"We expect every American to support our military, and if they can't do that, to shut up. Americans, and indeed our allies, who actively work against our military once the war is underway will be considered enemies of the state by me." Bill O'Reilly, February 26, 2003
"The hand of the people... has proved that government to be the strongest of which every man feels himself a part." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Tiffin, 1807.
After closely following the protest scene outside of the Democratic Convention, where police in riot gear even threatened with tear gas a peaceful demonstration by Iraq Veterans Against the War, one might reluctantly apprehend that, for all intents and purposes, the First Amendment is either functionally suspended, in limbo, at rest, or just plain dead. Yet, the Democratic Convention was strikingly subdued in comparison to St. Paul last week.
The response at the Republican Convention exemplified an antithesis to any meaningful public exercise of 66% of the personal protections guaranteed under the First Amendment (Those not pertaining to religion). Police employed an indiscriminate use of force and crowd control that utilized riot control tactics and weapons in non-riot situations. Pepper spray, smoke bombs, impact rounds, and tear gas grenades were used not just against those practicing civil disobedience, but against innocent bystanders, and journalists as well. In fact, out of 800 arrests there were 18 felony riot charges, and 19 journalists rounded up for simply documenting the horrific scene. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now was arrested for asking why two of her producers were jailed, one of whom filmed her own assault.
In addition, so called "preventative" measures were taken to raid homes and the "convergence spaces" of organizers and video documentarians. At least one of these raids by the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office took place in Minneapolis, which is outside of their jurisdiction. One, according to Jeff Guntzel of the Minnesota Independent on Glen Greenwald's webcast, took place over the weekend without the Chief of Police in the operation even reading the search warrant. Guntzel also witnessed at the home of organizers working with Food Not Bombs (video here) the intrusion of police wielding fully automatic weapons, and "escorting" a 5 year-old boy out of the house. He also documented other first-hand accounts and provided photographs.
What was the probable cause? What evidence did they find against them? Will anyone be charged with anything that sticks (A lot of people have been charged with the Orwellian "conspiracy to cause riot")? If the answers are truly "nothing" and "no"----no matter: Their tactics and strategies undergird a much broader goal, one that clearly suggests democratic suppression and intimidation, which will be a focus in future blogs.
Lest one still think police only swooped in on potential troublemakers and pesky anarchists, note that the I-Witness Video Collective, which was formed to document potential police abuse at these types of events, was pre-emptively raided after first being surrounded by heavily armed police threatening detention for any attempting to leave their working space. They bizarrely claimed there was a hostage situation inside, though if that were the case, they wouldn't need a warrant to enter (At the time, the police were awaiting a warrant; and then got one for the wrong address). The group, which has allied with the New York City Chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild in the past, was likely targeted in coordination with federal authorities because of their role in the '04 New York Convention ("California's Anti-Terrorism Information Center admitted to spying on anti-war groups in 2003. And Denver's police department built their own secret spy files on Quakers and 200 other organizations"---Wired Blog Network) And they weren't the only group of videographers targeted. The Glass Bead Collective was suspiciously arrested in what seems to be an intelligence operation that seized political literature, lists of members, and future documentary plans (video here).
Are These Just Random Abuses?
Since the passage of the PATRIOT ACT and the recommendation of 9/11 Commission for greater cooperation and intelligence sharing between agencies both local and federal, "Fusion Centers" have been set up and improperly used for domestic spying (begin here, here, and here). And since I-Witness footage was pivotal in some 400 cases that resulted in dropped charges or acquittals against demonstrators four years ago, it appears, quite suspiciously, that they were targeted in a politically motivated episode of "intelligence sharing" that resulted in a raid. As Eileen Clancy on Democracy Now explains the police conduct in '04:
Ok: So since the '04 RNC debacle, they've learned to obstruct citizens' ability to monitor police activities in public so that "policing" with impunity could become easier. Obviously, they don't quite appreciate the art of open surveillance when practiced by public advocacy groups. Maybe they wish to be behind the camera?the police had lied so thoroughly and so often that if you were able to take the police statements, the police affidavits of the charges, and put them up against the video, that many times...the cases completely fell apart.
Interestingly, according to Democracy Now , local police forces are increasingly conducting surveillance of their own:
Last Thursday, The New York Times published an article revealing that it had obtained videotapes showing the New York Police Department conducting surveillance by planting undercover officers to secretly infiltrate and monitor anti-war protests, bike rallies, and even a vigil for a dead cyclist. The footage the Times obtained showed officers holding protest signs, carrying flowers with mourners, riding their bicycles—and videotaping people at events.
Not surprisingly, other departments have been caught crossing jurisdictions, like the Philadelphia Police who were conducting surveillance at a New York May Day rally:
Philadelphia Police conducted a cloak-and-dagger surveillance of demonstrators at a May Day rally in New York, possibly violating a 1985 consent decree designed to protect people’s privacy. At the May 1st rally, undercover Philadelphia police snapped photographs of about twenty demonstrators dressed in black and covering their mouths with bandanas, the same outfits protesters wore in the rally at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. According to the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, John Timoney, who comes from the New York Police Department, it was part of Philadelphia police strategy to identify troublemakers who have said they plan to attend the Republican National Convention.
"Fusion Centers" linking federally gathered domestic intelligence to local police forces, and local police forces surveilling citizens outside of their jurisdiction? Should we doubt that police were/are executing a political agenda, at least in some respect? Maybe it would be wise to heed the warning of the Church Committee's 1976 report on the FBI's COINTELPRO spying program:
Unless new and tighter controls are established by legislation, domestic intelligence activities threaten to undermine our democratic society and fundamentally alter its nature.That may be good for Bill O'Reilly, but it's bad for "the legitimate powers of government" and the "hand of the people."
Syllogism of the Day:
by: Mike Van Winkle California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC)
You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that (protest). You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act.
Rules of the game to keep in mind: Premise A should provide the predicate in the conclusion; B the subject; and those damn middles being too integral to understanding should stay excluded.
Premise A. Where a protest group protests The War on Terror might be where an act of terrorism occurs.*
Premise B. A protest group protesting TWOT is [almost] a terrorist act.**
THEREFORE
The Conclusion: A protest group protesting TWOT might be where [an act of] terrorism occurs?
OR: [One can almost argue that] A protest group protesting TWOT might be where [an act of] terrorism occurs?
OR the "easy," lazily deductive: One can almost argue that a protest against TWOT is a terrorist act?**
Thinking Out Loud
I really wish I could understand; this "logic" is the pits. Is it for Mr. Van Winkle that an event where a terrorist act might possibly occur is conflated into a peoples' participation in an actual terrorist activity simply because these people are philosophically against the s0-called "War on Terrorism's" methods and techniques for fighting both actual and perceived terrorism, if not the phraseology itself? "If you're against what we call the War on Terrorism, and actively express it in any way, then you must be a terrorist." Deductively dangerous thinking, and a war on the interpretation of words.
*Henceforth, it'll take the acronym, TWOT
**Surely, he'd argue it was a terrorist act if he truly thought it was one, right? So why does he qualify with "almost"? What kind of scruples hold him back. Perhaps it's that vestige, the last remaining bulwark of society's most civil laws and decency still obstinately rooted in his latent understanding? Could it not also be an intelligence that secretly knows he might appear slightly less blatantly ridiculous to some people! As there are degrees of "almost" arguing, and also what makes a terrorist act, so can he be less blatant and ridiculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment