Once again, the 9th circus court of appeals has re-affirmed its name….

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected the Bush administration’s request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public classrooms, setting up a showdown at the Supreme Court.

The court said the phrase was an endorsement of God, and the Constitution forbids public schools or other governmental entities from endorsing religion.

What the hell! Who are the clowns on this court!?!?!? Mr. President, let us take this to the Supreme Court NOW!!!!!
Who appointed these idiots? From an old news article, I’ve found out that the chief justice of this court was a Carter appointee (groan)…and that the breakdown is: 17 Democratic and seven Republican appointees. That’s too many idiotarians on one court……

(From Drudge and the Washington Post)

From Ellie Weisel, a nobel lauriate, who actudally DESERVED the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE (unlike others such as Terrorfat, Jimmy “The Dhimmi” carter, the UN…)

WASHINGTON – Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel said Thursday that while he abhors war, he believes the world community must confront Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Wiesel, who survived the Nazi death camps and won the Nobel in 1986, urged Europe to put pressure on Saddam.

“I believe it is the moral duty to intervene when evil has power and uses it,” Wiesel said. “If Europe were to apply as much pressure on Saddam Hussein as [it] does on the United States and Britain, I think we could prevent war.”
He said the Holocaust could have been avoided if the world had intervened in 1939, a time he compared to the current crisis with Iraq.

“He cannot have weapons, I think he has these weapons, because he would use them,” Wiesel said, stopping short of comparing Saddam to Hitler.

U.S. President George W. Bush dropped in briefly on Wiesel’s meeting Thursday afternoon with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Saying, “I am not a man of war,” Wiesel said military conflict still must be considered as a last resort. Wiesel is chairman of The President’s Commission on the Holocaust and behind the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity.

Wiesel and his family were forced to leave Romania in 1944.

The family was sent to Auschwitz, where Wiesel’s mother and youngest sister were killed. In 1945, Wiesel and his father were sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany, where his father died.

Well, it looks like more anti-Israel garbage is being spewed from Beir-Zeit U. on the Hudson:

Calling Israel a “racist Jewish state”, a Columbia University professor has proposed replacing it with a bi-national entity as a means of ensuring that “the colonial Zionist project will come to an end.”

International Affairs Correspondent Michael Freund reports that in an article appearing in the February 26 issue of the Egyptian English-language newspaper Al-Ahram Weekly, Joseph Massad, an Assistant Professor of Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia, argues that there is an “immediate necessity for a unified Palestinian leadership to lead the struggle against Zionism.”

Massad blasts PA Chairman Yasser Arafat for his “concessions” to Israel, and accuses him of having undermined international support for “the right of the Palestinians to resist the occupation.”

“Arafat and the PLO,” says Massad, “dropped their opposition to a racist Israel and transformed themselves, under the guise of the PA, into enforcers of the occupation.”

Declaring Israel to be “the last remaining racist colonial state”, Massad also voices irritation that the United Nations voted in 1991 to repeal its infamous 1975 resolution which equated Zionism with racism.

“Zionism has remained as racist in its ideology and practices as it has always been,” he asserts.

From IsraelNN

Yeah, so remember how Saddam and fools claim that they’ve destroyed all their WMD (and the “protesters” who vouch for them)
and/or that Iraq doesn’t have any WMD?

From the NY Post: IRAQ: OOPS! WE HAVE A BIO BOMB

Iraq yesterday claimed it suddenly found a biogerm bomb. U.N. weapons inspectors hailed that as “cooperation,” but President Bush said Saddam Hussein is just trying “to fool the world one more time.”

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a smoking gun???

In a turn of very sad news…Sad day in neighborhood: Beloved Mister Rogers dies

I was a huge Mr. Rogers fan as a little kid, and his passing away is truly a loss to society….

It’s Thursday! You know what that means? Besides the fact that it’s only 1 more day ’till Friday….
It’s the day when Ann Coulter’s column comes out!

(Jeff Jacoby’s column isn’t out this thursday, so those reading the Globe will have to deal with the usual crud).

Instead of Jacoby’s column, I hereby announce that everyone who didn’t hear it, must read the speech delivered
tonight by PRESIDENT BUSH

That is all…off to finish my neuroscience paper, once and for all…..

