posted December 06, 2003 04:36 PM            

quote:

---

...[snip] mass marches and rallies...are scheduled..[snip] While the FBI possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist acivities are being planned as part of these protests, the possibility exists that elements of the activist community may attempt to engage in violent, destructive, or disruptive acts. Most protests are peaceful events; however, a number of demonstrations, including the biannual Internatioinal Monetary Fund an World Bank meetings, are more likely to be violent and disruptive and to require enhanced law enforcement security. Several effective and innovative strategies are commonly used by protesters prior to, during, and after demonstrations. The following tactics have been observed by U.S. and foreign law enforcement agencies while responding to criminal activities conducted during protests and demonstrations.

---

I personally think that, while it is fine and dandy to have 'peaceful' demonstrations, it is, historically, the disruptive activities that have affected systemic change. Refusing to sit at the back of the bus or leave the lunch counter were all disruptive, non-peaceful, acts..that was what was needed to force change. I and many others happen to believe that more than just peaceful, permitted marches is needed to achieve global justice. Not all laws are represent justice. The way I see it, disruptive behavior in the face of laws that keep power and wealth concentrated in the hands of the few to the utter ruin of so many people is necessary to the survival of all of us.

quote:

---

Protesters often use the internet to recruit, raise funds, and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations. Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with police and to resolve any logistical issues.

---

If you were planning on being in the street face to face with an army, utterly defenseless, wouldn't you rehearse for it? This is all common activity throughout the activist community.

quote:

---

If a demonstration is going to take place in a secure facility, activists may seek to gain access to the site using false documentation. Surveillance of sites prior to demonstrations can allow activists to identify locations of command posts and law enforcement personnel in order to plan effective countermeasures.

---

The "secure facility" could very well be a three or four block radius surrounding the meeting place. In Cancun, the protesters used the 'false documentation' of wearing tropical shirts to get admitted to the hotel zone near the meeting place so they could spontaneously gather together for a sit-in. Formerly public area becomes private at the whim of these organizations..Although it's still public to some..just as long as you don't look like an activist.

quote:

---

Traditional demonstratios tactics by which protesters draw attention to their causes include marches, banners, and forms of passive resistance such as sit-ins. Extremists elements may engage in more aggressive tactics that can include vandalism, physical harassment of delegates, trespassing, the formation of human chains or sheilds, makeshift barricades, devices used against mounted police units, and the use of weapons- such as projectiles and homemade bombs.

---

Trespassing can be defined at the drop of a hat at a scene. Being on a public street that doesn't happen to be a part of the 'designated march route' is considered 'trespassing' and therefore the villanous protester(s) is liable to be subjected to all manner of attack-teargas, pepperspray pellets, rubber bullets. All the sorts of things that would trigger a group of people to do things like form human chains or shields or *gasp* even makeshift barricades to protect themselves from the police onslaught. People aren't allowed to protect themselves in this militarized state, aparently. In the same sentence these behaviors get lumped in with making bombs! I find this greatly disturbing.

quote:

---

Even more peaceful techniques can create a climate of disorder, block access to a site, draw large numbers of police officers to a specific location in order to weaken security at other locations, obstruct traffic, and possibly intimidate people from attending the events being protested.

---

They include everything that protesters do in a detailed manner, insinuating that these are to be associated with the sort of behaviors that justify police attack. Yes, often the point of the non-violent sit-in is to block the delegates from getting to their meeting. That is because we see the closed door meetings that so often result in creating greater poverty and enviromental destruction as antithetical to global justice. Creating a world where everyone has access to clean water (some studies indicate that 2/3 of the worlds population won't have access to clean water in the next decade or two.), is important to me because I feel profoundly connected to every other person on this planet on a spiritual plane, not to mention on a biological/ecological level as well. What we do to others or allow to happen to others without taking action is what we do to ourselves as well. All is interconnected.. the Earth is a living system that is suffering from terrible disease and it is a disease that is perpetuated by numerous factors. One of the most visual factors perpetuating this disease- that is much like the disease of addiction- are the meetings of the WTO, IMF and FTAA. Since there are no avenues for us to influence these meetings democratically, we do what we can to make ourselves heard with any measure of effectiveness. It's really all a matter of what you consider 'violence' to be.

