 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
joemama
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Lol, USA |
| Posts: | 3208 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 04:29 am |
|
CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: ROMANIAN CONSERVATIVE wrote: I also tend to strongly disagree with the ACLU, but they do have the right to assemble after all. We nee to retaliate by showing or displeasure and not allowing them to be effective any longer. Its about supply and demand, as long as people demand their non-sense, the supply will continue to flow in.
If people could actually interrupt their busy lives for doing something good then the ACLU could affectively be neutralized. I mean how many times have their been counter-suits filed?
What law did they break?
By counter-suits I meant challenges filed by religious rights groups when they sue over nativity seens and seemingly stupid things like that. I didnt mean the ACLU broke laws.
They lost, why would they sue just to lose again? The courts didn't agree with their argument. The only other option is change the courts.
After a lawsuit is filed a counter suit can be filed. It doesnt neccesarily have to be after the verdict. and if it was, you would probably draw a different judge.
...and a counter suit is heard at the same trial, therefore, both the suit and counter-suit are dealt with in one ruling. If you are the loser (by loser, I mean all of your appeals have been exhausted), you cannot re-file the same case because of whats known as res judicata, or "the thing has been judged."
Furthermore, even if you could draw a new judge, all judges are duty bound to uphold the principles of the higher courts in their jurisdictions. So, once the appeals courts have ruled, all lower courts must adhere to their rulings.
Again, the only thing you can do is try to change the courts....which conservatives are trying to do as we speak.
yes i know but im saying that there is rarely a counter suit because the conservatives in this country have learned to just accept things rather then fight over them
|
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 04:42 am |
|
joemama wrote: CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: ROMANIAN CONSERVATIVE wrote: I also tend to strongly disagree with the ACLU, but they do have the right to assemble after all. We nee to retaliate by showing or displeasure and not allowing them to be effective any longer. Its about supply and demand, as long as people demand their non-sense, the supply will continue to flow in.
If people could actually interrupt their busy lives for doing something good then the ACLU could affectively be neutralized. I mean how many times have their been counter-suits filed?
What law did they break?
By counter-suits I meant challenges filed by religious rights groups when they sue over nativity seens and seemingly stupid things like that. I didnt mean the ACLU broke laws.
They lost, why would they sue just to lose again? The courts didn't agree with their argument. The only other option is change the courts.
After a lawsuit is filed a counter suit can be filed. It doesnt neccesarily have to be after the verdict. and if it was, you would probably draw a different judge.
...and a counter suit is heard at the same trial, therefore, both the suit and counter-suit are dealt with in one ruling. If you are the loser (by loser, I mean all of your appeals have been exhausted), you cannot re-file the same case because of whats known as res judicata, or "the thing has been judged."
Furthermore, even if you could draw a new judge, all judges are duty bound to uphold the principles of the higher courts in their jurisdictions. So, once the appeals courts have ruled, all lower courts must adhere to their rulings.
Again, the only thing you can do is try to change the courts....which conservatives are trying to do as we speak.
yes i know but im saying that there is rarely a counter suit because the conservatives in this country have learned to just accept things rather then fight over them
You misunderstand a counter-suit. A counter-suit is an allegation that the plaintiff violated the law. So, if the ACLU sues a christain group for putting up a nativity scene alleging it violats the 1st amendment, in order to counter-sue, the Christian group would have to figure out a law the ACLU broke. That's why you don't see counter-suits b/c generally, the ACLU isn't breaking the law in regards to the case at hand.
But, christian groups certainly put up a defense...their arguments have just been defeated in several courts.
|
joemama
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Lol, USA |
| Posts: | 3208 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 04:44 am |
|
CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: CrowdControl78 wrote: joemama wrote: ROMANIAN CONSERVATIVE wrote: I also tend to strongly disagree with the ACLU, but they do have the right to assemble after all. We nee to retaliate by showing or displeasure and not allowing them to be effective any longer. Its about supply and demand, as long as people demand their non-sense, the supply will continue to flow in.
