Berkely, CA Council Votes that Marines are not Welcome

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Berkeley City Council, in the most leftist city in the nation;

voted 6-3, with Gordon Wozniak, Betty Olds and Kriss Worthington dissenting, to tell the Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_8127493

Another example of 'free speech for me, not for thee'. It's not enough to protest, call the USMC baby killers, etc. - they don't want them to even have a voice.

The 'code pink' group of anti-war feminists has protested the USMC recruiting station in Berkeley since last September;

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

Councilman Gordon Wozniak opposed both items.

The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said after votes were cast.

In one recent protest, leftists chained themselves to the USMC door and physically prevented people from entering:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.../BALTUQKOE.DTL

A collection of images and summary of information is found here:
http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_m...orps_2-1-2008/

Conservative commentary, with more info and links is here:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/libe...arines_must_go

The main issue here isn't that the leftists are protesting against the war - they are against the existence of armed forces, it would seem, or at least want them shoved out of their everyday life, so that they can go about their lives pretending anti-bush protests will bring harmony to the world.

Also, they are hypocritically, but not unusually, trying to silence their opposition and seize from them freedom of speech.

CR

[Zim]

How strange.

From the first link, it seems they are protesting the presence of the Recruitment Center because of the Iraq war? It's certainly unpopular, but I wouldn't malign an entire branch of the military for a war they didn't decide to start. I wouldn't even think the marines would be the branch most involved in carrying out the war. I may be betraying a woeful ignorance of the military situation in Iraq unbefitting an ex-military brat, but isn't it mainly the army on the ground there?

Granting special priveleges to a certain protest group also strikes as unfair, especially since they seem to be bothering other businesses that have nothing to do with this. Maybe I'm just too young to understand the psychology behind this kind of protest. If someone tried to physically bar my entry into an establishment with which I had business, I'd be less inclined to pay heed to the reasoning behind their action (unless it included something along the lines of "the place is on fire", or "he's got a gun", but I'd hope to notice that kind of thing before trying to walk in) and somewhat inclined to go around or through them, whichever seemed most convenient.

[HoreTore]

I fully support any attempt to burn army recruiters at the stake.

[Zim]

Well, I suppose that might end this more quickly than weekly protests. Then again, the U.S. military seems to have an inexhaustible supply of recruiters. New ones would replace them. I have a theory, that they get them by hiring those weasely fellows who hawk crappy cell phones from booths in malls.

[Vladimir]

Teh olde.

[Xiahou]

Berkely would be funny if it wasn't a real town. Nah, it's still funny- the place is a total joke.

[Beirut]

Another example of 'free speech for me, not for thee'.

While you certainly don't agree with what they're doing, do you agree they have the right to do it?

Isn't this is a case of local interests, through the democratic process, dissenting against the state? The Marine Corps is an armed force under the control of the federal government, wouldn't protesting their presence, whether right or wrong in your eyes, be fundamental proof that freedom is alive and well?

By the by, does the First Amendment apply in equal measure to a state armed force as it does to the individual? Does it apply at all?

[Marshal Murat]

My view on this is that the Code Pink women are attacking the wrong hydra head here. They seem to think that by protesting and locking themselves outside a Marine Corp recruiting office, they will end the war within a week. To attack the Marine Corp recruiting office for this, to me it's absurd and disrespectful to every Marine out there.

They have every right to do this, of course. They aren't preventing Marines from speaking out against this, but I doubt that any pro-war rally will get this much help or assistance from the city council. It seems that the liberals in town, since they can't get anyone else to recognize the plight of the nation, they are attacking an object of the 'man' and hoping to bring it down. I find the whole act silly to the extreme. If a young man wants to join the Marines, Navy, Army, or Coast Guard, he's going to be joining said branch. The recruiters are going to be there, and it's for every able citizen to decide whether they want to 'be all they can be' or turn down the offer.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

We've had something a little bit similar happen at my university recently. Our students' union has tabled a motion to ban armed forces recruiters from careers fairs, freshers events, etc. I think it's ridiculous-we're all adults, and it's not as if the recruiters are brainwashing students, they're just providing information. If the forces are so evil, shouldn't the union be trying to inform students why they think so, rather than suppressing any discussion by kicking them out? I've got no real interest in a military career, but the condecension of it gets on my tits.

