Does she need better security?

[diamond]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/po....bloody.hands.protester.cnn?iref=mpvideosview

Recently Condi Rice was confronted by a war protester. The protester was able to get into Condi's face for 3-4 seconds.

Where was her security, do you think cabinet members should have better protection then was afforded Secretary Rice in this circumstance?

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, center, is confronted by CodePink member Desiree Anita Ali-Fairooz, her hands painted red, as Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., right, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, right, looks on before Rice testified regarding US policy in the Middle East where she spoke about Iraq, Iran, and the Israel Palestinian conflict on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2007."





This lady could of harmed the Secretary of State, I think govt. officials, cabinet members and the like should have much better security.

What say you?

dbs

 

[corianderstem]

Sure, it's free speech, but yes, she should have security.

 

[phillyfan26]

Yes, she needs better security.

I don't really even think it's a question. Free speech is one thing, this is another.

 

[Diemen]

Yes, she needs better security.

I don't really even think it's a question. Free speech is one thing, this is another.

Exactly.

 

[diamond]

The protester looks possessed and unstable.

At least Tom Lantos did something.

dbs

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Yes, she needs better security.

I don't really even think it's a question. Free speech is one thing, this is another.

 

[diamond]

For once my FYMers are agreeing with me.

There is some hope left in the universe.

dbs

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

It's a no brainer.

Speaking soley for myself, I may disagree with her views, but it's not as if I want her harmed.

 

[Diemen]

For once my FYMers are agreeing with me.

I don't really even think it's a question. Free speech is one thing, this is another.

 

[phanan]

It's a no brainer.

Speaking soley for myself, I may disagree with her views, but it's not as if I want her harmed.

 

[financeguy]

This lady could of harmed the Secretary of State, I think govt. officials, cabinet members and the like should have much better security.

What say you?

dbs

I disapprove of this particular tactic of drawing attention to Anglo-American war crimes in Iraq. Having said that, can you provide any actual evidence of intention to cause harm?

 

[Diemen]

I don't think it's so much intention to cause harm as that she was able to get close enough that if she was intent on harming Ms. Rice she easily could have.

 

[diamond]

Re: Re: Does she need better security?

I disapprove of this particular tactic of drawing attention to Anglo-American war crimes in Iraq. Having said that, can you provide any actual evidence of intention to cause harm?

It can't be established that she was out to harm Condi, and that isn't the point of the thread; that she was able to breech security or lack thereof -is the topic at hand.

dbs

 

[phillyfan26]

I don't think it's so much intention to cause harm as that she was able to get close enough that if she was intent on harming Ms. Rice she easily could have.

 

[JessicaAnn]

Her boss would have to sign an executive order authorizing the secret service to protect her

http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/protection.shtml


And I don't think she looks "possessed and unstable" ... or do you think all anti-war protestors look "possessed and unstable".

 

[BVS]

The question is the right willing to let go of it's tax cuts to pay for this security? They like their wars, they like walls, they like extra security, they like passing useless marriage defense acts, but they don't like paying for any of it...

 

[diamond]

Her boss would have to sign an executive order authorizing the secret service to protect her

http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/protection.shtml


And I don't think she looks "possessed and unstable" ... or do you think all anti-war protestors look "possessed and unstable".

You don't?

Are you watching the same vid clips and looking at the same pictures we are?

She was screaming like a raging lunatic when apprehended-that in and of itself brings her behavior into question-but that's beside the point.

dbs

 

[phillyfan26]

Yes, it is beside the point.

 

[SeattleVertigo]

Oh sure, now I suppose we'll get a tax increase for improved cabinet member security. Great.

<wink>

 

[phillyfan26]

No, we'll increase the funding and add more money into our trillions of debt and let the next president clean up the mess.

 

[JessicaAnn]

Yes, I have seen the photos and video ... She was yelling, but I would not call her behavior that of a "raging lunatic."

As for her having protection ... it appears the Capitol Police were right there to intervene -- the photo doesn't show it, but this video footage does http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/247.1/popup/index.php?cl=4670216

Also, it appears that she cooperated with the Capitol Police. She may have been yelling "War Criminal" on her way out, but she did not put up a fight as they escorted her out. Others who were with her in the audience put a up a fight, but the woman who confronted Condi did not.

 

[diamond]

That she invaded a person's personal space paticularly a high ranking public official's personal space makes this person seem disrespectful at the very least.

And no, she doesn't seem noble in her demonstration irrespective of her motives.

dbs

 

[phillyfan26]

No one argued nobility.

 

[JessicaAnn]

I never said anything about her being noble. I agree she should not have approached the Secretery of State in that manner. What I said was she was cooperative when Capitol Police escorted her out. If she was a lunatic or possessed or unstable as you have suggested in your previous posts, she would have resisted.

 

[diamond]

I agree she should not have approached the Secretery of State in that manner. What I said was she was cooperative when Capitol Police escorted her out.

I don't think she was cooperating when being led away, she continued screaming in a disorderly way.

I posted the "noble" comment in the event somebody came along and were to suggest her motives could be construed as such.

dbs

 

[Diemen]

Was she resisting being led away? No. Hence, she was cooperating. As far as I know silence is not a requirement for cooperating with security.

 

[JessicaAnn]

She was yelling, but she did not resist arrest and fight the offices who were trying to remove her from the room.

 

[maycocksean]

I don't think she was cooperating when being led away, she continued screaming in a disorderly way.

I posted the "noble" comment in the event somebody came along and were to suggest her motives could be construed as such.

dbs

Diamond, it seems some one will always find a way to argue with you!

I agree with you. I think she should have had better security. Fortunately this woman was NOT a lunatic and did NOT intend to harm her, but if she had, I don't think Rice would have had much of a chance.

 

[diamond]

Was she resisting being led away? No. Hence, she was cooperating. As far as I know silence is not a requirement for cooperating with security.

I think that by her yelling and although not resisting arrest another charge of disorderly conduct can be added on to the charges-that was my point.

Maybe some legal minds can tell me if I'm right or wrong here.

thanks,



dbs

 

[BVS]

I posted the "noble" comment in the event somebody came along and were to suggest her motives could be construed as such.

Pre-imptive attacks? Not suprising...