I think your jumping the gun. From reading that article, it sounds like the Police are holding them on those charges. It does not sound it's made it to the prosecutor yet. The police can arrest you on charges, but it is up to the prosecutor if they actually want to prosecute.
It would appear that Stefan Warner has been formally charged, arraigned, and bail set at $1,000 on one count of a terrorism hoax. I did not look up the other woman, but I assume that she has also been charged formally.
That record looks fairly sparse. I think the default behavior is that they move forward like they will prosecute until a decision has been made not to.
That says a judge has been appointed to determine probable cause in the arrest. According to http://www.oklahomacounty.org/Judges/page/Judge-Russell-Hall... that judge calls 45,000 cases per year - that's a case every 20 minutes 24x7. One imagines he has a low tolerance for people wasting his time.
It seems to me there's a clear difference between a "terrorism hoax" and "jumping at shadows", just waiting to be clearly exploited by their counsel...
I think there is a line from the political satire comedy series Veep on HBO that answers your question nicely. It's a sage piece of advice offered to the Vice President from a Senator she's asking to help her with some PR on an Oil issue: "...you don’t want to fuck with [big oil] because they fuck in a very unpleasant fashion." It's a really well written (if extremely vulgar) show. Art imitates life, life imitates art, etc...
Maybe the protesters who locked themselves in a doorway were looking for coverage, but it looks like the two who hung up the banner weren't interested in making a story.
There's a line, though. On one side you have the risk of serious trumped-up felony charges that can land you in prison and make you basically unemployable. On the other side you have an arrest and release with no charges filed. If the likelihood of the former is too high, the gov't might succeed in frightening away enough would-be protesters.
It will probably never happen, since if the charges aren't dropped, dozens of prominent civil rights lawyers will probably offer to defend these guys pro bono.
And it would be hard to convince a jury that these guys actually intended to perpetrate a terrorism hoax. Who'd believe that someone could mistake glitter that fell off a sign for a dangerous substance?
That's all fine and well, but it reveals an underlying system of anti-democratic behavior by our security services. This is certainly not the first or last instance they have used counterterrorism as a justification to go after activists.
You could always emigrate to a country that celebrates their constitution and whose president publicly states that people have a right to speak out. In Russia, to mark the 20th anniversary of the Consitution of the Russian Federation, they are freeing many convicted prisoners including some of those who were arrested at political protests during the last election. As one politician said, those who were called to the protest and misguidedly agreed but are now apologetic will be freed, but those who organized the violence and incited others to join in will not. And the president of Russia, addressing a meeting of leaders of the various regions and republics in the Federation as well as church, mosque and synagogue leaders, made it a point to state that Russian, unlike the EU and the IMF, will not demand Ukraine to take any particular internal actions in return for financial help and is only offering it to join in a customs union as a partner.
The above is all paraphrased from a couple of news reports in Russian that I watched last week.
There is a well known phenomenon in politics and society of the pendulum swing. Childhood friends who discovered politics in University and hated each other because one was socialist and the other capitalist, find that after 40 years they have EACH reversed their positions and still can't reconcile. Or the USA who used to hold up the Soviet Union as an example of the wrong way to do things and consequently avoided doing things that might appear to be Soviet style. But now that there is no Soviet Union to compare itself to, the USA has copied the worst excesses of Stalin's KGB. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation still holds out the Soviet Union as a standard of comparison -- it is their history after all -- and actively moves away from Soviet style solutions embracing capitalism and individual liberty to a far greater degree than Western countries. While corruption in the USA grows unchallenged, the Russian Federation is in the second decade of a campaign to root it out both high and low.
I'll bet its even rarer that you have visited Putin's Russia or talked to any of the citizens who live there, not emigrants who have left but the people who still live there and who do not want to leave.
KGB was formed in 1954, after Stalin's death. It is historically meaningful because of all the changes that were happening right after Stalin's death when USSR was changing from mass violence oppressive state of Stalin to the totalitarian state with more targeted violence. In particular the role of agency like KGB (while still having the same goal of state security) was shifting to being of less of enforcer/executioner and more of information gatherer and "mind controller" Big Brother style.
What's really really funny is if you are a Stalin nerd like me and you've read everything there is to read about Stalin and his rise to power some aspects of what we've seen unfolding before us over the last decade just seems so oddly familiar.