UPDATE: Turns out the Globe’s website didn’t update earlier, and Jacoby wrote a beautiful Daniel Pipes style op-ed in today’s Globe entitled:
The Islamist connection

Univ. of Southern Florida has finally given Sami Al-Arian the axe….it’s about time they did so….
And to those who are defending this terrorist….you sicken me…

Over at Right Wing News John Hawkins has come up with a beautiful compilation
Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War Cliches

This is a must read!

Happy 75th Birthday to Israeli PM Ariel Sharon! Best wishes for many more!
In celebration of your birthday, can you tighten the screws on the terrorists?

So I’ve got writers block when it comes to my Neuroscience Paper…so why not take a time out for an ol’ fashioned Fisking
of this AntiClue™ filled piece which Emperor Misha I would describe as: “Idiotarian lie, obfuscation and myth, all in the space of one little post. The author must’ve spent DAYS on NaziMedia cooking up that list”….and said list is titled: 12 reasons to oppose war with Iraq

1. Iraq is no threat to the United States.
With one of the weakest militaries in the region, Iraq is surely no threat to the world’s lone superpower. There is no evidence it has or is close to having a nuclear capacity. There is no evidence that it has the means to launch a chemical and biological attack against the United States, if in fact it has such weaponry. There is no evidence of any Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.

I smell a bunch of BS. Iraq does pose a threat to the US and to its allies in the ME. There is evidence of a clandestine nuke program in the works (and they’d have one were in not for Israel. As for bio/chem weapons, Iraq has yet to show what happened to all the ordinances they were supposed to destroy; and for that matter, what about today’s discovery? Iraq poses a threat through the TERRORISM it FUNDS and HARBORS. And yes, there is a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda; were you not watching SECSTATE Powell’s briefing to the UNSC? Ansar-Al-Islam, a terror group in Northern Iraq which terrorizes the Kurds is tied to Al-Queda. And the group who killed USAID worker Lawrence Foley in Jordan was Al-Queda and Iraqi based. Iraq also has posession of those unmanned drones, equiped for Bio/Chem weapons.

“Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong” — Ronald Reagan

2. Iraq is deterrable.
Even if it had the means to threaten the United States, Iraq would be deterred by the certainty of an overwhelming military response in event of any attack on the United States. That Iraq is deterrable is shown by its decision not to use chemical or biological weapons (CBW) against the United States or Israel in the Gulf War.

Um, Saddam is what we (with common sense) like to call a loose cannon. I can see him more than willing to use CBW against Israel or the US (especially the former). Plus if he goes unchecked, he’ll begin to extort us. Also, what if he gives CBW to Al-queda or another terror group? Huh? What then?

3. Iraq’s only conceivable threat to the United States is in event of war.
“Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States,” wrote CIA Director George Tenet in an October 2002 letter to Congress. “Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.”

October 2002 was a long time ago; especially in Military Intel terms. He’s already adopted terrorist actions….a bit too late on that one. And again, Iraq has attacked us.

4. Other terrorist risks rise in event of war.
A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq will provide new inspiration — and new recruitment fodder — for al- Qaeda or other terrorist groups, and will stimulate a long-term increased risk of terrorism, either on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens overseas.

That’s hypothetical for starters. And what did we learn from 9/11? We have to take out the terrorisrs when we first notice ‘em. Just like Clinton fowled up by not taking BIn Laden when he was offered up on 3 seperate ocasions. We can take out a big terror funder and supporter now…what are we waiting for?

5. U.S. soldiers are vulnerable to chemical or biological attack in a war.
Although there is little reason to doubt the U.S. military will triumph relatively quickly in event of a war, U.S. soldiers face non-negligible risk of casualty. House-to-house fighting in Baghdad would be perilous.

While they may be vunerable; we’ve upgraded equipment and resources noticibly. And our troops are well trained for CQB, and while some may fall, they will not have done so in vain. They will have done so defending our nation and everything that it stands for. It would be better for a few troops to die than to have countless civilians die (note: I don’t wish anything bad on our troops; I’m just using a figure of speech

5b. If Bush administration accusations that Saddam maintains a CBW capacity are true, and if its claims of intelligence showing Iraqi plans to use CBW in event of war are both non-fabricated and accurate, then U.S. soldiers are at major risk.

