Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy - Article by Naomi Wolf on the Guardian
Floating_Abu
Veteran
The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality
Occupy Wall Street protester Brandon Watts lies injured on the ground after clashes with police over the eviction of OWS from Zuccotti Park. Photograph: Allison Joyce/Getty Images
US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.
But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."
In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.
To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.
I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.
Article continues here: Guardian
Occupy Wall Street protester Brandon Watts lies injured on the ground after clashes with police over the eviction of OWS from Zuccotti Park. Photograph: Allison Joyce/Getty Images
US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.
But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."
In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.
To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.
I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.
Article continues here: Guardian
0
Comments
When they came for the Jews I did not stand up because I was not a Jew
When they came for the Communists, I did not stand up because I was not a Communist.
When they came for the Homosexuals, I did not stand up because I was not a Homosexual.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up.
From democracynow.org; an interview with the former Police Chief of Seattle.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/17/paramilitary_policing_of_occupy_wall_street
What I'm wondering is where are the orders for this violent treatment of protesters coming from? The article by Naomi Klein says the Dept. of Homeland Security is providing strategic advice and funding to local police departments, and that the DHS takes orders from the President. But it also says Obama was out of the US at the time that the latest crackdown happened. So who is giving the orders? It's hard to believe this would be an Obama policy. So is it a Congressional committee that might be pulling the strings? This needs to be investigated and exposed.
And the article says journalists were threatened, and prevented from doing their work. First it was the covert censorship of Bush II, now overt censorship. What next, a mafia that hunts down journalists, like with Anna Politkovskaya in Russia?
Blue Meanies have been spotted on this very forum! :eek:
Not to say injured, frightened and traumatized demonstrators don't deserve sympathy - but - nobody died.... Look at Syria, China, Tibet, Egypt, Iran...
People died for protesting.
Doesn't matter that we are not talking about democratic governments - we need to wake up to the shocking truth that there is no democracy in the U.S.A.!!!
This is a capitalist police state - unequivocally.
Taxes pay for the maintenance and training of police - national guard - army - nayy - air force - marines....and they are deployed and expected to perform their duty....without question - without philosophy - without empathy -without explanation. Is it any wonder the machines our system creates (thugs with badges and thugs as soldiers) have such a high rate of suicide? Can anyone imagine the horror if the atrocities that have been visited on Iraqi citizens by U.S. troops were done by police? (well, they have now haven't they?) And the argument that soldiers are in a combat zone holds no water - ied's provide no "field of fire" for a soldier enraged by the deaths of his comrades by booby traps - anyone in the way gets mowed down. It happens.
The concepts of "enemy" and "probable cause" have each and every one of us behind the eight ball. Calling for equilateral redistribution of wealth by "occupying" as it has been done is an invitation for mayhem - and whining about kinder gentler dispersal tactics is as futile as expecting Obama (sorry to all who had hope in change - you were duped) to start doling out well paid jobs or Wall Street to begin paying dividends to people in tents on the lawn of city hall.
Protesting in a "circus" atmosphere is one way to begin the momentum of a movement - but realistically - it should be no surprise that the sheriff kicks the clowns.......it's his job....
And speaking of clowns, journalists are simply operating without the big red noses and floppy shoes - the U.S. media is largely controlled and censured by the gub-mint - and we hear what they allow....
This testament of basic truth can garner nothing but vilification and it is expected - so fire away - but consider if there is truth herein.....
I think this article, or another one posted earlier, said pepper spray has not been used in the past. Pepper spray use is, in fact, something new. And just because dogs were used on African Americans in Civil Rights protests doesn't mean that's "ho hum, business as usual". To my knowledge dogs have never been used on anyone else, nor have they been used after the incidents in the Civil Rights movement. That's exactly why it was so shocking at the time. If you have info that supports your view that using pepper spray and dogs to disperse crowds is routine, please post it.
As I understand it, riot squads would not be applicable to a peaceful protest, that's why they're called "riot" squads. They're for riots.
Obama used to speak about implementing wealth redistribution policies (restoring an equitable tax policy), and no one pepper sprayed him. These are normal topics for public discourse. If we pretend they're not, then we're missing the bigger picture--that there's been a major shift in how public protest and discourse is handled. Then we miss the behind-the-scenes story that Klein is trying to bring to light.