What Stalinism was about was the use of organized crime tactics that Stalin had used during the revolution and previously being brought into use in government. The thing that usually prevents this from happening in a normal situation is that the mob bosses get obsessed with material possessions, women and comforts and get distracted from running a government. In Stalin's case though he wasn't going to be satisfied until he had completely taken over the world in the name of Marxism/Leninism and that kept him focused throughout his political journey. It also didn't hurt that he had an enormous intellect and memory to keep the whole thing together. It's weird because it was all ideologically consistent and had probably seemed all practical and reasonable to the cadres. Simon Sebag-Montefiore explained this in his book "Court of the Red Tzar" as them thinking of themselves as "Warrior Priests". Molotov, a true believer himself, even complained that after Stalin the government became filled with opportunists and not revolutionaries.
I live in Ukraine and can confirm that this comment is total and utter crap. The only thing that Russia is embracing is a mix of extreme corruption, nepotism and corporatism.
Thoroughly obvious sockpuppet/shill. In Russia, it's 99.9% of people who are poor, 0.1% of people who are outstandingly mega-rich, and no middle class. A common yearly salary for a developer in Russia is three thousand dollars. The Russian Federation is increasingly corrupt and repressive, escalating dramatically as Putin realizes that his support is disappearing as fast as public support for the ACA website implementation.
It's sadly ironic that the enforcement of and (I cynically believe) the purpose behind most anti-terrorism laws is to terrorize protesters, malcontents, and others the "established power structure" deems embarrassing. Terrorize them with the threat of immense punishment, travel hassles, etc. Keeping them quiet and complacent.
Why the representatives you sent to DC and state capitols are happily voting for AETA-style bills instead of, say, proposing and voting for anti-AETA bills, for example something like "reaffirming and extending the 1st Amendment rights" bills and/or the bills that would treat as a terrorism any assault on the [at least Constitutional] rights of protesters?
The War on Terror is, to a large extent, about creating a domestic counter-insurgence apparatus in the US. Perhaps there are changes coming that necessitate, from the perspective of those in power, this level of control over the population.
like another orchestrated terrorist attack similar to 9/11 this time created by left/right wing domestic "terrorists" ?
If they could pull off 9/11, I'm sure they can do that again with domestic "enemy". But then what's the purpose? Why to do that? Usually, not to loose power. But they are in the power all the time anyway (military/industrial complex). So, what gives?
They are an established power, but they've still had to deal with societal friction in response to their actions. This slows them down as they attempt to compete with other global factions. Hence the need to lessen societal friction by making things more "expensive" to those who gum up the works for them. And yeah, more "strategy of tension" operations wouldn't be surprising.
Obviously this is unbelievable and I hope it's quickly dismissed. But unfortunately, environmental protestors have been putting up with this sort of shit, often at the behest of energy and agricultural companies, for decades.
I never realized just how bad the situation was until I got involved more seriously in activism. Two and a half years into being politically active enough to never go more than a week or two without some form of protest (which could take the form of a march or rally, or an Overpass Light Brigade, or helping organize a cryptoparty, hosting documentary movie nights, helping with direct action training, etc.), I now have literally dozens of friends who have been charged with felonies.
These are among the sweetest, and gentlest, people I know. Some are barely older than children (the youngest person I know charged with a felony was 19 when she was charged with "Use of a criminal instrument" for locking her arm to a fellow protesters arm using a device suggested and made for them by a team of undercover Austin Police Department officers).
It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with. It includes violent, or at least threatening, police presence at any protest of significance (which means many populations cannot safely express dissent; anyone with warrants, regardless of what they are for, has no free speech because they will be snatched from a protest, anyone who is an undocumented immigrant has no free speech because they will be snatched, etc.). It includes violent arrest tactics; police are trained in "pain compliance" techniques, which include spraying pepper spray into protesters eyes, and forcing their eyes open to do so. It includes widespread spying at the local, state, and federal level, as well as spying by corporations like Stratfor. It includes charging activists with laws intended for violent terrorists, so that arrest is no longer a minor inconvenience, but a life-altering event. When non-violent activists are facing years in prison, for causing nothing more than minor temporary inconvenience, something is horribly broken.
I suspect most Americans would be disgusted by all of this, if they were really aware of it. But, it's not very frequently reported in mainstream media. I only know about it because I know some of the people involved and follow activist-oriented news sources.
>>It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with.
It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism. I think that in itself is a more significant indication of how hopeless the situation in America is. It underlines the main reason why serious social change is so difficult.
