I have to disagree totally with ian in hamburg.

Any fan of democracy has the right, and indeed the duty, to judge whether an election or system that claims to be democratic, is in fact democratic. If only the pure can pass judgment, than none of us are qualified.

The US election system is in need of reforms, but that makes it a flawed democracy, not a non-democracy. Perhaps ian is unaware, for example, that independent analysis of the 2000 recount that was famously stopped by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds, determined that the recount would have had the same result (Bush wins Florida and therefore the Presidency) as all the previous Florida recounts?

Quick to war? Giving ian the benefit of the doubt, I'll guess he's talking about the 2003 phase of the 1990-present Iraq war. It is simply ahistorical to describe the 2003 phase as a rush to war, since the war started in 1990 and never ended.

I would prefer that there were no innocents in Guantanamo, and fear that some of the real hard cases there were subject to interrogation techniques that may have constituted torture; but, I suspect you could find much worse abuse in a typical Russia prison for hard cases, if Russian or other media were permitted to report on them. Doesn't excuse it, but some perspective is needed.

Domestically, the US is still, by any measure, a place where human rights are generally respected. For example, as an American, I have more rights free speech rights than a German citizen. Also, we are a country at war, and our Constitution, not to mention past precedent, gives the President considerable police powers in wartime. For better, or for worse.

@David:

You many not have realized that in Germany, peaceful, law-abiding demonstrations nevertheless must be registered, and demonstrators and their leadership may be arrested even if they obey every law except for the registration law. I think German authorities have great discretion over whether to do this, but they can.

@Zyme and David:

"...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." is in the First Amendment. Americans do *not* have to register for demonstrations of any kind, full stop.

On private property, you need permission of the owner, and nothing more. On public property, the owner is (usually) the local government, and they cannot deny permission for a political demonstration if they would have given permission to a non-political event such as a picnic, etc. You can get a permit to shut down a street, occupy a building, etc, it isn't hard, and depending on your local law, is often free.

Also, in any large town or city, there are public spaces in which no permits are required for anyone. You can't be removed from these unless you break some other law (lighting a fire, littering, etc.)

Also, even if you don't get a permit, demonstrations are rarely harassed unless other local laws are broken, and often, not even then. Permits are sometimes denied due to not enough police, but they are generally afraid to do that because they can be easily sued.

At the 2004 Republican Convention in NYC, the reason so many got arrested was, they used a tactic with a long and mostly noble tradition in America and elsewhere: *civil* *disobedience*. This means, you explicitly break a law and hope to be arrested, in order to draw attention to your cause. In any large city, there are many petty laws that restrict freedom that are required for the city to function. Is anyone surprised that some people managed to find a way to break the law?

Some went beyond civil disobedience and attempted to violate the right of the Convention delegates or their supporters to peaceably assemble. Those criminals were suppressing free speech, not exercising it.

There *may* have been a registration system of some sort set up, but it was a courtesy, not a requirement, designed to allow law-abiding protesters to separate themselves from ones who intended to break the law. I know of no group that was arrested, detained, or fined simply for failing to register.

And yes, I'm sure when dealing with masses of demonstrators, some bystanders were detained, and other mistakes made.

By the way, the Democrats were no different. At their convention later that year in Boston, that city was also locked up tighter than an asshole on a cold chair. I lived in Boston at the time. Yet it was easy to demonstrate, as long as you didn't violate others speech rights or go out of your way to break other laws.

In practice, Germans and Americans are about equally free to demonstrate, but the legal philosophy behind this freedom is quite different.

Both conventions were huge events, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that special measures were put in place. The first priority was to protect the free speech of the convention delegates and their supporters, second, the free speech of peaceful protesters. Protecting the free speech of those who came to disrupt the democratic process was a lower priority. That seems about right to me.

Anybody who tries to tell you that there is no free speech in America is a propagandist and a demagogue. However, there is a tendency for some activists to define free speech as their supposed right to win the argument (since they are convinced they are right and that anyone who heard their truth would agree), or their supposed right to disrupt other's people's free speech.

Americans DO respect this viewpoint, but we see it as civil disobedience. That means, you may have a moral right to do it, but you will have to pay a certain price for breaking the law. The Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, for example, treated this as a question of "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's"

During the Civil Rights movement, civil disobedience was often punished harshly; protesters would be put on trial for every single law they allegedly broke, no matter how trivial, and given the maximum penalty for each upon conviction. Also sometimes they were arrested on fake charges. Protesters then were less hypocritical, in my opinion. They usually only broke the laws that they were protesting, for example, the segregation laws.

Today, thanks to their example, civil disobedience is generally tolerated. Most people who practice it are just forced to leave the scene; most who are arrested are released shortly after that with the charges dropped, or else they are given modest penalties for serious infractions only.

@David -- I don't know the specifics -- how do you know that the anarchists were non-violent at the time of their arrest? Maybe they had prior arrest warrants or other legal issues preventing their release? Any anarchist worthy of the name *should* be a "criminal", if they aren't, they're not a very good anarchist!

I've met many "non-violent" anarchists who nevertheless are happy to destroy my property, for example. I consider that violence, but they apparently don't. And of course the are outraged when I play by their rules and take their property "You're not using that backpack at the moment, I'll take it" "Help, I'm being attacked" "No, not you, just your backpack" and so on. Middle class posers. But I stop after my point is made, I don't really take their stuff. Its my own civil disobedience...

And, some of the anarchists I met broke the law in minor yet interesting and creative ways. So they're not all bad.