See previous lines; but our reports aren’t fabricated and are accurate–and if we strike accordingly, we’ll minimize risk

5c. Last Sunday, 60 Minutes reported that army investigations show between 60 and 90 percent of its CBW protective gear malfunction. A Pentagon spokesperson actually suggested that holes in gas masks could easily be covered by duct tape.

I don’t always trust TV journalism…give me the studies themselves, then I’ll make my judgement. And if duct tape works, let’s give the troops some, what a noble idea, no?

6. Inspections can work.
To whatever extent Iraq maintains weapons of mass destruction, it is clear that the previous inspections process succeeded in destroying the overwhelming proportion. Iraqi intransigence notwithstanding, inspectors are now making progress. Despite the histrionics of the administration, past experience suggests the inspection process can work and finish the job.

Who are you, France? Germany? What is it with you people? The inspectors aren’t detectives for starters…they’re job is to inspect that the previous resoultuions have been completed; not to find new weapons. The inspectors have found Iraq in violation of said resolutions who knows how many times. Also, Iraqi dissidents, including scientists, and high ranking ones, have told us that inspectors don’t work….I trust first hand sources.

7. Common sense says: Err on the side of non-violence.
Since Iraq poses no imminent threat to the United States nor any of its neighbors, it makes sense to continue to give inspections a chance. War can always be resorted to later. But once a war is commenced, the opportunity to achieve legitimate objectives without violence are lost. In addition to the obvious costs, the use of violence tends to beget more violence, spurring a highly unpredictable cycle.

Common sense and Saddam are an oxymoron. You seriously think Saddam uses common sense? See above for the threat Iraq poses to the US and her allies. We’ve given inspections a chance…war is the last and only reort. And don’t give me the whole cycle of violence song and dance…please.

8. The doctrine of preventative war is a threat to international law and humanity.
Conceding there is no imminent threat to the United States, the administration has sought to justify the war under a doctrine of preemptive, or preventative, action. But if it were legitimate to start a war because of what another country might do sometime in the future, then there would be very little legal or moral constraint on war-making. This proposition is dangerous and immoral.

Int’l law is a joke…it requires all parties to agree to the laws…which as we can readily see, Iraq doesn’t abide by it, so it’s worthless. Int’l law has NO TEETH or consequences. Furthermore, I don’t concede your point. If we learn from History, we know we have to act. Saddam has already used Chem weapons, what’s to say he won’t use ‘em again if he gets the chance to? Is it legal to idly sit by while a threat builds itself? Is it moral to expose people to potential harm and death? I think not.

9. Reject empire.
Many of the leading proponents of a war are motivated by desire to demonstrate U.S. military might, and commence an era when U.S. military power is exercised more routinely to satisfy the whims of elite U.S. factions. Many proponents now overtly defend the idea of U.S. imperialism, justified on the grounds that the United States — apparently unique among all previous aspirants to imperial authority — is motivated by promotion of democracy and human rights. But all empires have proffered such self-serving rationalizations to legitimize narrow self-interest. The present case is no different. Imperialism is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

The US is not seeking to build an empire…hello. By demonstrating superior military might we are infact enabling deterrance. We believe in the promotion of Human rights, liberty and freedome.

And now, to quote President Reagan:

“The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray to God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest” — Ronald Reagan

10. Revenge is not a legitimate motive for war.
There seems little doubt that part of the Bush administration motivation for war is the desire to “get” Saddam, since he refused to go away after the Gulf War and allegedly targeted the president’s father. Saddam is an awful and brutal dictator, and an assassination attempt, if there was one, is a heinous act. But revenge should be no basis for war.

Bin Laden and the Taliban thought we were wimps (“a paper tiger) b/c we didn’t strike back. We must show that we won’t tollerate terror or threats. Again: “Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong”– Ronald Reagan . What about the Iraqi people? Shouldn’t we help them by getting rid of the man who has killed so many, and ruined the lives of millions? This is not just revenge, it’s about doing what’s right.

And yes, even your beloved Pres. clinton called for war against Iraq in ’98; but he got distracted by Monica….

