument for the actions committed by the Attorney General

[Le-Roy]

Ashcroft has implemented reasonable measures designed to enhance our safety with minimal impact on the freedoms of legitimate citizens pursuing legitimate aims.

   I hope like hell you're still around twenty years from now, so people can throw your insults back in your face, and say 'I told you so'. I s'pose in your mind the legitimate aims of legitimate citizens do not include the RKBA? Or the right to chart their own course as they see fit, without seeking permission from others?

America is being nailed to the cross, and it is people like you who are gleefully swinging the hammers - too stupid to understand the implications.

[billbears]

ROTFLMBO!!!!!!