Furthermore, the motion is being voted for on wednesday afternoon, when most of the students involved with OTC and the like are off training. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but it's a bit underhand if it is.

[Reverend Joe]

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, it's not entirely fair to say that recruiters are "just providing information." A recruiter will promise a potential recruitee anything they ask for, short of making a boldfaced lie. Of course, it may be unfair to compare army recruiters to marine recruiters, but that has been my experience with secondhand stories regarding army recruiters.

But banning them entirely? No, that's extreme. Unless you're talking about the KKK or some other group who can be agreed upon to be too justifiably dangerous to the public at large, Freedom of Speech should stand. I would even hesitate to ban the KKK because, as much as I would personally like to trap the Grand Dragon in my basement and torture him "Saw" style, it is dangerous to out-and-out ban any group. If anyone is prevented from speaking, they gain a a degree of automatic psychological legitimacy simply by being unable to speak their mind.

[Boyar Son]

Hippie idiots...they want us to be defensless and open to destruction. I hope all hippies are targets of terrorists when they go to hamas and pledge their support..I'll be laughing.

[Vladimir]

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, it's not entirely fair to say that recruiters are "just providing information." A recruiter will promise a potential recruitee anything they ask for, short of making a boldfaced lie. Of course, it may be unfair to compare army recruiters to marine recruiters, but that has been my experience with secondhand stories regarding army recruiters.

Stay away from Navy recruiters.

[Crazed Rabbit]

While you certainly don't agree with what they're doing, do you agree they have the right to do it?

They've got a right to protest the war, but not to try to silence and physically bar their opponents from speaking and congregating. Then they go beyond practicing their rights to prohibiting the rights of others. The parking spot and noise permits are, of course, an example of government favoritism of one group.

A recruiter will promise a potential recruitee anything they ask for, short of making a boldfaced lie.

And that's why you ask for a contract.

CR

[KukriKhan]

There's something in the drinking water in Berkeley... it was a focal point in the 60's Free Speech Movement, that set the stage for other uni student protests throughout the US.

Whenever war is the issue, Recruitment offices, ROTC programs, and innocuous military installations get targeted by the anti-war crowd, when they ought, IMO, to be marching at the local Federal Building.

I have vivid memories of being splattered with pig's blood at Letterman Army Hospital in San Francisco in the early 70's. I'm glad that kind of "free-speech" action is outlawed these days.

[Beirut]

They've got a right to protest the war, but not to try to silence and physically bar their opponents from speaking and congregating. Then they go beyond practicing their rights to prohibiting the rights of others. The parking spot and noise permits are, of course, an example of government favoritism of one group.
CR

You say government, but this is a protest against the government, at least on a local vs. federal level. Doesn't your constitution have laws within it defining states rights vs. federal rights? Would this apply in this case?

Also, I'm still curious whether the First Amendment applies to the Marine Corps. Is denying the Marine Corps the right to express itself the same as denying it to Joe Citizen?

Take it in a different direction; what if a locality passed an ordinance denying the IRS the right to open a "Snitch On Your Neighbour" booth at the local mall. How would you see that? Does any branch of the federal government have carte blanche to put its offices where it pleases regardless of local complaints?

[HoreTore]

Is denying the Marine Corps the right to express itself the same as denying it to Joe Citizen?

No.

The armed forces are the power of a state. A state is the one capable of silencing Joe Citizens, and that's the reason for free speech laws. If Joe Citizens somehow manages to silence a state, I'd say good job.

[Zim]

Our Constitution does not have laws defining the rights of governments on the scale of a City Government vis a vis the Federal Government, only the latter versus State Governments.