11. There are better solutions to our energy problems.
It overstates the case to say a war with Iraq would be a war for oil. There are too many other contributing factors to the rush to war. At the same time, it is not credible to claim designs on Iraqi oil are not part of calculus. And it is hard to see the United States caring much about Iraq if the country did not sit on the world’s second largest oil reserves. But it is past time for the United States (and the rest of the world) to move beyond oil and carbon-based sources of energy. Existing efficiency technologies and renewable energy sources, if deployed, could dramatically reduce reliance on conventional energy sources; and modest investments in renewables could soon move us away from an oil-based economy.

Um, this isn’t over oil in the least. If it was over oil, why didn’t we take the oil fields in ’91? Let me put that myth to death with this insight from Rush Limbaugh’s ClueBat™: “There is an embargo of Iraqi oil, but remember: it’s on the market anyway. If it were to flood the market, the price would go down – and all those evil oil stocks our president and vice president supposedly have (though they gave up millions worth to serve the nation) would be worth less. So the next time you hear someone chant this simplistic pap rather than face the true danger Saddam poses, tell them: “Yeah, this is all about oil – to France. France imports most of its oil from Iraq, and have sweet economic deals with the butcher of Baghdad.” That’s the truth, so speak it!”

We can move on from Oil, that’s a good idea; but that has nothing to do with Iraq. Heck, I’d like to get off Arab oil.

12. Iraqi lives are at stake.
Unless a war brings immediate abdication by Saddam, military action is sure to cause massive casualties among Iraqi conscripts and especially among Iraqi civilians. Solidarity with the Iraqi people — not their brutal government, but the people — requires opposition to a war almost certain to cause them enormous suffering.

Every day Iraqi lives are at state, b/c of Saddam and the Ba’ath party. While some people may unfortunately die b/c of our attack, it will not be in vain….as the “tree of liberty must constantly be nourished with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Just as some Afghanis suffered when we took out the Taliban, in the end, the net result was that many more have survived because of freedom and improved quality of life/society and the oppertunities available to them (e.g. medical, educational, occupational).

Let’s recap: Anti-Idiotarian Jaws: 12; Idiotarians: -12;
(Hat tip to Cheshire for some ideas)

No, Jonah Goldberg of NRO doesn’t own a pizza place (nor is he Danish to my knowledge).
This is a real story that I came across on Ananova

A Danish pizzeria has banned French and Germans from dining there because of their country’s stance on a war with Iraq.

Aage Bjerre, who owns Aage’s Pizza on the island of Fanoe, said he’s tired of French and German attitudes toward the United States.

He’s put two homemade drawings on the shop door, one a silhouette of a man coloured red, yellow and black for Germany and another in the red, white and blue for France.

Both silhouettes have a bar across them.

He says Germans will be allowed in if their country joins a war on Iraq, but the French will have to endure a lifetime ban.

Aage said: “Hadn’t the United States helped Europe in defeating Germany, there would have been photos of Adolf Hitler hanging on the walls around here.”

The ban has yet to effect his business because the tourist season only starts after Easter and peaks during the summer. “I do what my conscience tells me to do,” he said.

He added: “Frenchmen have a lifetime ban here. Their attitude toward the United States will never change.”

:

Drudge is reporting that Dona-who has finally, and not a moment too late, got the axe from MSNBC. Thank goodness.
And while on the topic of TV..apparently Saddam has challenged President Bush to a televised debate…like that’s gonna
happen….

But Bill O’reilly has a better idea:

Saddam Hussein told Dan Rather that he wants to debate President Bush on TV. Chances are that will not happen, but, as an alternative, allow me to suggest me. I’ll debate you, Saddam. And since you already have a no-fly zone, you’ll have no trouble understanding the no-spin zone. It’s the same thing. Violate the rules, get shot down. Looking forward to hearing from you.

And this offer is serious, not ridiculous.

Now one must wonder if O’reilly will literally do us a favor and shoot Saddam (down)

So on Fox News this AM the host is ripping apart Jenine Gerafolo (sp?) pro-saddam idiotarian extrordinaire.
She’s puttled out every idiotarian line in the book. As I type she’s blaming Fox News as being the mouthpiece of the White House….blah blah blah…
that’s what I think if you ask me…why do they even give her a microphone?