When I was a student when U of Michigan ('98?)was undefeated and beat Ohio State the students stormed the field and took down the goalpost. There was a ring of police and some students got beaten and taken to jail. They did use tear gas. The front people were being pushed by the back people and they were being gased. I actually stormed the field and the police moved at me but I left their jockstrap on the ground with quick lateral cuts shake and baked em
For starters, there aren't 241 dead and 7,000 wounded.
Those are the Chinese government's figures; the Chinese Red Cross reported 2600 killed, NATO put the count at 7000 dead, and the official Soviet final count is 10,000 dead.
I don't know about football games, Jeffrey. I was referring to organized (pre-planned) marches or sit-ins that students may carry out for whatever their cause may be.
Blocking traffic and/or camping in a public space is disorderly and unlawful if the police ask you to clear the passage.
When the police advise you that forceful action will be taken if you do not move, and you snub your nose at them, that is looking for a fight in my opinion. What was cut out of the beginning of most of the pepper spray videos were the police informing each person, individually, that they would be removed by force if they did not move.
Again, it is not about the message, but how it is being delivered.
I am not advocating for the use of pepper spray, the police could have cleared the area by lifting each individual... they had enough police there to do that... my point is that many OWS are looking for a fight that they can put on video thinking that it will help the cause. I personally believe it hurts the cause
I have sympathies on both sides--if I or a loved one were sprayed, I'd likely feel that assault deeper in my soul, and maybe have a greater sense of wrongness about it. At the same time, if people are blocking lanes, heaven forbid an ambulance needs to pass, you know?
I talk to so many Chinese people every day, though, that I remain amazed and grateful toward my democracy, pepper spray and all.
Sorry, no, haven't read an article by Naomi Klein. Seemed to have missed something in this thread - OP is referencing an article by Naomi Wolf - read that one. Where or what is article by Naomi Klein referred to here.
Pepper spray use is, in fact, something new.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/01/pepper-sprays-progressive-origins
As I understand it, riot squads would not be applicable to a peaceful protest, that's why they're called "riot" squads. They're for riots.
Because a protest or demonstration is defined as peaceful by its organizers does not mean that police or governmental organizations accept that definition. Dispersal tactics (pepper spray, horses, batons, pressure point holds) are utilized when police are confronted with controlling large masses of individuals in "non compliance" - peaceful or otherwise - with dispersal orders - which always precede tactics - either way - their definition is "non-lethal" and is largely used at their discretion. As for "riot squads" - these tactics likely spawn more riots than a squad rolls up to - from personal experience......
How is that irrelevant to an assertion that use of pepper spray by law enforcement officers is something new?
Yes, mace was a predecessor to pepper spray and was marketed to women for self defense. That is in the reason.com article too - at the beginning - and near the end OC is referred to - that's oleosporint capsicum - pepper spray. Does that help tie this in to what is being discussed?
Again, there is no article in the OP's post by anyone named Klein - it is by Naomi Wolf. What is in the article by Klein? Where is the article by Klein? Is that the article members here think hasn't been read?
Compassionate Warrior@ - thanks for your comments. Always a pleasure.
We did see a similar militarization of policing and crowd control during the anti-war protests of the 60's. Tear gas was used. CA governor Reagan called the National Guard in to quell protests in Berkeley. I wonder what the reason was back then. Was it because the crowds were too unruly? That wasn't the case at Kent State University, where a student was shot and killed by police. I think it's a good question: why is this militarization happening.
Well, not EVERY Halloween.
Here's another take, lol:
June 21, 2011: A 20-year-old Madison woman who was grabbed and being dragged to an alley Tuesday afternoon got out of the suspect’s grasp by spraying him in the face with pepper spray, Madison police reported.
The woman didn’t report the attack until the next day, fearing she’d get in trouble for having pepper spray.
Not so.
“In Madison, it is legal to possess pepper spray and use it in self-defense,” said Madison Police spokesman Joel DeSpain.
@Rabbit and C_W Yeah, that was me, I said Naomi Klein instead of Naomi Wolf. My bad.