I ask anyone- what is your definition of violence?

Most people with have varying shades of definition.. generally inflicting harm on others seems to be a standard number one definition.

Webster's College Dictionary's first definition of it is "swift and intense force".
So in theory, anyone who is planning on securing an intersection swiftly and intensely (drumming chanting yelling) using large numbers can be considered violent. Does that behavior warrant an attack by the obscenely armed robocops? Against the frightening protesters heavily fortified with their bike helmets and trash can lid sheilds?? Many people obviously think so. Afterall, people are breaking laws! *gasp*
Well, the instiutions represented by the WTO/IMF are violating natural law all over the world unchecked.
How are the people supposed to do anything about that when the decisions are made behind closed doors?

quote:

---

During the course of a demonstration, activists often communicate with one another using cell phones or radios to coordinate activities or to update colleagues about ongoing events. Other types of media equipment (video cameras, photographic equipment, audio tape recorders, microphones, and computer and radio equipment) may be used for documenting potential cases of police brutality and for distribution over the internet

---

All stuff that is perfectly legal and legitimate.. Something most protesters do these days.

quote:

---

Extremists may be prepared to defend themselves against law enforcement officials during the course of a demonstration. Masks (gas masks, goggles, scarves, scuba masks, filter masks, and sunglasses) serve to minimize the effects of tear gas and pepper spray as well as obscure one's identity

---

Call me an extremist because you can be d@mn sure I had my scarf, damp with water/vinegar/lemonjuice, and some swim goggles handy. It's a practice of all sane protesters because you can be pretty certain that they will teargas everyone at the very slightest provocation, if any. Additionally, in the age of the Patriot Act- which give the gov't unprecedented powers to spy on people- can you really blame people for wanting to preserve their right to privacy?

quote:

---

Extremists may also employ shields (trash can lids, sheets of plexiglass, truck tire innertubes, etc.) and body protection equipment (layered clothing, hard hats and helmets, sporting equipment, life jackets, etc.) to protect themselves during marches. Activists may also use intimidation techniques such as video taping and the swarming of police officers to hinder the arrest of other demonstrators.

---

So..pretty much if you try to defend yourself in any way against the brutality you get lumped into the category of "extremist" which might as well be synonomous with 'terrorist', and 'dangerous' and therefore liable to surveillance, beating and or arrest. Activists with cameras are trying to intimidate? Okaaaay. The way I see it, the corporate media sure as heck ain't gonna tell the story straight so we'd best be documenting it ourselves. And if having a camera stops a cop from wailing quite as hard on some defenseless activist then great.
The swarming? It's commonly referred to 'unarresting' someone. It's when everybody grabs ahold of the person being arrested [watch out! don't touch the officer..that's a felony] in an attempt to absorb the person back into the crowd. All too often people are singled out for arrest for no other reason than the way they look..like wearing black, being a person of color, or appearing to be a person of leadership.

quote:

---

After demonstratons, activists are usually reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement officials. They seldom carry any identification papers and often refuse to divulge any information about themselves or other protesters. Post-demonstration activities can include fundraising in support of the legal defense of accused protesters and demonstrations of solidarity calling for the release of the accused.

---

Jail solidarity. You betcha people are going to use it. There are some people who are much more vulnerable to police brutality and heavier handed judgements. Racism is alive and well and often it is persons of color who are singled out for beatings in jail and they don't want their identity known because they get harsher sentences and fines. The idea is that if nobody gives their name then it's harder to single anyone out. Fundraising and demonstrations are the acts of legitimate activists.