Beirut, at the moment it's hard to say whether this has escalated to a real confrontation between the local versus the federal government or not, at least from the links given. All the city council has done is agree to issue some statement that the recruiters are "unwelcome" and encourage the protest group (the only group or individual to have its own designated parking space in a public street in the city, interestingly) by making it easier on them to stage their protests. For the moment, at least, it seems the Council has stopped short of actually issuing any edict to kick the Recruiting Office out.

Since they are currently exploring whether they can use the city's laws against discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, my guess would be that the recruiters have broken no city law, and can't just be evicted for the same you couldn't just randomly evict any business that set up legally.

Since the city has issued no edict denying the military the right to open or keep open a Recruiter's Office, I'm not sure that analogy of yours works. Thus far all they've done is issue a statement to encourage the protesters without actually doing much of anything that could get them in trouble. Should this discrimination thing lead to anything, maybe that will change.

As for me, if the IRS followed city law in setting up their booth, and only much later were told to leave, I'd be a bit wary. It sets a dangerous precedent for a city to outright ban a law-abiding government office, especially when my wife happens to work for one). Then again, I don't cheat on my taxes, and don't know anyone who does, so maybe my perception is skewed. . Local complaints do not equal a breach of law, or that noisy bar below my apartment where all the fights happen would be long gone (or at least forced to carry better booze).

You say government, but this is a protest against the government, at least on a local vs. federal level. Doesn't your constitution have laws within it defining states rights vs. federal rights? Would this apply in this case?

Also, I'm still curious whether the First Amendment applies to the Marine Corps. Is denying the Marine Corps the right to express itself the same as denying it to Joe Citizen?

Take it in a different direction; what if a locality passed an ordinance denying the IRS the right to open a "Snitch On Your Neighbour" booth at the local mall. How would you see that? Does any branch of the federal government have carte blanche to put its offices where it pleases regardless of local complaints?

[Vladimir]

Forget foreign oil, states and localities are addicted to federal funding:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BAHVUS06B.DTL

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No.

The armed forces are the power of a state. A state is the one capable of silencing Joe Citizens, and that's the reason for free speech laws. If Joe Citizens somehow manages to silence a state, I'd say good job.

Must go get another cup of coffee. Just found myself in complete agreement with HoreTore....

Now, don't mistake me, I think Berkeley is -- at the least -- out of step with reality. If you are THAT opposed to the will of the larger polis, then it is your duty to secede and establish a different form of government, not to pass ordinances WITHIN the context of that government just to annoy people and call for attention. Government is NOT a protest forum -- it should be listening to protests not enacting them.

That said, these code pinkers have a right to protest as they are, just as the local authorities have a duty to arrest them when they move beyond polite protest and into civil disobedience. King and the others knew that "sitting in" at the restaraunt would get them jailed -- so you must be willing to pay the price if you go beyond simple protest.

@ Kukri:

Did you really get doused that way? How LOATHSOME! I suspect that I, had I been standing there, would have quickly been under arrest for decking and beating senseless the person who could do such a thing. I'd read about such things of course, but a lot of it has been described as "overblown" by some subsequent researchers. Now it would seem that some kind of agenda was driving the "research."

[Redleg]

I fully support any attempt to burn army recruiters at the stake.

As long as you fully support others wanting to burn code pink and thier ilk at the stake also. Such narrow mindness is a true fault of human beings.

Unable to see the true course because of emotional appeal.

Code Pink is entitled to speak their minds within the laws of the nation. Absolutely no problem with them protesting in front of the Recruiting Station. Also there is absolutely no problem with a city government allowing the protests to happen as long as that city government insures that the laws are being applied to ensure that other people's rights and freedoms are not being violated in that protest. (ie that the law is not being violated.)

To claim that recruiters should be burned at the stake is a comment worthy of contempt because it speaks of an inablity to allow others to have the freedom of choice that a free society should allow. Such narrow thinking is the anti-thesist to the very thought of freedom.