@Dakini - thanks for clearing up the Klein confusion. Wolf's article is well written and the whole high level conspiracy thing is dramatically evocative but sadly myopic. Perhaps the OWS and their supporters simply don't understand that their ideology has nothing to do with the level of force exerted upon them by police - that their message is not so uniquely threatening to the establishment that government agencies need to to conspiratorially overlap one another to maintain order - this is business-as-usual for them. Homeland Security is as mismanaged and incompetent as the USPS. Such inadequacies naturally lead to constitutional violations of civil rights - but again - that's nothing new in this country. Do you or compassionate_warrior perhaps know any police officers or national guardsman personally? I do. I've been told stories that seemed no in their right mind would admit to by these acquaintances. All in a days work for them. As Day-Day says in Next Friday, "Y'all can't fuck with the police..."
If people are told to move by the police from the public lands they are ruining/defacating/pollution, sitting there and doing nothing is not going to help. As a police officer, what would you'll have done?
An article in last Sunday's New York Times, "When the Police Go Military", explains there's been an escalation towards violent means of dealing with peaceful situations. Policing used to be about building a relationship with the community, not rolling in like paramilitary troops.
"American law and tradition have tried to draw a clear line between police and military forces. To cast the roles of the two too closely, those in and out of law enforcement say, is to mistake the mission of each. The police, who are supposed to maintain the peace, 'are the citizens, and the citizens are the police', according to Chief Walter McNeil of Quincy, FL, the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, citing the words of Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern-day policing."
"Yet ... images from Occupy protests ... show just how readily police officers can adopt military-style tactics and equipment, and come off more like soldiers...''What seems clear is that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, and the federal Homeland Security dollars that flowed to police forces in response to them, have further encouraged police forces to embrace paramilitary tactics like those that first emerged in the decades-long war on drugs.' ...
'Police officers are not at war', said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, and cannot imagine themselves as occupying armies Rather, they must approach any continuing Occupy protests, ... with a respect for the First Amendment and a realization that protesters are not enemies but people the police need to engage with up the road. 'You can have all the sophisticated equipment in the world, but it does not replace common sense and discretion and finding ways to defuse situations', Wexler said. 'You can't be talking about community policing one day and the next day have an action that is so uncharacteristic to the values of your department.' "
More at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-american-police-become-militarized.html
I do know that local businesses (some of whom experienced damages in the year prior to "Pepper Spray Year,") put very heavy pressure on local police to prevent damages happening the next year.
Where I see it going wrong is in specific, decision-making instances...the police on the quiet back street, facing a few kneeling street-blockers, absolutely didn't need to use pepper spray. It was almost like a pantomime...after 2 a.m., there seemed to be a very deliberate decision to "go to the next level," regardless of what individual circumstances dictated. Flak jackets and helmets were donned, the pepper spray came out, and the streets were cleared in 1/2 hour.
I'm torn, because I sympathize with the shop owners, too. But the cops could have dragged the kids into the wagon easily enough.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-american-police-become-militarized.html
compassionate_warrior@ said: The police are supposed to be officers of the peace, not military personnel. - and - Policing used to be about building a relationship with the community, not rolling in like paramilitary troops.
What fantasyland graphic novel were these assumptions gleaned from? How can law enforcement officers be deemed all one and not the other in terms of their roles that are situation-specific and involve humanly flawed judgement combined with specific tactical training to maintain lawful control and enforce law?
OWS is using a self inflicted victimization to promote and establish a movement to bring about change in the establishment. Citing mistreatment by police is merely another tactic to raise consciousness. No one deserves to be hurt by the police - but it happens to the innocent (and the guilty) every single day whether we want to believe it or not - or whether we think it is right or not. However, if you defy law enforcement orders - whether they seem constitutional or not - the cops will not engage in debate - they will act first and think (cover up) later.
This is so harsh - but it is very real and "Andy of Mayberry - and Deputy Barney Fife" is not the model for urban police departments.
The Times article says that once local police forces get the military weaponry, they tend to look for situations in which to use it, whether it's warranted or not. Also,
"The more the police fail to defuse confrontations but instead help create them--be it with their equipment, tactics or demeanor--the more ties with community members are burned, [Timothy Lynch, director of the criminal justice project at the Cato Institute], said." Good policing used to depend on developing a good relationship with the community. Police depend on the community to provide leads to help solve crimes.