This document was entirely about detailing everything that all protesters do. They throw in a few words about how some 'extreme' elements make bombs and vandalize to justify detailing what everyone else does. Perhaps it seems harmless enough to someone who had never been a part of a movement like this but to activists (especially ones experienced enough to remember the days of COINTELPRO, when agents infiltrated peaceful groups to spy and instigate destructive and harmful acts.) it is quite worrisome to see an FBI report pointing out all the activities activists engage in as if they are open to scrutiny and possibly derailment.
It may not say as much in the document, but jeez, do we need to wait for the document that does spell it out to surface to see that it is going on? I personally don't. It's obviously insinuated in this document, I feel it in my gut. But that sort of perception is the kind that isn't given any validity in this system we live in. It is belittled and derided so as to make us not trust it. This is what allows lies that are perpetuated all around us everyday to go under many people's radars.

posted December 06, 2003 08:41 PM            

I have no interest in your Communist buzz words "global justice" as they refer to activities outside the United States. The word "solidarity" is another such word used by Communist groups both within and outside the US in their fight against the United States, their avowed purpose being the destruction of the American economic system and republican form of government.

Your attempt to equate minorities sitting in at lunch counters and refusing to sit in the back of the bus, both acts of peaceful civil disobedience with assaulting police officers with bricks, bottles, hammers, clubs etc won't wash. Civil disobedience is just that, a civil offense, while assault, deliberate destruction of private and public property are criminal acts.

I think it's time to cut to the chase in this discussion. You seem to be willing to justify both civil disobedience and criminal acts in the pursuit of the aims of the various groups involved in the protests.

It's a fair question to ask you what acts are NOT justified to achieve the aims of their groups?

jwhop

posted December 06, 2003 08:50 PM            

If someone can show me where the FBI is asking Law Enforcement to hurt, maim or otherwise stiffle the legal protesting of citizens, then I will concede they did violate the freedom of speech / congregate portions of the constitution.

All I am seeing / reading is ideology / emotions of the ACLU attempting to pit the people against Law Enforcement.

Let me as you all this. If there was a warning on the news informing people to be watchful of a blonde haired, blue eyed man that hangs out in arcades because he has been known to kill women with dark hair - is the media infringing on the rights of all blonde / blue eyed males, or are they just warning the population to be alert to a specific threat?

You can't have it both ways. Peaceful demonstrations are fine - wearing gas masks, starting fires, tearing down property, that is a violation and it is illegal.

posted December 07, 2003 10:07 PM              

"In an unjust society a just man belongs in prison" Henry David Thoreau

posted December 07, 2003 10:27 PM              

So yes, Communism killed millions of people, and something like a sixth of the world's population still lives under it. But guess what? It has failed. Every time China wants to expand its economy it has to take another step toward capitalism.
jwhop, if you could be less hasty in ranting about Communists I think everyone would appreciate it. Especially the liberals here, who may not be what you seem to think they are.

btw, Lost Leo, welcome back!

posted February 09, 2004 03:25 PM            

Especially because of this-

quote:

---

Your attempt to equate minorities sitting in at lunch counters and refusing to sit in the back of the bus, both acts of peaceful civil disobedience with assaulting police officers with bricks, bottles, hammers, clubs etc won't wash

---

Please, show me where I condone throwing bottles and bricks. I was speaking out against the FBI equating perfectly legal protest activity with this behavior and using characteristics of ALL protesters to describe the people who engage in violence. I would wager that maybe 1 or 2 percent of protesters engage in violence against the cops and businesses.

I WILL equate shutting down an intersection outside a hotel where undemocratic "free trade" negotiations are taking place with lunch counter sit ins because that comparison is quite valid, in my view and many others'. There are NO avenues for the voice of the people being affected by these agreements to have a say in the matter. That is akin to fascism and must be confronted. Gathering in the streets is the only means for someone like me to do that.

posted February 13, 2004 12:30 PM            

Further, many demonstrators were outside the bounds of the area specified in the permit. Were you one of those?

There were many in your ranks itching for a confrontation with the police. They got what they wanted so there should be no whining.