If people could actually interrupt their busy lives for doing something good then the ACLU could affectively be neutralized. I mean how many times have their been counter-suits filed?
What law did they break?
By counter-suits I meant challenges filed by religious rights groups when they sue over nativity seens and seemingly stupid things like that. I didnt mean the ACLU broke laws.
They lost, why would they sue just to lose again? The courts didn't agree with their argument. The only other option is change the courts.
After a lawsuit is filed a counter suit can be filed. It doesnt neccesarily have to be after the verdict. and if it was, you would probably draw a different judge.
...and a counter suit is heard at the same trial, therefore, both the suit and counter-suit are dealt with in one ruling. If you are the loser (by loser, I mean all of your appeals have been exhausted), you cannot re-file the same case because of whats known as res judicata, or "the thing has been judged."
Furthermore, even if you could draw a new judge, all judges are duty bound to uphold the principles of the higher courts in their jurisdictions. So, once the appeals courts have ruled, all lower courts must adhere to their rulings.
Again, the only thing you can do is try to change the courts....which conservatives are trying to do as we speak.
yes i know but im saying that there is rarely a counter suit because the conservatives in this country have learned to just accept things rather then fight over them
You misunderstand a counter-suit. A counter-suit is an allegation that the plaintiff violated the law. So, if the ACLU sues a christain group for putting up a nativity scene alleging it violats the 1st amendment, in order to counter-sue, the Christian group would have to figure out a law the ACLU broke. That's why you don't see counter-suits b/c generally, the ACLU isn't breaking the law in regards to the case at hand.
But, christian groups certainly put up a defense...their arguments have just been defeated in several courts.
Oh I see. Thanks for that info I never knew that.
|
tcobby4
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 894 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 04:54 am |
|
Apoapsis wrote: joemama wrote: the aclu is like a tick that keeps sucking blood until u burn it off. they wage a constant war on all morals in this country. and civil rights only go so far. their defense of NAMBLA is disgusting just like that sick f***s that are in the group that advocates, "man-boy love"
Taken from:
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17598&c=38
December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.
December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to “Intelligent Design” instruction in public schools.
November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.
November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.
November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.
August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.
July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.
June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.
June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.
May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.
March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.
February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.
October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.
July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.
April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.
January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run “anti-Santa” ads in Boston subways.
Thank you. That's what the ACLU is about. They fight for people's rights no matter who they are... even religious Christians.
|
Apoapsis
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 06:47 am |
|
joemama wrote: If looked at closely most will see that in theory the ACLU's very premise is noble and of the highest importance. in practice however they tend to be overzealous and they demand huge payment's from governemnt for seemingly minor things. In a perfect world the ACLU would do what it was supposed to and protect everyone's free speach. but this isnt a perfect world. it has become a very politically biased organization.
Are two people using your account. Earlier you were being an incoherrent ass. And did you see all of the cases where the ACLU defended religious rights? I think you may just see it as biased because people like Bill always emphasize certain cases like the NAMBLA thing to make it look radical and biased.
|
Apoapsis
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 06:52 am |
|
joemama wrote: BuckFan wrote: joemama wrote: If looked at closely most will see that in theory the ACLU's very premise is noble and of the highest importance. in practice however they tend to be overzealous and they demand huge payment's from governemnt for seemingly minor things. In a perfect world the ACLU would do what it was supposed to and protect everyone's free speach. but this isnt a perfect world. it has become a very politically biased organization.
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO FEEL IT IS BIASED ARE THOSE WHOSE PLANS WERE THWARTED BECAUSE THEY ATTEMPTED TO VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
I disagree. They sometimes defend religion but most of the time they try to tear religion down. They are not neccesarily biased but misguided. Trying to stop bag searches on subways a week after subway cars were blown up by men with backpack bombs is just absurd.
