Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Let's Start The War And Get It Over With -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vitas who wrote (676)	3/8/2003 10:13:21 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 808

Mall Guard Loses Job Over T-shirt Flap Times Union ^ \| March 8, 2003 \| Bruce Scruton freerepublic.com The security officer at Crossgates Mall who signed a trespassing complaint against a war protester was fired Friday. Robert Williams said he was called into the mall security office about four hours into his shift and told he was fired because of Monday's incident and for signing the complaint against Steve Downs, 60, of Selkirk. Downs' arrest brought Crossgates national notoriety and sparked a protest march against the facility's policies. He was arrested for trespassing when mall officials told him to leave or remove an anti-war T-shirt he had purchased there. On Wednesday, amid a protest over Downs' arrest, officials from Pyramid Management Group, which operates the mall, said they would drop the charge against Downs. Williams, who has worked in security at the mall for more than nine years, said he signed the complaint on the orders of his boss, assistant director of security Fred Tallman. Those orders came after Tallman told the Guilderland police officer working the case that he (Tallman) was too busy to come to the police station and that Williams represented the company and should sign. "I just followed directions of management of that mall to the letter," Williams said Friday evening. "And I get fired for doing my job." Mall officials did not return phone calls Friday evening seeking comment. Guilderland Police Chief James Murley also did not respond to a request for comment. Williams said it was Tallman who made the decision on Monday to have Downs arrested if he and his son, Roger Downs, 31, refused to take off T-shirts that bore peace slogans. Williams said security had received a call from Macy's security that there had been a confrontation with two men wearing anti-war T-shirts. Williams said he spotted the men near the food court and that about the same time, a Guilderland police officer showed up. "We had not called them (town police), but the two of us talked to them," he said. Over a period of time, it became clear, Williams said, that the elder Downs was not going to take off the T-shirt or leave the mall. Williams said he received orders over the mall's radio that if they refused, they were to be charged with trespassing. When Steve Downs was taken to the police substation in the mall, the paperwork was written up. Tallman was contacted by the officer, Williams said, and told the officer to have Williams sign the complaint because "he represents the company so he can sign." News of the arrest sparked a protest Wednesday by anti-war demonstrators, most of whom wore T-shirts. Mall officials did not meet with the protesters but announced later that day that they would drop charges against Downs. Williams has been honored by the town for his service at the mall and on two occasions, after leaving for other work that fell through, the mall rehired him for security posts. "My work record speaks for itself," Williams said in his own defense. "And I've already been told they're not going to pay unemployment so I shouldn't even file." He said that after he was fired, he was handed paperwork, known as "write-ups," to sign, but he refused. The write-ups were in relation to Monday's incident. Williams said he had been verbally reprimanded this week over a Saturday incident in which he tried keep out a man who previously had been banned from the mall. He said there also was a court order banning him from the mall. But Williams was told to let the man in because he had been hired as a maintenance worker. "Because of that, I was just going to follow orders," he said about the Monday arrest. "I guess that when it comes down to it," he added, "It's the people who sign the paperwork who get the blame, not the people who told you to do it." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The firing is an atrocity for a good man: (from the Wall Street Journal) Although the mall may have the legal right to eject someone for wearing an offensive shirt, the action as described by Reuters certainly sounds like overkill. But Reuters leaves out a crucial part of the allegation, which appears on the arrest report, obtained by The Smoking Gun: The security guards had received complaints that Downs and his "partner" (actually his son, according to the Times-Union) "were stopping other shoppers." The security guard's deposition says that a customer had complained "that the two gentlemen [sic] were having a verbal dispute with another group of individuals in the mall. The customer was afraid of what may come out of the dispute, so she wanted to let someone know." Sounds more like disturbing the peace than protecting it. There's another odd angle to this story: The New York Law Journal reports that Downs is the chief lawyer for the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct. "Last month, U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd in Utica, N.Y., shot down as unconstitutionally vague provisions in the Code of Judicial Conduct that restrain the political speech of judges and judicial candidates." Downs's office had prosecuted a judge for taking part in political activities. The law journal notes that "there are no allegations that Downs violated any ethics code -- he is not a judge, and therefore not subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct."

To: Vitas who wrote (676)	3/8/2003 12:40:09 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 808

The democrats are such a bunch of boobs, they don't agree with what they have agreed with... Don't bother to agree with me, I've already changed my mind! Iraq War Support Not So Elusive in Congress! Friday, March 07, 2003 WASHINGTON — Hawks and doves in the war against Iraq gathered on the Senate floor Friday to debate the necessity and the wisdom of war, particularly in the face of opposition from key U.N. Security Council members. Republicans backed President Bush, who has been ambling toward war for six months. They say diplomacy has failed and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has no intention of disarming. "We don't need partners on this one. We don't need it. I believe we have right on our side and we have might on our side and we should use that might for the best interest of the world in the future," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will be doling out the money to fight a war. But a handful of Democrats dug in their heels, and said the president needs to be more patient. The time for action, they declare, has not arrived. "What if Al Qaeda were to time their next terrorist attack for the day we go to war?" asked Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., one of 23 Democrats in the Senate who voted in October against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Saddam with or without U.N. support. Democrats demanded Friday's debate time on Iraq, knowing they have no official vote and angry that they voted in October. They think the vote six months ago has led them to a marginalized position now, with no real power but the capacity to talk against the war. But having called for the time Friday, only two Democrats showed up. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut said he wasn't exactly against force, but he was against haste. "I won't take a back seat to anybody in my concern about Saddam Hussein. I would support the resolution again today if it were in front of me. But I honestly believe, Mr. President, that it's in our interests to try to rebuild this — to get diplomacy back on the front burner here and to give that a chance to work. And if it doesn't, we go to war. But we ought not to jump to war without giving this an opportunity, a chance to work a bit longer," he said. The debate came one day after Bush used a news conference to prepare the nation for war in Iraq, and as the United Nations Security Council heard an update from weapons inspectors charged with monitoring Iraqi compliance with international disarmament demands. That report, which concluded that Iraq has carried out a "substantial measure" of the U.N.'s disarmament demands, and the Security Council debate that followed stirred some resentment among Republicans, who said the international body is reducing itself to insignificance. "If the U.N. wishes to become a spineless debating society, that's its right. If it or anyone else believes that it can pervert international law to contain the legitimate use of American force for the protection of our national security, then it will begin the 21st century on its self-imposed decline into irrelevance," said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. Republicans, who numbered many on the Senate floor, also came out in force for force. "Time is not on our side," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia. "The failure of the U.S. and the coalition of willing nations, principally Great Britain, not to act, is not in our interest. The price of inaction is far greater than the price of action." The Senate's majority leader also praised the coalition of the willing and accused European naysayers of forgetting U.S. sacrifice for them in World War II. "Some of our erstwhile allies would be well-advised to recall that their own freedom was regained by such courage and conviction," said Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "I would remind them that their own liberation in World War II was a less popular undertaking than a possible war in Iraq," added Frist, who cited a string of public opinion polls taken from 1939 to mid-1941 as evidence. By all accounts, lawmakers believe that war could start within a couple weeks, and while neither political party has an official position on Iraq, some Democrats took the last-minute effort to state a position that they hopes will compel public opinion to force the president to change his policies.