YOU do NOT have the right to trespass, damage public and private property, shut down businesses, trespass the rights of others or assault police officers in your quest. Nor do you have the right to participate in a mob action.

posted February 13, 2004 12:49 PM            

Was I in the permitted protest area? Not really. Why? Because the police and AFL-CIO security wouldn't let anyone in except union. Unless we agreed to a search of our persons. I had nothing to hide but I was not about to submit to their totalitarianistic tactics.

quote:

---

Further, they erected barriers across city streets to block passage by other citizens

---

Okay.. I joke to lighten things up.

The NYPD, the FBI, and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are
the best at apprehending terrorists. The President decides to give
them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest and each of them has to
catch it.

The CIA goes in. They place animal informants throughout the forest.
They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of
extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist.

The FBI goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest,
killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and they make no
apologies. The rabbit had it coming.

posted February 13, 2004 01:19 PM            

The demonstration permit specified a permitted area and by your own admission, you and many others were outside that area.

The police were there to maintain order, not interfere with the peaceful protests of those within the specified area. They had plenty of reason to believe this would not be a peaceful demonstration considering other demonstrations that occurred in other cities and they were absolutely right.

Bottom line, you and many others broke the law so please don't whine about a police state or that somehow your rights were violated.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Your assembly was not peaceful nor do you have the right to assemble whenever and wherever you wish without regard to the property rights both public and private of others.

posted February 13, 2004 02:24 PM            

I was standing not far from the fires. They were small paper fires set in the middle of the street shortly after the police teargassed everyone for no apparent reason. It's not like they were burning down buildings or anything. Foolish but not especially dangerous or felonious.
I was also standing about 15 feet away from those foolish people trying to take the fence down. There is some suspicion that they were actually provocateurs for several reasons.
I've already told you about the barricades.. They were only raised after SEVERE attack by the cops.

As for the permit.. It was incredibly difficult to get anything permitted. Even after the AFL-CIO succeeded at getting it, the permit was violated by the cops. (Union: Police Broke Protest Promise) Why should we have to stuggle to get a permit to exercize our first amendment rights when the cops won't even respect it???

As for the businesses.. Not all of them bought into the cops fear mongering tactics and closed their doors. The ones that stayed open during the protests, especially the restaurants.. did GREAT business from the hundreds of hungry activists that decended upon them. None of them had their windows broken. Not even Starbucks.

I was actually very impressed by how peaceful the protesters were. It was sharply contrased by the violence of the police. Judge: I Saw Police Commit Felonies......

quote:

---

Judge Richard Margolius, 60, made the remarks in open court last week, saying he was taken aback by what he witnessed while attending the protests.

''Pretty disgraceful what I saw with my own eyes. And I have always supported the police during my entire career,'' he said, according to a court transcript. ``This was a real eye-opener. A disgrace for the community.''

---

posted February 14, 2004 02:52 PM            

Beyond that, there is something disturbing about what I read. I abhor the prosecutors practice of overcharging in complaints and then dropping or reducing the charges. Clearly, this is intimidation by the prosecutors office to get defendants to plead guilty to "something" and also protective cover to fend off lawsuits against the police or city or both.

I wonder why that judge didn't file a compliant against the department(s) involved in the felonies he said he witnessed?

You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get a permit to demonstrate and I suppose the best way to enforce your right's under the 1st Amendment is to sue in civil court for monetary damages any city, county or state official who denies you reasonable access to a permit.

At the Federal level, deprivation of civil rights under the Constitution is a felony, punishable by fine, up to $10,000 and possibly jail too.
Title 18 USC, Sections 241 and 242.

You were still someplace you were not "permitted" to be. even if you were peacefully doing something you are legally entitled to do.

posted March 26, 2004 09:36 PM            

PRESS RELEASE
Miami Activist Defense http://www.stopftaa.org/legal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 25, 2004

CONTACT:
Carol Sobel, NLG Attorney (310) 922-7001
Robert Ross, MAD & NLG Attorney (561) 251-4896
Kris Hermes, Miami Activist Defense (504) 945-9716

FEDERAL LAWSUIT FILED CHALLENGES THE "MIAMI MODEL" AND
HUNDREDS OF CRIMINAL CASES RESULTING FROM FTAA PROTESTS

Miami Activist Defense (MAD) and National Lawyers Guild (NLG) attorneys
filed a lawsuit in federal court today accusing the City of Miami,
Mayors Diaz and Penelas, Police Chief Timoney, Homeland Defense
Secretary Ridge, US Attorney General Ashcroft and others of violating
people's Constitutional Rights during last November's FTAA protests and
implementing a plan to unlawfully arrest hundreds of people.