Would you rather be free or safe if you had to choose? The ACLU is fighting to keep our nation from falling to the terroists. Who wins if we are subject to random bag searches on public property? Who wins if we have our civil liberties stripped away because of the Patriot Act?
|
Virtuoso80
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1048 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 07:27 am |
|
| I clicked on this topic thinking it was going to be an interesting and challenging argument, then I saw the words "By Bill O'Reilly" and my hopes fell.
|
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 10:06 am |
|
| In MHO, the responses on this thread prove beyond reasonable doubt that conservatives are in large part hypocrites. They talk about smaller government and individual rights, but here we are talking about an organization that takes on government in matters of rights regardless of ideology, without a political agenda, a stance that is as patriotic as you can get, and who is against that? The conservatives, those champions of individual rights; all because the majority of issues the ACLU champions are ones the right doesn't agree with. Go figure.
|
Apoapsis
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 03:59 pm |
|
wilmywood8455 wrote: In MHO, the responses on this thread prove beyond reasonable doubt that conservatives are in large part hypocrites. They talk about smaller government and individual rights, but here we are talking about an organization that takes on government in matters of rights regardless of ideology, without a political agenda, a stance that is as patriotic as you can get, and who is against that? The conservatives, those champions of individual rights; all because the majority of issues the ACLU champions are ones the right doesn't agree with. Go figure.
I don't think it is so much conservatives as just people who are easily manipulated and fall prey to the tactics of people like Bill O'Rilliey.
I would strongly suggest, and I'm not saying this to be insultive, that the people who like Bill O'Rilliey and read and listen to him often, buy a book about critical thinking, logic and reason, and carefully study it.
|
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 04:06 pm |
|
Apoapsis wrote: wilmywood8455 wrote: In MHO, the responses on this thread prove beyond reasonable doubt that conservatives are in large part hypocrites. They talk about smaller government and individual rights, but here we are talking about an organization that takes on government in matters of rights regardless of ideology, without a political agenda, a stance that is as patriotic as you can get, and who is against that? The conservatives, those champions of individual rights; all because the majority of issues the ACLU champions are ones the right doesn't agree with. Go figure.
I don't think it is so much conservatives as just people who are easily manipulated and fall prey to the tactics of people like Bill O'Rilliey.
I would strongly suggest, and I'm not saying this to be insultive, that the people who like Bill O'Rilliey and read and listen to him often, buy a book about critical thinking, logic and reason, and carefully study it.
That's too much work for them....it's much easier to listen to your favorite partisan hack.
![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif)
|
cloudman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 6th, 2004 |
| Location: | Lone Star State |
| Posts: | 14830 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 05:24 pm |
|
CrowdControl78 wrote:
I thought conservatives were strict constuctionists? Strictly construe Oregon's free speech clause:
"No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever."
A live sex show is expressing what opinion?
Are they "speaking" while they have sex. Can they not speak freely while not having sex?
What "opinion" are they "writing"while they have sex?
What "opinion" are they "printing"while they have sex?
|
Lissette
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | New York |
| Posts: | 10223 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 05:28 pm |
|
| As long as it is behind closed doors and between consenting adults nobody has the right to ban it.
|
cloudman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 6th, 2004 |
| Location: | Lone Star State |
| Posts: | 14830 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 05:35 pm |
|
Lissette wrote: As long as it is behind closed doors and between consenting adults nobody has the right to ban it.
OK.
So how do you feel about live public sex shows?
Do you consider them constitutionally protected free speech?
|
Lissette
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | New York |
| Posts: | 10223 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 05:37 pm |
|
cloudman wrote: Lissette wrote: As long as it is behind closed doors and between consenting adults nobody has the right to ban it.
OK.
So how do you feel about live public sex shows?
Do you consider them constitutionally protected free speech?
Yes. If it is indoors it should be legal.
|
cloudman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 6th, 2004 |
| Location: | Lone Star State |
| Posts: | 14830 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 06:05 pm |
|
Lissette wrote: cloudman wrote: Lissette wrote: As long as it is behind closed doors and between consenting adults nobody has the right to ban it.
OK.
So how do you feel about live public sex shows?