Put it simply: the government exists to protect the interests of corporations and wealthy people. Dissent of any kind challenges the status quo and therefore must be discouraged and quelled by any means necessary. The rights of "The People" (i.e. the poor) mean jack shit, because The People only exist to make the rich richer. This has been the case since the country's founding.
This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.
"It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism."
I had an inkling, as I think most people do, even the people who most benefit from the status quo. But, being born white and male into a middle class household granted me a tremendous amount of privilege to avoid ever having to see it too closely, without even trying very hard. Having been exposed to technology at a young age, and encouraged in that pursuit, granted me a near complete lack of need to actually work all that hard to survive. It's easy to believe in a meritocratic society when you believe you're meritorious enough to deserve all the good things that happen to you and to avoid all the bad things being inflicted on others.
Let's just say I've grown as a person over the past few years.
Have you written more at length about this? I often find it incredibly hard to convey these points, and having stories or at least anecdotes that are relatable to people is usually the best tactic.
Where did you learn this nonsense? I'll grant that calling something like this "terrorism" is over the top but the rest of this rant had me checking for a full moon.
It is quite easy to learn this. Someone with your intellect could do it in a short time:
It is called opening your eyes, cleaning them of the propaganda-rheum and seeing, wide awake the real structure of the world we live in.
I am a white male, totally privileged. Absolutely lucky to be that way by chance. And you know what - I know of this privilege, I did nothing for to earn.
I know, that the system is rigged like in a mobsters casino. And you know what - I believe it sucks real bad.
And people like you make it harder for everyone fighting for change. Or for people turning their backs on this system, robbing it of its support.
So please, do me a favor: Go home and play with your new shiny toys - what ever keeps you asleep in a world, that needs more people being awake and seeing for real.
but how do you know if all those Zeitgeist, Russia TV, and other revelations (Greenpeace) aren't just paid and orchestrated by Russia to destabilize US. I know they are.
How is RT or Zeitgeist (bleurgh) a primary source for any of this? If they aren't, why bring them up? And what does Greenpeace have to do with anything?
Sponsored/funded by KGB/FSB to destabilize US by creating an army of useful idiots.
Zeitgeist is a name to Marxism that doesn't suck. Anything green is left by definition. RT is official Russian Government propaganda channel. All the journalists you see there are FSB agents are have to cooperate with FSB.
At the same time US backed NGO in Russia are banned from receiving any money from the outside world and the Russian media are tightly controlled by Kremlin. There is no "voice of America" in Russia.
Why to fire bullets when soft skills of youth and intelligentsia indoctrination will do? It woke out great for them, hasn't it? We have a president Marxist, perfect product of the same forces in the educational system in the USA.
Just look how US becomes more and more like Russia as the years pass. I.e. oligarchs (the 1%), poor getting poorer, the police state, lack of democracy. The country is being russiaficated and nobody even notices what is the root of the evil. Genius!
I asked why you brought it up in context of the post you replied to, yes.
Are you meaning to say that any and all outrage about totalitarianism is, like anything "left", planted by the KGB, and just a means to subvert the US, so it can be overtaken by totalitarianism? So what is your solution? A better police state to defend liberty?
It's easy to blame the government but the majority of Americans vote for the government they have or none at all. That means they are either happy with it or they're incompetent and should not be allowed to vote. It's easy to blame politicians but really it's the short-sighted self-interested voters who are at fault. If you vote for a party with a history of doing terrible things then you are asking them to do more terrible things.
You blame me for this fucked up system? Yeah, I'm not carrying that weight.
I worked for years for third party politics. I was a card-carrying member of the LP. Worked for ballot access for both LP and the Green Party. If that's how you want to activate, go do it. I'm done with it. I see the system for what it is: Corrupt.
As long as we have first-past-the-post voting, laws stacked against any third party or independent candidates, and a complicit media, third parties are a pit into which people throw their passions and their energy and their money, with no resulting change.
You do what you gotta do, and I'm gonna do what I gotta do. What I gotta do is help build communities of resistance, and make it as expensive and inconvenient as possible for this shit to keep happening.
It's a corrupt system. Both parties have the same attitudes towards fundamental state issues and they collude to prevent any other parties from entering their contest for lobbyist dollars (note the lack of third parties in the televised debates on network television).