My latest colimn from the Brandeis Free Press

On February 13, 2003, a group of parents of US servicemen joined by six congressional Democrats, filed a lawsuit in US Federal Court in Boston against President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, an attempt to prevent President Bush from taking action taking military action against Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq, without congressional approval The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, John Bonifaz, is quoted as saying “A war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war will be illegal and unconstitutional,” and the lawsuit cites Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which reads: “Congress shall have power…(to) declare war.”

The six Democratic Representatives (one of whom is now a presidential candidate) joining the suit are: John Conyers (MI), Dennis Kucinich (OH), James McDermott (WA), Jose Serrano (NY), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) and Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL). .

This is a lawsuit is completely frivolous and hopefully will be readily dismissed by the court. Both the House and the Senate have twice passed bi-partisan joint resolutions most recently H.J. Res. 114/S.J. Res. 45 (October 2002), which explicitly:

“authorizes the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq” (Sec 3, A).

Not only does the aforementioned resolution explicitly grant the President authorization to use military force against Iraq without getting a formal “declaration of war”, precedent is also on the President’s side.

A similar case was brought in 1990 before the Gulf War. In that case, Dellums v. Bush, a Federal Judge ruled that the case brought by 54 congressmen could not be deemed “ripe” as he explained: “In short, unless the Congress as a whole, or by a majority, is heard from, the controversy here cannot be deemed ripe; it is only if the majority of the Congress seeks relief from an infringement on its constitutional war-declaration power that it may be entitled to receive it.” (752 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990))

Furthermore, there is historical precedent United States has also entered into military conflicts numerous military conflicts without a “declaration of war”—such as the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and military operations in Lebanon, Panama and Haiti.

One must also ask if this lawsuit is motivated more out of partisan politics than the interests of national security. While H.J. Res. 114/S.J. Res. 45 passed with bi-partisan support (The House voted 296-to-133 for the resolution, and the Senate 77-to-23) , most of the votes against the resolution came from Democratic representatives and senators.

As such, the question remains, are these representatives voting in the best interests of the United States, or in the interests of the Constitution (as they claim) or rather are they voting in an attempt to spite the Republican President or is this an attempt to reverse a Congressional decision which they lost?

If their intentions involve either of the later two, then these Representatives should truly be ashamed of themselves; for they would then be committing an act of hypocrisy. President Clinton, on numerous occasions launched military assaults without a “declaration of war” (e.g. Bosnia, Iraq-1998, Haiti, and Somalia) yet these same Congressional representatives did not file for an injunction to “uphold the constitution” as they are claiming to do now. Are these representatives afraid that when we defeat Saddam Hussein the President and the Republican Party will look good in the eyes of the American Public? This looks more like a these Democratic representatives. are suffering from a case of “sour grapes.”
Hopefully the Federal Judge will see through the partisan nature of this lawsuit and will readily dismiss this frivolous case which should not have been filed; and the United States will oust Saddam Hussein in due time, and eliminate a viable threat to our national security. .

UPDATE: The case was in court today (02/24/03), and the judge wisely threw the case out

Here is a film that deserves to win every award possible: Bomb Saddam

These GrouchyMedia videos deserve to win every award possible…especially Best Documentary.

One must ask why the media isn’t making a bigger deal out of this story

(From Instapundit)

So I originally hail from the Buckeye state…specifically Cleveland. I just saw this on LGF and was quite shocked

The Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Amanda Garrett reveals that a person identified in the indictment of Sami al-Arian as “Unindicted Co-Conspirator One” is actually the Imam of Cleveland, Fawaz Damra.

Damra – who for years portrayed himself as a moderate who tried to bring local Muslims and Jews together – declined to comment Friday. He nearly lost his job shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, when a grainy video emerged showing him with Al-Arian in Cleveland on April 7, 1991.

On the tape, Damra introduces Al-Arian to a crowd. Later he rants against Jews, urging people to give money to Al-Arian’s group, which he calls the active arm of the Islamic Jihad Movement. But, he explains to the crowd, they can’t call it that in the United States, for security reasons.

Thursday’s indictment relies on similar details from a comparable scenario. It makes the link between Al-Arian’s U.S. fund raising and The Movement’s international terror. In the indictment, an unnamed man – identified only as Unindicted Co-Conspirator One – is described as introducing Al-Arian in Cleveland on April 7, 1991.