Do you consider them constitutionally protected free speech?
Yes. If it is indoors it should be legal.
So in the middle of a department store aisle is OK with you? That's indoors.
You said "behind closed doors" before. Are you changing you mind?
|
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 06:07 pm |
|
cloudman wrote: CrowdControl78 wrote:
I thought conservatives were strict constuctionists? Strictly construe Oregon's free speech clause:
"No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever."
A live sex show is expressing what opinion?
The Oregon SC sets the standards on that one and like I said, states can grant GREATER protection to free expression than the feds. I'm not familiar with Oregon case law, but it appears as if the Or SC is taking a deferential approach to grant more protection to free expression than the federal standard.
The live sex performers could be expressing an opinion about openness with sex, carnal lust, they may even think its an artistic statement. The Or court appears not to be judging the relative merits of the opinions being expressed.
Last edited on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 06:08 pm by
|
RightOfCenter
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 4473 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 06:09 pm |
|
Samuel Byck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Samuel S. Byck)
 Samuel Byck
Samuel Joseph Byck (January 30, 1930 – February 22, 1974) was an unemployed tire salesman who attempted to hijack a plane from Baltimore-Washington International Airport on February 22, 1974. He intended to crash into the White House in hopes of killing U.S. President Richard M. Nixon.
Contents[hide]
//
[edit]
Jewish parents in Philadelphia, Byck dropped out of high school. He enlisted in the US Army in 1954 and was honorably discharged in 1956. Byck married and had four children, but he experienced a number of business failures and spent two months in a psychiatric hospital being treated for depression. He began to believe that the government was conspiring to oppress the poor. The Secret Service considered Byck to be harmless.
Byck first came to the notice of the Secret Service in 1972, when he threatened Nixon, whom he had resented ever since the Small Business Administration had turned him down for a loan. Byck had also sent bizarre tape recordings to various other public figures including Jonas Salk, Abraham Ribicoff, and Leonard Bernstein. He once even tried to join the Black Panthers.
[edit]
airliner and crashing it into the White House on a day when Nixon would be there. Since Byck was already known to the Secret Service, and because legal attempts to purchase a firearm might have resulted in increased scrutiny, Byck stole a .22 caliber revolver from a friend of his to use in the hijacking. Byck also made a bomb out of 2 gallon jugs of gasoline and an igniter. All through this process, Byck made audio recordings explaining his motives and his plans; he expected to be considered a hero for his actions, and wanted to fully document his reasons for the assassination.
On February 22, 1974, Byck drove to the Baltimore/Washington International Airport. He shot and killed Maryland Aviation Administration Police Officer Neal Ramsburg before storming aboard a DC-9, Delta Air Lines Flight 523 to Atlanta, which he chose because it was the closest flight that was ready to take off. After the pilots told him they could not take off until wheel blocks were removed, he shot both pilots, then grabbed a nearby passenger and ordered her to "fly the plane". After a standoff with police, an officer on the jetway, who had been waiting for a chance to intervene, managed to fire a shot through the door of the aircraft with a .357 Magnum revolver taken from the dead officer. The shot, which managed to penetrate the thick window of the aircraft door, hit Byck and seriously wounded him. Before the police could gain entry to the aircraft, Byck committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. According to a special on the History Channel, he lived for a few minutes after the bullet to the head, finally dying after saying "help me" to one of the police officers who entered the plane after he had been shot. A briefcase containing the gasoline bomb was found under his body. The plane never left the gate, and Nixon's schedule was not affected by Byck's assassination attempt.
[edit]
Pandora's Box", to news columnist Jack Anderson. A review of records disclosed that Byck had been arrested twice for protesting in front of the White House without a permit, and that he later dressed in a Santa suit for another protest. The flight's captain recovered and resumed flying airliners five years later. The co-pilot died shortly after the hijacking.