That might be true of a Direct Democracy. But an Indirect Democracy insulates politicians from the will of the voters. Votes do little more than bludgeon politicians out of office as a last resort. As long as politicians don't upset voters too much, the two incumbent parties retain power and continue doing as they please (which isn't all that different from each other, since the optimal behavioral strategy is to hug the center of the spectrum). So to some extant, I blame the structure of the government.
But given this situation, I also blame the voters. Polarization is pretty high. Voters readily pledge loyalty to the party line rather than individually consider the pros and cons of each platform's ideas. Voters don't realize that the less precommitted they are to their party, the more pressure they exert over congress. I.e. the less confident politicians are that the same demographics will reelect them, the more likely politicians will actually pay attention to the voters. pg has noticed this, among others.
Unfortunately, zealotry is a tough nut to crack. It's hardwired into human psychology. One can find it in politics, religion, sports, warfare, the dynamics of any group in general. And consciously or not, the parties encourage it (since each party's optimal signalling strategy is to differentiate themselves as much as possible). The media encourages this too, definitely consciously since it feeds their bottom line.
Given Indirect Democracy is here to stay, I think the worst problem is the lobby system. Not only has the power of the voters been diluted, but it's taken a backseat to that of the lobbyists. I'm not saying corporations are conspiratorially colluding to directly control congress, but each corporation's individual bribes certainly incentivizes the government's behavior, and arguably more so than the people's votes.
Not really. The fact that people are individuals who always make decisions at the margins means you can fall into a sort of network effect hysteresis trap. If you have Party X who gives you 20% of what you want and is polling at 49%, Party Y gives you 22% of what you want and is polling at 49%, and Party Z gives you 80% of what you want and is polling at 2%, if you believe the polls are accurate, you have a much larger expected gain from voting for Party Y instead of Party Z.
This is true even if the voter preferences are universal -- if e.g. everyone would get 15%-30% of what they want from X and Y, and 70-90% of what they want from Z.
> This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.
I believe the odds of activism like this stopping fracking companies is actually very good. Which is why they are being met with police brutality. Suppose fracking protestors can reduce the likelihood of fracking companies to get local land exploitation permits from 95% to 90%, then that is a huge win and will save many wildlife areas.
It may not be "meaningful change" in the large scheme of things, but wins in many small fights compound and leads to bigger changes. Convincing people that they can't make a difference is the most efficient method for suppressing dissent.
There is no excuse to be dumber in action than the people/company/administration you oppose. Business is ritualized warfare. It's not about playing fair.
I am suggesting that doing direct action, when you are few in number and susceptible to arbitrary brutality, makes the movement weaker. If they really care about success then they would do it differently. It doesn't take great genius to get arrested.
To win you need to be strong, skillful or lucky. When you are none of these things you are wasting your time seeking confrontation.
David won against goliath because he was skillful.
I think that following your advice would lead to no one, ever, fighting against oppression. Because the oppressor is always more powerful and better equipped. But, without a few people having the courage to fight in the beginning, those who are afraid will never feel empowered to join.
It is also useful to know that this kind of action isn't generally subject to arrest. This is a simple "make a little noise, get asked to leave, leave" kinda of thing. It is clear that even this minor act of disobedience is being punished in this absurdly over the top way in order to keep people thinking like you: It's too risky, it's too confrontational.
So, I have to repeat: What would you suggest? You are saying this is foolish, you are saying it should be done differently. But, you don't offer any suggestions for what would indicate skill (and no one will ever be "strong" against a foe as powerful as the fossil fuels industry).
And, maybe these folks are just hoping for luck, in the face of overwhelming odds. If enough people take a spin, maybe somebody will hit the jackpot that turns this tide. Given the circumstances, and our seeming inevitable slide into the madness that is global climate change (which, I'll assume, you're familiar with and not one of the nutty right wing climate change deniers), I'd say we need more people taking that chance, not fewer.
Sounds like a documentary that needs to be made. Take every single protest issue that has broad public support and document the abuses perpetuated against protestors. Ideally the protestors in the film should represent the entire range of the political spectrum (right wing to left wing. gun rights to animal rights. pro-life to pro-choice. etc). The highlight needs to be on the forcefully violent oppression of peaceful dissent.
While I think such a documentary is a great idea, I think this will never happen:
"Ideally the protestors in the film should represent the entire range of the political spectrum (right wing to left wing. gun rights to animal rights. pro-life to pro-choice. etc)."
Ideal is hard to find in the real world. This is a very one-sided battle, and pretty much always has been in the US. The powerful and rich are aligned against the powerless, and have the police, courts, and lawmakers, on their side.