So HoreTore why are you advocating the destruction of one type of person over another? Is it because you dont understand the principle of free speech and a free people?

[KukriKhan]

"Blood Bombs" were indeed hurled at both 6th Army HQ and Letterman Hospital in San Francisco, when I was stationed there.

In honesty, the throwers were probably aiming at the buildings themselves (so they said after their arrests by SFPD), but they were lousy hurlers, and many of the bags landed amongst we troops, who were barring access to the buildings.

(They were quite organized by then - the crowd would advance to about 25 meters away; we would close ranks and go to "Port Arms"; some leader up front would hollar: "Chicks up front!"; young women with blood-bombs moved up front, the crowd advanced to about 10 meters from our line, and the 'bombs' would get flung. Then they'd retreat back to about 25-30 meters and say their piece over bullhorns)

I'll see if I can find photos in the SF Examiner archives.

What I've seen discounted as "overblown" was the 'spitting on returning Vietnam vets' thing, which disgusting practice I never personally saw.

[Vladimir]

As long as you fully support others wanting to burn code pink and thier ilk at the stake also. Such narrow mindness is a true fault of human beings.

Unable to see the true course because of emotional appeal.

Code Pink is entitled to speak their minds within the laws of the nation. Absolutely no problem with them protesting in front of the Recruiting Station. Also there is absolutely no problem with a city government allowing the protests to happen as long as that city government insures that the laws are being applied to ensure that other people's rights and freedoms are not being violated in that protest. (ie that the law is not being violated.)

To claim that recruiters should be burned at the stake is a comment worthy of contempt because it speaks of an inablity to allow others to have the freedom of choice that a free society should allow. Such narrow thinking is the anti-thesist to the very thought of freedom.

So HoreTore why are you advocating the destruction of one type of person over another? Is it because you dont understand the principle of free speech and a free people?

It's, it's not his fault. We're all trying to shake off certain undesirable genetic traits. Give him time, and gene therapy.



Wow Kurki, protesters back then weren't too PC huh?

[Crazed Rabbit]

You say government, but this is a protest against the government, at least on a local vs. federal level. Doesn't your constitution have laws within it defining states rights vs. federal rights? Would this apply in this case?

Also, I'm still curious whether the First Amendment applies to the Marine Corps. Is denying the Marine Corps the right to express itself the same as denying it to Joe Citizen?

As others have said, the first amendment was to protect citizens, not government. But the recruiters are individuals as well, with rights, not just arms of the state.

The real problem (besides the philosophical stupidness of NIMBY towards recruitment centers) is that the protesters physically blocked all other citizens from trying to get into the recruiting station. That is wrong and hypocritical.

CR

[Goofball]

The Goofball solution:

The Corps should close it's Berkely recruiting office and leave town. I'm willing to bet the office was not a great producer of strapping young recruits anyway, even before the protesting.

But they should arrange to have informational posters put up in the ladies rooms of every bar, pub, nightclub, restaurant, and any other place in town where young men might be trying to capture the attention of young ladies. The posters should read:

"With regret, the USMC Recruiting Station in Berkely is now closed. The USMC found itself unable to justify the cost of this office given the unusually low number of recruits it was generating. The main reason for the low production was the physical unsuitability of just about every male candidate interviewed for any position withing the U.S. military. Unfortunately, it appears that males in Berkely tend to suffer from sloping, trout-like shoulders, bird-like chests, and hamster-like genitalia."

[Beirut]

As others have said, the first amendment was to protect citizens, not government.# But the recruiters are individuals as well, with rights, not just arms of the state.

If the recruiters are armed forces personel in uniform, aren't their rights limited by armed forces law and not the constitution? I would think their status as individuals are very limited as they are (just) arms of the state.

I don't agree with barring a Marine Corps recruitment center from operating, but I see no problem with a local government limiting the actions of the federal government within that local jurisdiction when they think those actions are contrary to the public good. It's a bold example of bottom to top democracy.