After Byck's failed assassination attempt and subsequent death, Byck faded into obscurity. While the news media reported on Byck's actions, they did not disclose why Byck attempted to hijack the plane. As a result, Byck and his assassination plot remained relatively unknown until a movie based on his story, The Assassination of Richard Nixon, was released in 2004, starring Sean Penn as Bicke (the spelling was changed to avoid offending living relatives). The History Channel then aired a special on Byck's attempt to assassinate Nixon. Byck is also one of the (failed) assassins portrayed in Sondheim's and Weidman's musical Assassins (1991), which, like the movie that followed, also focused exclusively on the tapes to Leonard Bernstein.
In the fall of that year, after Nixon's famous "I'm not a crook" speech, he returned to Washington to protest and is arrested again, only to be bailed out by the ACLU. In the fall of that year, after Nixon's famous "I'm not a crook" speech, he returned to Washington to protest and is arrested again, only to be bailed out by the ACLU. In the fall of that year, after Nixon's famous "I'm not a crook" speech, he returned to Washington to protest and is arrested again, only to be bailed out by the ACLU. In the fall of that year, after Nixon's famous "I'm not a crook" speech, he returned to Washington to protest and is arrested again, only to be bailed out by the ACLU. The Assassination of Richard Nixon
This movie is based on the true story of Samuel S. Byck, who planned to assassinate the President of the United States (we'll see if that phrase pops us up on some Secret Service watch list…even though the Feds claim to have abandoned that Carnivore program) by hijacking a commercial airliner and flying it into the White House…back in 1974.
One could begin a critique of the film by pointing out that director and co-writer Niels Mueller didn't even spell Byck's name correctly. But apparently this was done intentionally, for the character Sam Bicke in the film is only loosely based on what little we know of the real Sam Byck. Or perhaps it was a play off Travis Bickle, the loony loaner character from Taxi Driver, who Byck has so much in common with.
Similarly, one can only wonder about the deliberateness of such decisions - including the title itself. Rather than opt for The Assassination of President Richard Nixon, which would pair the words "assassination" and "president," no doubt thickening the muck the Secret Service must
already wade through to find the next Byck, they opted to simply call it The Assassination of Richard Nixon.
Another interesting and surprising little tidbit is that the film was conceived pre-9/11, but obviously took on even greater significance afterwards. I know, Condaleeza Rice and the rest of the Bush administration swear that - despite the Bojinka plot unearthed by the CIA before the 9/11 attacks - no one ever thought someone would use an airplane to attack symbols of US power and government. But ignorance only makes for more Red States, and hopefully this movie - if nothing else - will help educate people that it pays to pay attention…particularly to history. Of course, that's going to be difficult to do, given that much of the film is complete fiction.
The real Sam Byck (pronounced "bike") was indeed a loser. He was a salesman of the Willy Loman mold. He was struggling with a failed marriage and a career that was going nowhere. Eventually, the unemployed tire salesman from Philadelphia began to blame Nixon for all of his woes, including his failure to secure a loan from the Small Business Administration in 1968.
What the movie doesn't tell you is that, in 1972, he voluntarily checked himself into a hospital and was diagnosed as a manic-depressive. He was soon released with a prescription to treat the disease. Shortly thereafter he was visited by the Secret Service, after someone overheard him
say "We'd be better off if Nixon were dead" in a bar.
After Nixon was reelected, he went to DC for the inauguration in 1973, perhaps to target the president then, but was scared off by the heavy security. Later that year, as Nixon's criminal conspiracy was being exposed in the Watergate hearings, Byck went back to DC to picket the White House and was arrested. In the fall of that year, after Nixon's famous "I'm not a crook" speech, he returned to Washington to protest and is arrested again, only to be bailed out by the ACLU. That December, after receiving some coverage in The Philadelphia Inquirer for his protest activities, he went back to protest at the White House once again, this time dressed in a Santa suit.
The Secret Service, now familiar with Byck, considered him harmless - a big talker merely looking for attention. After all, he seemed happy to have received coverage in the newspaper, and it appeared that this was all he was looking for. But little did they know that Byck had finally decided to back up his words with actions.
