DC Chapter Forms "Human Shield" to Protect White House Sunday

Associated Press photos | 1/18/03 | Associated Press

[FreeTheHostages]

As those of you watching Foxnews national know, the "peace" protestors continue to protest here in Washington. They're on a march from the Justice Department to the White House, and one of the things they say they want to do is inspect President Bush's "presidential palace" for weapons.

Saddam uses humans as shields in times of war. But of course these "peace" protestors wouldn't harm innocent civilians. So some memberes of the DC Chapter of Free Republic are forming a "human shield."

[LuvUSA]

Does this apply to this picture???

THE SEDITION ACT OF JULY 14, 1798
An Act in addition to the act, entitled "An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States."

SEC. I Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot. unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or publishing, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided. That the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.

JONATHAN DAYTON, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
THEODORE SEDGWICK, President of the Senate, pro tempore.
APPROVED, July 14, 1798:
JOHN ADAMS, President of the United States.

[Dutchy]

Kudos to the FReepers standing proud in front of OUR White House!!! The Lefties showed their true colors again by being arrested for scaling the fence....

[The Man]

You do realize this law has been widely recognized for centuries to be blatantly unconstitutional.

Don't you?

[LuvUSA]

Why????

[FreeTheHostages]

nope -- those were police barricades they overran.

Police would be sure not to use DC Chapter Freepers as actual barricades. LOL -- they don't want that more than we do.

Our people are very aware of their safety and don't take stupid risks. I'm sure we're fine.

[Hipixs]

Anti-war protesters climb over a fence in Lafayette Park near the White House in Washington, January 19, 2003, as part of a march against the U.S. going to war with Iraq. Sixteen protesters were arrested for breaking through police lines. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

[LuvUSA]

Its not a law....It was an Act of Congress that is no longer in effect..(SEC4)...read before you reply. I'm just making those realize that they are lucky to that this act is no longer in place,.

[Aquamarine]

U.S. Park Police detain a protester who jumped the fence at Lafayette Park across the street from the White House, during an anti-war protest Sunday, Jan. 19, 2003, in Washington.

I hope that's a felony...it should be.

[FreeTheHostages]

"fantastic idea" -- Kristinn's idea and execution. I'm not even there, just posted the jpg to keep y'all informed -- so I'll pass your compliments on to him. Kristinn's got a very good, dry sense of humor. He thinks of good media hooks for this stuff.

[Hipixs]

A protester is dragged away as he is arrested by Park Police officers after jumping a barricade at Lafeyette Park in Washington, January 19, 2003. Some 16 protesters were arrested during a demonstration near the White House. The demonstration was a continuation of the larger protests that took place on Sataurday against a possible war on Iraq. REUTERS/William Philpott

[Hipixs]

U.S. Park Police stand guard as other officers arrest protestors who jumped the fence at Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House, during an anti-war protester, Sunday, Jan. 19, 2002, in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

[FreeTheHostages]

Yeah, good point. They said in the caption that K. was "pro-war." But I emphasize: that's the media spin. We *always* made the point that we weren't "pro-war," just pro-US troops and pro-Bush policy of disarming Saddam. I heard Kristinn give *repeated* interviews on this topic, as did others. And when one guy on the bullhorn started gleefully shouting "Bomb Iraq!," we made sure to correct him that we wanted to Liberate Iraq. No one, not the generals, wants war. So I assure you that reporter just made up the "pro-war," and had to totally ignore the routine caveats we gave that that's not what we are in order to post that line.

I was even sent by Kristinn at the Marine Barracks to essentially get rid of a sign one of the veterans had brought that said something we thought was too war-like. So we were very careful and in no way "bought" that pro-war tag.

I'm sure you agree that HERE are the pro-war people:


The tag line for this one: Communist demonstrators hold a portrait of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and a caricature of President Bush during a rally outside the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Saturday, Jan. 18, 2003.

[AnnaZ]

Oh, my... what a picture! The CRBs may have the numbers but we always have the humor.

[blam]

Excellent!

[FreeTheHostages]

"Man, I hope Kristinn finds this as offensive as I do"

Yup, but you should be glad to know that repeatedly it was broadcast over various other interviews that we were not pro-war. We made that point at the outset, that we supported disarming Saddam but war should be a last resort. Be heartened to know that our careful and repeated caveats worked as a general rule -- this one slipped through, but lots of the media coverage yesterday got that point right.

We were very aware of the risk of that label and took steps to do what we could. But the media -- you can't avoid the bad/liberal reporters slipping up once or twice. There are reporters who WANT to believe we're pro-war and are willing to ignore evidence to the contrary.

By the way, the head of the Iraqi-American council who spoke at our rally said that even putting aside weapons of mass destruction, we should intervene militarily for the same reasons we did in Bosnia: here is a leader killing people, gassing people, and the Iraqi people WANT to be liberated. So I think there is a principled pro-war position in the sense of a war of liberation. That would be more controversial, though: making the US the world's policeman on human rights. Not sure if I'd support that.

Must go soon.

[Libertina]

Thanks Free, you are too humble. Appreciate the pictures and the post. And another BUMP for Kristinn. :)

[Hipixs]

U.S. Park Police stand guard as protesters try to jump the fence at Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House, during an antiwar protest, Sunday Jan. 19, 2002, in Washington.(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

---

An anti-war protester is arrested during a rally at Layfette Square near the White House, Sunday, Jan. 19, 2003, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

[FreeTheHostages]

Good point.

But unlawful entry at the White House is of course a valid crime.

People get prosecuted for that ALL the time. Plus here they were inciting to riot and, if they resisted arrest, assault on the police officer.

You have a point, but rest assured: there will be a nice range of crimes upon which to prosecute the bozos that are TRYING to break the law at the White House today.

[FreeTheHostages]

Ah man, thanks for posting that photo! This is the way these guys look, too. Just the best. They've protected the DC Chapter many a time.

Great photo, compositionally, too.

[AnnaZ]

In today's LA Slimes (I know, I know... but I read it so that you don't have to) that same picture is printed, but a wider version. In front of the Stalin fan (?!?!) there's a guy holding aloft a picture of a smiling, waving Arafat. (puke!)