Put simply, anytime a local government can kick out the federal army by a democratic process and the army actually leaves, it's proof postive that things are working exactly as they're supposed to. The day the army does not have to leave is when you have a big problem and you become one of those countries.

The real problem (besides the philosophical stupidness of NIMBY towards recruitment centers) is that the protesters physically blocked all other citizens from trying to get into the recruiting station.# That is wrong and hypocritical.CR

Though they have the right to protest, no, they should not be allowed to block other people from entering the recruiting station.

[Vladimir]

If the recruiters are armed forces personel in uniform, aren't their rights limited by armed forces law and not the constitution? I would think their status as individuals are very limited as they are (just) arms of the state.

You're misunderstanding his statement. A soldier's rights such a search/seizure, freedom of speech, etc are abridged; not their right as human beings.

Soldiers = People

Your statement is quite disappointing. Are all those Canadians serving with the UN just cogs in a great international machine? I'm surprised to hear you say this as you get so bent out of shape over teh eval Israelis knocking off a few.

Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and whatever the Navy calls its people (by the by, did you know that instead of placing the name on the back of their headgear they place it above their right rear pocket. that's just too funny.) are simply subject to two different legal statutes, not second class citizens.

PLEASE no one take this thread out of the hemisphere.

[Beirut]

You're misunderstanding his statement. A soldier's rights such a search/seizure, freedom of speech, etc are abridged; not their right as human beings.

A soldier's rights are more than abridged when he can be jailed for not following orders that will almost certainly lead to his death. It is a completely different culture with a different set of values and judgement calls.

There is a drastic difference in the scope of personal freedoms enjoyed by civilians and soldiers.

Your statement is quite disappointing. Are all those Canadians serving with the UN just cogs in a great international machine? I'm surprised to hear you say this as you get so bent out of shape over teh eval Israelis knocking off a few.

What on earth are you talking about?

If you can't differentiate between the rights of local governments to use the democratic process to enforce local standards over the objections of the state, and how a person feels about his country's soldiers fighting oversees, we're going to have a mighty wide gulf to jump over before we can chat.

[Vladimir]

A soldier's rights are more than abridged when he can be jailed for not following orders that will almost certainly lead to his death. It is a completely different culture with a different set of values and judgement calls.

There is a drastic difference in the scope of personal freedoms enjoyed by civilians and soldiers.



What on earth are you talking about?

If you can't differentiate between the rights of local governments to use the democratic process to enforce local standards over the objections of the state, and how a person feels about his country's soldiers fighting oversees, we're going to have a mighty wide gulf to jump over before we can chat.

You were implying that soldiers are less than citizens and aren't entitled to the same protections as ordinary citizens from other citizens.

"status as individuals are very limited are (just) arms of the state"

How would you interpret that statement? What does that mean?

[HoreTore]

You were implying that soldiers are less than citizens and aren't entitled to the same protections as ordinary citizens from other citizens.

Uhm....

Soldiers are citiens, yes. But the armed forces organization aren't citizens, they're a part of the state.

[Beirut]

You were implying that soldiers are less than citizens and aren't entitled to the same protections as ordinary citizens from other citizens.

"status as individuals are very limited are (just) arms of the state"

How would you interpret that statement? What does that mean?

I didn't say less, I said different.

A soldier has many rights that a civilian does not, and a civilian has many rights a soldier does not. A soldier's status as an individual is very limited. A civilian has the right of dissent. In fact, the highest quality one can have as a civilian is the right to say no to authority. That right right does not exist for a soldier.

If the president himself tells Joe Citizen to "Drop and give me twenty-five, maggot!", that fella can tell the president to shove those twenty-five where the sun don't shine. If a soldier responds likewise, he goes to jail. That is the difference.

By the by, a US soldier has the right to fully socialized medicine paid for and administered solely by the state. A civilian doesn't. I look forward to a five-hundred word thesis on that one.