In the morning hours of February 22, 1974, he drove from Philadelphia to Baltimore-Washington International Airport. This was in the middle of one of our gas shortages, and Byck almost ran out of gas along the way. Fortunately for him, he found a gas station that had some gas and was willing to sell it to him at that hour - putting some of it into plastic containers that he would use to make a crude bomb.
At the airport, Byck had selected Delta Airlines Flight 523. He chose the Atlanta-bound flight because the gate was close to the terminal entrance. Back in those days, the airports only had metal detectors at the entrance to the gateway. His plan was to hijack the plane (technically
skyjack it, as hijacking is for motor vehicles) and force the pilot to fly it into the White House.
Byck knew he'd never get past the armed security agent by the gate, not with his gun and briefcase bomb. So he calmly approached Maryland Transportation Authority Police Office George Neal Ramsburg and shot him dead. The desperate Byck then ran down the jetway and boarded the plane, branding his gun in one hand and his briefcase bomb in the other.
But as with everything else in his life, Byck failed miserably with his hijacking/assassination attempt. The DC-9 was still parked at the gate with its wheels in the wooden blocks that keep the plane from accidentally rolling. When the pilots tried to explain to the crazed Byck that they had to contact the tower first to have the blocks removed, he shot and killed one pilot and then shot and wounded the other. He then tried to force a female passenger at gunpoint to fly the plane.
That's when Officer Charles Troyer shot him through the little window in the plane's closed door. Yes, those were different times - when a police officer could open fire into a crowded airplane without thinking twice about the consequences. Fortunately he had picked up Officer Ramsburg's .357 magnum, which was powerful enough to penetrate the pressurized window on the airplane's door. The wounded Byck then turned the gun on himself, committing suicide.
Had Byck successfully taken control of the plane and got it off the ground, he would have been over the White House in less than five minutes. But even if he were able to force the pilot to fly the plane into the building, there's a good chance that Nixon would have survived it. FDR had the White House reinforced during WWII to protect against just such an attack. Ironically, within six months of Byck's failed attempt, Nixon was forced
Byck's "attack" on Nixon was the first presidential assassination attempt in 24 years. Ford, who became President after Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment, had two attempts on his life the following year. In 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot in an assassination attempt by a John Hinckley Jr., who bears many of the sadder traits of Sam Byck. Out of the 12 assassination attempts on a sitting President, four of them have been successful.
to resign in the face of almost certain impeachment.
Byck had outlined his entire plan for the hijacking and assassination on a tape he sent to the Pulitzer-Prize winning Washington Post columnist Jack Anderson. Anderson had made a name for himself by exposing the CIA's plot to assassinate Castro as well as his investigations into the mafia's role in the assassination of JFK. Byck also sent strange, rambling tapes to Dr. Jonas Salk, Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and Leonard Bernstein. It wasn't until these tapes were discovered that the authorities realized the extent of Byck's plan, that it was not just a hijacking but an assassination attempt.
In the film version, Bicke reveals his plan to Bernstein. This is one of the many "liberties taken by Mueller. Why he chose this route and made other noticeable changes is a mystery. Perhaps he felt that the character was more interesting than the story.
And, if nothing else, the film is a solid character study. While Mueller relies far too heavily on voiceover narratives, Sean Penn does a good job depicting the pathetic Bicke. He portrays a meek man who lacks the courage to take responsibility for his life, opting instead to blame everyone
but himself for his failures. The few other actors - Jack Thompson as his asinine boss, Don Cheadle as his only friend, and Naomi Watts as his estranged wife - provide what support they can with the few lines they are given.
The Assassination of Richard Nixon also serves to remind us where the real threat to America lies - who are enemies really are. It's not Muslim fundamentalists, as many have claimed. No, it's people like Byck and bin Laden, who continually seek to blame all of their woes on others rather than channeling that energy into solving their own problems.
And, while many conservatives were quick to denounce it as liberal propaganda, their knee-jerk response proves that they have obviously failed to understand it. The film isn't an attack on Bush, nor is it an exploitation or endorsement of the 9/11 horrors - it was actually written during the Clinton years, before all of that.