********

Miami, FL - A civil lawsuit was filed today in federal court challenging
the "Miami model," a deliberate and coordinated effort by local, state
and federal "authorities" to silence dissent through an unwarranted use
of force and by unlawfully arresting hundreds of people engaging in
protests against a controversial trade agreement, the Free Trade Area of
the Americas (FTAA). Attorneys working with Miami Activist Defense (MAD)
and the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) filed the lawsuit to stop the
"model" in its tracks so that it can no longer be used to restrict mass
protests around the country.

The Defendants named in the lawsuit, accused of First, Fourth, and Fifth
Amendment Rights violations, include the City of Miami, Mayors Manny
Diaz and Alex Penelas, Police Chief John Timoney, State Attorney
Katherine Fernandez-Rundle, Secretary of Homeland Defense Tom Ridge, US
Attorney General John Ashcroft. The lawsuit explains how these entities
and others engaged in an orchestrated plan to arrest people on baseless
charges and to hold them in preventive detention thereby prohibiting
First Amendment activity and violating the Fifth Amendment right to due
process.

"This lawsuit blows open the unlawful way in which police profiled and
targeted activists and people who were in Miami to protest the FTAA,"
said Carol Sobel, an attorney with the National Lawyers Guild Mass
Defense Committee. "Anyone who fit the police description of being
anti-FTAA was subject to harassment, abuse, and unlawful arrest."

The lawsuit states that it "challenge[s] the mass false arrests of, and
unreasonable force against, lawful demonstrators during the recent
protests of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in November 2003
in Miami." It also conveys how "Law enforcement coordinated an all out
assault on the First Amendment, engaging in widespread political
profiling, and swept the streets of anyone viewed as being an anti-FTAA
activist, effectively suspending the Fourth Amendment in the city for
ten days."

The lawsuit challenges the local and state statutes used to arrest
hundreds of people as unconstitutional, as well as the way in which they
were used to illegally stifle mass protest. In essence, the lawsuit
challenges the legal justification for, and validity of, the hundreds of
arrests that took place during the FTAA.

"Every FTAA-related criminal case currently being prosecuted by the
State Attorney is a sham," said Kris Hermes of MAD. "It's time to stop
maliciously prosecuting people for their involvement in the FTAA
protests. Taxpayer money could certainly be put to better use."

Despite the millions of federal dollars used to implement the
coordinated campaign by law enforcement, illustrated in the lawsuit, and
the continuing expenditure to try cases, the State Attorney's fervent
efforts have yet to result in more than one misdemeanor conviction. Less
than half of the over two hundred cases remain.

The plaintiff group currently consists of 21 people, but is likely to
increase as more allegations become known and are added to the suit.
Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief as well as financial damages
due to the numerous rights violations.

Counsel for the plaintiffs includes: Carol Sobel, Jonathan Moore, Mara
Verheyden-Hilliard, Carl Messineo of the NLG Mass Defense Committee;
Andrea Costello and Robert Ross are working with both MAD and the NLG

For an on-line version of the complaint filed in federal court today
see: www.stopftaa.org/legal

posted March 27, 2004 01:41 AM            

I am not passing judgement on this man or the people whose perspectives he shared with me. I am just sharing them.

posted March 29, 2004 12:57 AM            

Yeah, I'd heard that just about every cop from several cities were rounded up for this thing. Certainly it looked like a friggin storm trooper army out there.

What really shocked me was the repression that took place days before the protest. If you remotely looked like a protester you were followed around by several cops and many many people were arrested for the most bogus reasons ever.