You'd be very hard pressed to find right wing protesters being abused in the same way as environmental protesters (or, at all, for that matter). Because the right wing protesters aren't fighting for anything that oil companies, for example, would find threatening. It takes a combination of vast wealth and state/corporate collusion to get the kind of violence we've seen in the environmental activist community.
I've been amused to note that Alex Jones-sponsored gun rights rallies are vastly less likely to be harassed by cops than anything I would be involved in.
The kind of dissent that is most likely to be quashed is that of the powerless against the very powerful. White guys who support the death penalty don't fall into the category of "powerless" and their opponents are not the powerful (the powerful like having more tools to keep poor people in line and to give teeth to their threats, so are unlikely to worry about someone supporting the death penalty).
Pro-life vs. pro-choice? This one I'm really familiar with. Take Texas as an example...during the recent battle over womens reproductive rights here, the surprisingly peaceful pro-choice side had their heads smashed in (http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-12-arrested-tx-senate-oks-s...), were aggressively searched , had tampons removed from their purses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/cheats/2013/07/12/texas-co...), were falsely accused of trying to bring feces and urine into chambers (http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_23960175/el-paso-times), were spied on by DPS officers. No pro-life proponents were arrested, or detained, or harassed, despite the occasional actual assault on pro-choice protesters. All of this, despite the fact that pro-life supporters have literally murdered people in support of their cause...I'm not suggesting that DPS should have been harassing pro-life folks the way they were harassing pro-choice folks; just that it's clear which side the power was aligned on, and to what end.
Most right-wing "dissent" is manufactured outrage over imagined slights (or wealthy white people being pissed off that poor brown people could possibly want to be treated equally). I lean libertarian, some days, and so I'm sympathetic to some "right" causes...but, it's clear that when business and the poor go to war, it is a one-sided battle and nearly all the violence is being initiated by police. If we have to find examples of right wing protesters being abused in the ways that those on the left are being abused, we'll never see anything resembling the documentary you've imagined.
Anyway, I went looking to see if such a documentary existed, since I'd like to show such a thing at one of the Revolution in the Park movie nights I host in Austin. Couldn't find anything exactly along those lines, though it looks like someone was planning to make one last year, but seems to have stopped updating: http://examplesprotestdoc.wordpress.com/
> I've been amused to note that Alex Jones-sponsored gun rights rallies are vastly less likely to be harassed by cops than anything I would be involved in.
I've never been to anything remotely related to Alex Jones, but having organized and attended a number of civil rights rallies, it's probably just an issue of demographics. Cops, Sheriffs and deputies tend to be more staunch second amendment advocates, except in larger cities. Also, and bear in mind this is anecdotal, but second amendment supporters tend to be the most respectful of the police tasked with keeping the peace at the rallies, and go far out of their way to keep from making those cops' jobs more difficult. Conversely (and again, anecdotally, but with lots of experience), anti-second amendment protestors seem to be far more unruly, with a contingent (at least in Maryland) that seem intent on trying to make the cops feel bad for their ambivalence.
With regards to fourth amendment rallies I've attended, the cops are decidedly more hostile, because they likely feel like they're the target of some of the protest. Also, in my experience, most of the cops justify their own fourth amendment violations as justified, or rationalized in some other way. Surely, they trust their own instincts, and they likely don't have any problems violating the fourth amendment rights of someone __if it leads to their arrest__ for some other crime that they initially suspected them of. On top of that, as the fourth amendment is typically violated by those in power, and the cops tend to be in power, the protestors there tend to harbor animosity.
I could go on forever, but I don't think you're far off the mark, except that you drew the line between left wing and right wing, and I think you're undervaluing how much a factor police bias plays in the issue.
I'm an avid civil rights supporter, and unlike the ACLU, for me, that includes the second amendment. I've studied the second amendment extensively, and you're completely right. Gun control has primarily been a tool for oppression, in this country and before.
Maybe (being neither Democrat nor Republican) I just don't think in terms of left vs. right, but I definitely see your point. Having been involved with both left and right-wing protests though, at least a part of it is how the officers are treated. I've been at fourth amendment rallies and had pleasant conversation with cops, despite being there for a 'left-wing' purpose, and without giving any secret Republican handshakes or anything.
>anyone who is an undocumented immigrant has no free speech because they will be snatched
Why would you think your free speech rights should give you immunity from deportation if you're not actually here legally? Protesting while obviously out of compliance with the law is quite a bit different from being suppressed by a completely fabricated charge.