An article that interviews a number of national authorities on police ethics and tactics isn't mere "Op-Ed", it's a research paper.
Did you see the thread we had a couple of weeks ago on policing, and on Buddhists who choose law enforcement as a career? I'm guessing not. It was pretty interesting.
idk, IronRabbit. Maybe it was before your time when police officers were called "officers of the peace". That's one reason why in the UK, most police don't carry weapons.
but yes... these sorts of responses have become policy for a long time.
btw compassionate_warrior the title peace officer has to do with a law enforcement officer, such as a sheriff, who is responsible for maintaining civil peace - not being a peaceful dude.....
But we may be missing the main point of these articles and discussions. Why has a simple protest movement, that in most instances was peaceful and lawful, received such an extreme reaction? Macing university students sitting on the front steps of a building? What's that about? I've seen plenty of protests in my life, on TV and in person, and they haven't gotten this type of reaction. Not the peaceful ones. Could it be true, as Wolf alleges, that the Powers That Be find these protests threatening? Or is it just boys with toys run amok? Something is off about this, it doesn't make sense. During the G.W. Bush presidency, there was a peace march of 200,000 people in Washington DC, protesting the Iraq war, and there were no problems.
Where do you live, Rabbit? In the US, police aren't supposed to use excessive force, and if they do, they can be taken to court, and do get taken to court. Maybe it's not considered a scandal in other countries, but it is here in the US. Although I'm pretty sure our OP is British, and s/he thought it was scandalous enough to create a thread about it. If it were ordinary, there wouldn't be so much discussion and analysis of it in the media. (not to mention, on internet forums)
Of that list of people though, I've personally never observed a priest, monk or lama doing anything that bothered me, but I have observed a (very) few policemen doing it. That could probably be chalked up to percentages, though.
In addition, I also watched a longer version of the UC Davis pepper spray video, and it does appear that people were warned the police were going to arrest people who didn't leave the park, and that chemical agents would be used on the people sitting peacefully on the ground if they didn't get up/leave. But in my opinion, that doesn't justify Officer Pike's actions in any way.
Sitting peaceful on the ground should not be considered a provocation for retaliatory violence in any circumstance, nor should it provoke any sort of punitive attack by an institution sworn to serve and protect the civilian population. The way I see it, the police themselves came into the park simply to remove students who were peacefully assembling there, and instigated the violence by threatening the students with the use of force, chemical agents, and arrests. To me, events like these show what the police are really there to protect, property rights, not people.
Unfortunately, under our current system, the state has a monopoly on violence, and property rights trump human rights. I can see both sides (as I have friends who are police officers and I know many of them are just 'doing their job'), but I only agree with one—the one without riot gear, of course.
Tazers should also be closer to a last resort. I think weapons make police intellectually lazy. They don't have to think about how to defuse a situation tactically. All they have to do is pull out their weapon of choice.
And what happened to Debs in the end? Did he get a lawyer?
http://bastardlogic.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/the-troubling-truth-about-naomi-wolfs-dhsows-hype/
http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/homeland-security-role-occupy-crackdowns-limited-says-agency
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/shocking-truth-about-factless-assertions
http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153300/occupy_crackdowns:_naomi_wolf's_response_to_my_critique_largely_evades_the_issue_at_hand/
And it's not necessarily a conspiracy. It's Homeland Security doing what they see to be their job, and maybe some police depts. getting carried away with the weaponry. I don't know, let's wait and see what further research uncovers. Like Jason's tape showed, maybe the media reports haven't been giving us the whole story. Maybe it's not at all what we think it is. Maybe it's "none of the above".
Avoid a scandal? What scandal? There was a scandal to cover up? I must've missed something. The interesting thing about the UC Davis video was that the students were allowed to continue protesting. That's what it looked like to me. Police were there to run campers off university property.
Corporate power really seemed to care during that WTO-related protest in Seattle, whatever that was, years ago. But the protest got unruly, too, as I recall.
I've seen remarkably kindly police. There are all kinds. Where is our police member in this discussion?