Like a couple of my friends, two guys who happen to have ponytails ( = hippy anarchists, right?), were walking down the street when they saw a woman they'd met earlier at the convergence space being harrassed by cops who were in the process of dumping her bag out on the ground across the street from them. So one of my friends stopped to take a picture. Which, other than the subject matter (maybe ), is very much what alot of tourists do every day in downtown Miami. The cops saw this and immediatly detained them, took the camera and arrested them for "impeding the flow of traffic on the sidewalk". WTF?

Two guys pausing for less than a minute on a 6 foot wide (atleast!) sidewalk is an arrestable offense?! They were in jail for about 3 hours and then released without charges and had the digital camera returned with a wiped clean memory.

Basically what happened for a week in downtown Miami was that a group of people were targeted for the way they looked and treated accordingly like criminals. It was not an exaggeration to say that downtown Miami was a military state for about a week in November. It's just that it was only a military state for people who looked a certain way. I had a taste (though small comparatively!) of what it might have been like to be a Jew with a yellow star on their clothing in Nazi Germany.

Y'know, I can relate to what jwhop said earlier on this thread about not being interested in the "communist buzz words" like 'global justice' and 'solidarity'.

I, frankly don't have any interest in hearing the misguided, hegemony-promoting capitalist spout off their buzz words of "unpatriotic.. unamerican...blah blah blah" cause the truth is I am a patriot. It's because I love this country that I don't "just leave", like so many of the afore-mentioned types like to say to activists. I'm sorry but, the founding fathers of this country were a bunch of activists, deal with it.

whew.. I suppose I'm starting off on a bit of a rant but I just re-read this whole thread and it got me abit worked up, I must admit.

posted March 29, 2004 07:40 AM            

I also am very patriotic. Both my parents are immigrants to this country and they are both naturalized American citizens. Perhaps because of that I don't take our rights here for granted. My parents left their countries for many reasons, not the least of which was being able to speak their minds politically. They always taught me to respect the rights of my country because few people around the world have the freedom we have. They also told me to voice my opinions if I disagreed with current political practices because (1) it is our right to do so, (2) it is our duty as citizens of this country to be informed about what's going on, and (3) it is also our duty to speak out against political leaders who may abuse their power. They know first hand about number (3) and it is an extremely awful thing.
When people tell me that my views are unpatriotic because I disagree with certain governmental actions, or even entire adminstrations, I tell them that if they want to live in a country where people can't speak their minds and try to make a difference then they should move to Cuba, Communist China, Iraq, or any of the number of other countries where people don't have these rights and, if they rebel, it is at the risk of their lives and possibly their families' lives as well.

Aren't our rights and freedoms part of the reason why America was founded in the first place? Look at all the trouble people went to in order to establish this great country ... rebelling against their own countries and leaders, risking life and limb across dangerous overseas voyages to settle uncharted territory, a revolutionary war and a civil war, not to mention many other wars, and a whole heck of a lot of political upheaval! And now that we have an amazing Constitution that grants us rights and liberties unseen by many all over the world, we're just supposed to be idle even if we feel that injustices are occuring? We're supposed to relinquish these rights without question?
I just don't understand it.

Over the years we have had many good leaders and also quite a few bad leaders ... from both political parties. What if everyone had just kept quiet when President Hoover hesitated to adopt proposals that required federal involvement in efforts to revive business during the Great Depression, even as the bread lines kept getting longer and longer? Sheesh, what if nobody had made a fuss about Watergate? Or how about Vietnam? Or women's rights? Or civil rights?
And just for the sake of argument, how is it okay to make a grand case out of Clinton's personal affairs which really had no effect on policy and threatened nothing but his own marriage (although he did set a bad example) even to the point of discussing impeaching him for it, but it's not okay for people to speak out about serious issues that they feel the Bush adminstration is not handling properly. How shallow is that?

posted April 02, 2004 09:55 PM            

Harpyr, you're the coolest! I wish I had been able to attend the protest, especially now that I know what you went through.

Proxieme, I know where you're coming from, trust me. Sometimes we just have to bite our tongues.