The man said Al-Arian’s group uses a different name in the United States for “security reasons.” And finally, the man said he would set up a permanent fund in Cleveland for anyone wishing to make donations to Al-Arian’s group, according to the indictment.

Based on the similarities, Matthew Epstein, a terrorism analyst with the Investigative Project, said it appears Damra is Co-Conspirator One. .

Unindicted Co-Conspirator One also appears a couple of other times in the indictment, offering to hold a fund-raiser for Al-Arian’s group as recently as 2001. Why he wasn’t indicted with the others is unclear

Front-line US commandos aiming to take fortified Iraqi buildings are being armed for the first time with shoulder-launched “Daisy Cutter” thermobaric bombs. They are the most destructive infantry weapons ever devised.

The weapons are infantry versions of the USAF’s laser-guided Daisy Cutters which devastated Osama Bin Laden’s Tora Bora cave fortress in Afghanistan last year.”—From the Sun

“Calling liberals ‘communists’ doesn’t advance anything. I have no problem calling liberals socialists because that’s what they really are. If you get down to it, there’s no difference between liberalism and socialism; there really isn’t.” –Rush

As the Justice (the Univ. paper) this past week reported, two pro-Saddam socialists “anti-war” protesters from Brandeis, were arrested in NYC; and the paper amde a big deal out of it and claiming brutality, blah blah blah…

I’d like to start by commending the NYPD for their actions, and for doing their jobs. What the Justice didn’t say was that the “peace” protesters assulted at least one officer and horse and injured others (peaceful, no?).

Anyway, for your entertainment, I’ve come across an arrested pro-saddam protester. And I’ve added in some commentary

I went to New York City to stop a US war against Iraqis and found myself in a US war against Americans.

Yeah, I’ve got my ClueBat™ ready and waiting for you punk

My fellow students at Brandeis University and I went to the February 15th protests to show Bush and other world leaders
that popular opposition to a war with Iraq is strong.

That should read my fellow anti-American socialist friends from this school went to the pro-Saddam anti-Bush rally in NYC;
despite the fact that 70%+ americans support military action

My thoughts were quickly turned away from the looming war in Iraq however
and toward the New York City police.

You mean the heroes of 9/11; ungrateful bastard

The police were setting up barricades, dividing up the march and preventing us from getting to the main rally. This
is a tactic I’ve seen the NYPD use before to slow down the march and tire people out.

For issues of PUBLIC SAFETY…..such ignorance….

People were begining to chant, Who’se streets? Our streets!”

They’re MY streets too, payed with some of MY tax money. They’re not your exlcusive property. And what about the people trying to drive on those same streets? It’s THEIR street too. And yeah, you all needed to drive your SUVs from the protest on these roads too.

It wasn’t long before the police charged the street I was on. There was a line of cops with nightsticks pushing people back as
well as a line of cops on giant horses advancing on us. The people who were right by the barricades were pushed to the sides and the rest of us were
compressed backwards. The cops on horses charged diagonally, creating panic.

They didn’t “attack” w/o provocation, did they?

We had nowhere to go but the cops kept coming. People were pushed shoulder to shoulder and I was worried that some demonstrators might be trampled. I was also worried about being separated from my group. I stepped back as much as I could and shouted “We can’t move back! There’s no room!”

So everyone moves back together, and wallah, more room Then the cops with nightsticks passed me into the crowd and I was face to face with a horse for a second. I stepped between two police horses to try to avoid being trampled. Then I saw a cop in front of me shout “This one!” and I was
tackled to the ground. I instinctively curled up into a ball. One cop was pulling at my right arm. My head was shoved into the pavement and then
another cop put his knee on the back of my head and a third cop pressed my ankles down into the pavement with a nightstick. At that point I decided to
go limp and they handcuffed me behind my back.

Why’d you curl up into a ball? That’s resisting arrest….and that’s why the cops had to pull your arms, genius…. Since you were resisting arrest they had to use force. Do you have the names of the officers? I’d like to send them a token of my appreciation for their hard work.

The voice of what sounded like a female cop shouted “Stand up mother fucker!”

Yeah! She’s getting a present too! You’re lucky she wasn’t a marine…cause a marine would’ve simply called you that then kicked your ass.

