of a poor schmuck going to work. Remember the Vietnam War protests, which tried to close down Washington? Not well received by commuters, some of whom actually agreed that the war was wrong. As for this protest, we all know how sensitive Little George is to the slightest criticism.  

to know better.  I met him at a book signing and he was gushing with enthusiasm for tactics such as blocking traffic, die-ins, and other dramatic stuff calculated to seize people's attention.  I tried to persuade him that the average commuter would not be drawn to the rightness of the cause by some idiot emoting in front of their car and delaying their arrival at work.  He replied that "any attention is good attention", which told me he's never been a frustrated commuter and has probably never raised a toddler, either.

never want to organize?  Blocking traffic?  "Die ins?!"  Put down the hemp and pick up a clip board.  Less ridiculous performance art, more voter contact.

Looks like we're just about all in agreement here.

and I stopped doing die ins about 30 years ago.  I'm curious what he does for a living that he can take off work to do die ins and get arrested.

I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the protesters but as somebody who makes the commute every miserable day, I can vouch for the fact that it doesn't win over people to your cause to inconvenience them in this manner.  It's probably counter productive.

But truth be told, most people in our area probably are anti-war, vote Democratic, and take stuff like this in their stride.

I think somebody who posted down thread from this pointed out, though, that the whole point of civil disobedience was to break the law and get arrested.

Somebody mentioned Rosa Parks, who broke the law by refusing to give up her seat on a segregated bus.  The difference between her and these protesters. though, is that she broke an unjust law to call attention to the injustice.

That's different from blocking traffic to inconvenience ordinary working people who have to be at their jobs on time.

There are better ways to make your point about the war in Iraq.  That said, the cops should not treat the protesters with brutality. That is a different issue.

It could have been when they tried to break through security barriers at the IRS. Or when they chained themselves at an intersection to block traffic.  

Are you saying people should only be allowed to protest where the police let them?

I don't think that someone's message should legally entitle them to block traffic. Like if you and I just stood there in the middle of the street, preventing cars from passing, without saying a word, we would be arrested or at least removed. Is that just?  How about if I was standing in the road and reciting the alphabet?  Should the police remove me? Most would agree that they should.

So is it appropriate for the police to make determinations about whether to enforce the law based on what they think are the merits of one message versus another?  I don't think so. I think that the cops' duty is to enforce the law.  Tolerate free speech and assemblies of protestors as the Constitution requires, but do not excuse any accompanying violations of the law based on whether they support the content of the free speech.  

The fact that one is engaging in free speech does not excuse other behavior that would otherwise be unlawful.

They should be able to protest on the sidewalks of any street in DC that they want. Or on the Mall.  DC is full of public space that is appropriate for protesting.  But deliberately  blocking traffic is just not ok.

Here in Charlottesville, there are a group of Tibetans demonstrating on the Downtown Mall today. They have a bullhorn and petitions and stuff. I walked past them a few minutes ago, signed their petition and wished them luck. They are doing everything right and not blocking any traffic or engaging in behavior that is at all illegal.  The only thing out of the ordinary is that they are congregating and shouting. I'm all in favor of that.

After all, riding in the front of the bus was unlawful.

And all those miscreants having sit-ins at the lunch counters! They deserved all the firehoses they got.

You are confusing lawful and constitutionally protected free speech with civil disobedience.  In the case of the former, you are protected from arrest or detention.  In the case of the latter, getting arrested is the point.

These protesters were engaging in civil disobedience.  If they didn't expect to get arrested, then they are too stupid to be standing in the middle of the road.

Look at this way:  civil disobedience is like smoking.  Just as your right to smoke ends where my right to breath clean air begins, you right to protest and demonstrate ends where my right to free movement begins.

Right to free movement! Awesome! I really need to start a list somewhere of made-up laws cited by blog commenters ...

Just because the readers here as a whole hooted down your silly attack on the DC cops, you don't need to indulge in a sacastic attack on me.  Are you trying to imply that the freedom to move about this country unimpeded is a "new law?"  Have you ever heard of the offense "obstructing traffic?"  That is hardly "new law."

Sometimes it is as appropriate to violate the law as it is important for the police to make an arrest, provided it is for a violation of the law.

Arresting anyone blocking traffic for that crime, is fine - so long as they treat all traffic blockers the same regardless of wether they are reciting the alphabet for exercising their free speech.

It is also ok to violate the law from time to time, so I am in favor of Rosa Parks' decision to break the law; and in favor of her getting arrested - for that is the action that caused us as a Nation to revisit that law and repeal it as racist and unfair.

If blocking traffic really made an impact, I'd be down their blocking traffic too - and hoping to be arrested; to make a point.  In this case I fail to see how blocking traffic adds anything to the argument against the war....  so I don't see the point.

I also think it is wrong for the police to be brutal about it - arrest is one thing; treating quiet protesters like violent riot participants is wrong, and violates some different laws.

Absolutely, there is a place for civil disobedience in our political discourse.  And, both Rosa Parks and the protesters this morning would have been very disappointed if the cops hadn't accommodated them in their intent.

So, why ridcule the cops for simply doing their jobs and making everyone happy?

Laws requiring blacks to sit at the back of the bus and to avoid whites-only lunch counters were unjust. Are you claiming that laws against blocking traffic are somehow discriminatory or otherwise need to be repealed?

In any case, the protesters who were arrested were people who wanted to be arrested, as far as I can tell, so I don't view it as an outrage. It seems completely different from the Pershing Park incident a few years back when bystanders who weren't even part of the protest were swept up, and the people arrested were hogtied and otherwise abused.

no one is really paying too much attention to the Tibetan protest on the mall.

Both Jack and HisRoc get it.

I'm sorry, but if you chain yourself together to block an entire intersection at 10AM in D.C., or try to physically push yourself through the barricade at the IRS, I have no problem with a cop dragging your sorry butt away.

Throwing the Rosa Parks incident at Jack is a bit ridiculous as well.

they waited until after rush hour.  And people are talking about it, so they were successful in getting their message out.

If he's going limp and refusing to get his butt out of the middle of the road where he is blocking traffic, then it's certainly better for 3 cops to remove him than 1. One cop would have to drag him, which would risk injury to the suspect. Better to have 3 cops pick him up all the way off the ground and avoid hurting the protester.

The helicopters sound like a bit much, though.  Were they news copters?

"Never send one cop to a fender-bender when six will do."

that they are threatening to arrest members of the **MEDIA** in San Francisco... WTF!?

San Francisco?  Liberal hippy-loving Berkley-phile San Francisco?  What, are the sports writers from the San Jose Mercury News getting stoned in Golden Gate Park again?  This just doesn't sound like the City by the Bay.