However, the film's most interesting surprise may be the parallel it draws between Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush, whether intentionally or not. In one scene, Byck's boss points to an image of Nixon and explains that the recently re-elected President is undoubtedly the greatest salesman of all time. He goes on to point out that Nixon ran for President in 1968 on the promise that he would end the Vietnam War. After being elected, not only did Nixon fail to keep his promise of getting us out of that war, but he actually broadened it into Cambodia and Laos and dramatically increased our bombing campaign. This resulted in four more years of war and more than 5,000 dead Americans, not to mention helping pave the way for the Khmer Rouge to take over in Cambodia and engage in a genocide that makes Saddam Hussein's regime look like the
Red Cross. And when the 1972 election came around, Nixon once again ran on the promise that he would end the war in Vietnam - the same promise he failed to keep from his first campaign - and yet he won the 72 election by a landslide.
George W promised to make America safer and stronger when he ran in 2000. Yet, after four years in the White House, we have suffered our worst domestic attack ever, we've attacked a sovereign nation only to be embroiled in an open-ended conflict with increasing loss of American lives, we've witnessed countless massive failures of intelligence and foreign policy, we've squandered most of our good will and credibility around the globe, we've restricted our freedoms here at home, and we've plundered the nation into the greatest debt in its history. Despite all those facts, George W campaigned that he would make America safer and stronger if re-elected 2004. And, like Nixon, he promised the same things he failed to deliver in his first four years, and he won by an electoral landslide.
If this movie offers nothing else, perhaps it will help illustrate the fact that we rarely learn from our mistakes. Beyond that, it's merely a well-done character study of what, in the end, proves to be a fictionalized version of one of history's forgotten characters .
|
progressivegirl
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 4th, 2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3041 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 06:14 pm |
|
For Immediate Release
February 10, 2005
Newark - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) announced today that it successfully obtained a court order dismissing a libel suit filed against the Piscataway Republican Organization and its recent slate of candidates for township offices. The suit against the Republicans was filed by the Piscataway Democratic Organization and centered on language used on campaign billboards and fliers.
"Free political speech is a founding American belief," said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. "The way to fight speech that you don't like or don't think is accurate is to speak out yourself, not to silence or suppress what others say."
During the November 2004 elections, the Piscataway Republican Organization erected a billboard stating: "Bribery. Corruption. Indictment. Had Enough?" with a picture of a broom. The sign then urged viewers to vote for the Republican slate for township mayor and council.
The Democratic incumbents asked that the signs be removed. The Republicans refused. The Democrats then filed suit for libel, claiming that the sign implied that they, as individuals, were guilty of bribery and corruption. Although the entire Piscataway Democratic slate of candidates won in the November elections, they refused to dismiss the lawsuit.
On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, Judge Yolanda Ciccone granted the ACLU-NJ's motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the fact that the ad contained protected, non-libelous speech. The ACLU-NJ's brief explained that the ad was political rhetoric, and did not direct allegations at a particular individual; rather, it was impersonal criticism of a government administration.
"Political discourse should be uninhibited and this was political speech in its most basic form," said Frank Corrado of Barry Corrado Grassi & Gibson, the ACLU-NJ's cooperating attorney in the case. "The candidates had the right to comment on the political climate as they saw it and to ask voters to remove the incumbents to change the status quo."
The case is captioned Piscataway Democratic Organization v. Piscataway Republican Organization. It was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County.
|
progressivegirl
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 4th, 2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3041 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 06:17 pm |
|
why are right wingers so anti freedom of speech/ anti freedom?
|
RightOfCenter
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 4473 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15th, 2005 06:23 pm |
|
progressivegirl wrote: why are right wingers so anti freedom of speech/ anti freedom?
Your example is what we on the RIGHT would call, "Quota suits." Sly bastards those ACLU guys are.
|
Current time is 10:39 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
|