I was so shaken I said I couldn’t stand but if they lifted me to my feet I could walk. At no time did
I curse at them or make any hostile gestures. They lifted me to my feet and I was walked a short distance to a police bus. I now have bruises all around
my head, under my right cheekbone and on my ankles and knees as well as a cut n one thumb and a mark on my left wrest from the handcuffs which were too tight.

You could walk, don’t lie. I’m not wasting any tears/tissues on this. Now you had bruises and cuts cause you’re stupid and tried to resist arrest–you got what you deserved–you socialist swine. [Note: Said person is a leader of the YSCD]

Most were arrested arbitrarily the same way we were. Despite a diverse crowd of both men and women, the majority of people on the bus were
males under 30. There were just two women who were kept in individual cells at the front of the bus.

I don’t think the cops just randomly arrest people; this isn’t Iraq, remember? And that’s great that you’re PROFILING the arresstees…..

We were driven to One Police Plaza in Manhattan which is a gigantic police building.

Sounds like a good use of tax monies…..maybe. Don’t they always feature that building on Law & Order?

After several hours my eft hand was becoming swollen and numb because the handcuffs were too tight.
Many were complaining about the handcuffs and they eventually loosened them
for us.

Isn’t that nice? You know, Saddam doesn’t even let people have such luxuries…not that you care or anything…

At 10:30pm they handcuffed us to chains in groups of ten and had us stand outside. I had lost my hat and gloves during the
arrest and we were jumping and jogging in place to stay warm. We asked to be brought inside because of the cold but they said they had no room for us.

That’s because we have too many criminals; and there were 300 idiotatrians were arrested along with you fools.

The NYPD may have instances of incompetence but I don’t believe that
explains our treatment, though we had done nothing to provoke such abuse.

ABUSE? ABUSE? What the hell are you talking about abuse? You stood outside, that’s not abuse. You clueless idiots….

Nobody on my chain-gang was hostile to the police

I doubt that looking at your atitude right now…

In my opinion the police actions were intended to prevent protesters from getting to the main rally.

You’re wrong; they werre looking out for public safety.

They were also intended to intimidate us, especially children, the elderly, anyone with medical conditions, those who
are not light on their feet or people who may have financial difficulty dealing with the repercussions. Their voices are essential to our democracy yet their right to peacefully protest is threatened when the police cause stampedes and arbitrarily arrest and abuse protesters.

The usual socialist BS…..

I consider the protest a success.

So did Saddam….what’s that say?

The mainstream media couldn’t ignore us or our message.Our voices will make it harder for
the US to bully other countries into supporting a war.

Bullying other countries? Ever heard of the coalition of the willing? People who CHOOSE to side with us?

The rally could have been better though if it had been better organized. Most people like myself,
were unable to attend the main rally where the speakers were because of police barricades.

Am I supposed to be sad for you?

Having a rally where organizations can set up tables to share information with protesters like we had in DC January 18th is extremely
valuable.

By information you mean: anti-American, Anti-Bush, Anti-Semetic, ANti-Israel propaganda? Let us not forget Pro-North Korea, Pro-Hamas/PLO/PIJ, Pro-Saddam, Pro-commie propaganda?

Clearly, having a permit for the march would have made things easier.

Did you even bother applying for one?

Hopefully criticism of how NYC dealt with this protest will be loud enough to make them more accommodating next time. I’d also recommend that
local organizers place street marshals along the march to inform people where to go and mediate with the police.

Criticism? You must mean support and adulation for the NYPD! This is a department of heroes. I think these cops should all be rewarded. Someone get the donuts, and coffee (in anti-idiotarian rotweiller mugs none the less)

Also, protesters who are willing to risk arrest should consider forming parallel human barricades so that if the
police do decide to charge without warning, they will at least be slowed down, giving those who cannot risk arrest a chance to escape. Otherwise I am
afraid some people will be discouraged from rallying in New York City.

Or go to Baghdad as “human shields”…..

Since I’ve returned:I have been given tremendous support from my community. The experience Aaron and I had has
helped heighten concern over a possible war with Iraq here at Brandeis.

I’m not supporting you! I think you’re an embarrasment to our school. And our student body wants Saddam out.