Because freedom of speech is more important than immigration bullshit, and because arresting people on unrelated charges is one of many tools in the toolchest of those who wish to silence dissent.
It is one of many chilling effects that makes large scale movements all but impossible in the US. Police simply wander around spotting people they think might have something in their past that allows them to arrest them. I'm a middle class white guy, and I've been detained and had my ID run at least a dozen times in the past two years, merely for having the gall to show up at a protest. I've never been arrested, and never had a warrant, so I don't fear being detained the way many would...but knowing that you will very likely be targeted just for being present, even if you aren't breaking any laws, insures a whole lot of people simply don't show up.
So, by saying this is OK, as long as it is not a "completely fabricated charge" you're insuring that there is no such thing as a large scale movement to change anything in the US. Most people cannot afford to be targeted by police in the way that a lot of activists I know have been.
I believe that undocumented workers have the right to free speech. I believe that people with warrants have the right to free speech. They don't have that free speech because they know they are likely to be targeted by police if they exercise that speech for dissent (just like anyone expressing dissent becomes a target). It's just that the cost of being targeted by police is so much higher than it is for someone like me.
I think understand your position a little better now, that as you said checking people's status has a chilling effect. I was thinking of the undocumented thing in the context of an actual protest with people holding signs saying they are undocumented. I believe this is basically daring the police to do something about you. There is basically no way for an undocumented immigrant to protest without crossing over into civil disobedience, which has obvious costs. I still don't think it's totally the same, but I see where you're coming from.
Actually, I think there's interesting discussion to be had around where you're coming from, and where I'm coming from. And, also with regard to the actual law.
Local police departments actually are not supposed to enforce immigration laws. It's even likely unconstitutional in some cases for local police officers to target people for searches and ID checks based on the assumption that they are here illegally. It's not even about my beliefs on the issue. It's about local police policy and ordinances.
The reasons that local police departments aren't tasked with immigration enforcement are many.
For example, imagine a domestic dispute between a person who is in the US without documentation and a partner who is here legally. Let's imagine the partner who is here legally is violent, and beats the crap out of the person who is here without documentation. How do you want this to play out? Do you want the person being abused to not call for help for fear of being deported? Or, do you want the cops to come do their job, help someone who is being hurt, and haul the abuser away leaving the victim of the abuse safe? Most jurisdictions in the US have chosen the latter. Cops have a lot of leeway to be assholes in this circumstance, but they're under policy guidance to help the victim and not make the situation worse.
Another example, say an undocumented immigrant witnesses a violent crime. Do you want them to be deported if they come forward and identify the assailant? Or, do you want them to be able to report the crime, give their testimony (even in court), and help put a dangerous person away?
I believe being part of the civic discourse, up to and including participating in a protest, march, rally, etc. is of a piece with these other examples. If a local police officer catches an armed robber, and that robber turns out to be an undocumented immigrant, I won't argue about immigration getting involved. But, if someone wants to speak to encourage more kind immigration law that effects them and their family? Yeah, I think they should be able to do that, without fear of being targeted.
Civil disobedience is great, and I support it. But, it is also an action that requires privilege. Many undocumented immigrants have families to support (often including children who are legal US citizens, having been born here); if they are arrested and deported for speaking out, their whole family suffers.
Admittedly, I fall very far on the side of being opposed to our immigration laws as they currently stand. I believe state borders are immoral, in and of themselves, regardless of how they are enforced. Even so, the reality is that local law enforcement shouldn't be using the threat of deportation to stifle dissent. Not because I say so, but because people all over the country have said so, and it is reflected in local laws and police department policies. But, when it comes to protests...the rules get tossed out the window. Protesters are nearly always considered second class citizens, and subject to more aggressive tactics; constitutional protections are considered much lower during a protest action, especially if some protesters are breaking the law.
Given that undercover cops often (so often that it is to be expected, and activist trainers have to cover it as though it will happen) incite law breaking in order to allow uniformed officers to engage more aggressively, I think it's time to turn that tide way the fuck back.
In short, I hear you. I might have even agreed with you at some point in the past. I understand where your position comes from. But, somewhere along the way, my allegiance flipped. I simply don't trust my government to have good intentions.
Yes, well done. My one-acre homestead is indeed exactly the same as a sovereign state, it in fact changes nothing when the scale is millions of times that large. Also access to private property and state immigration are in fact the exact same concept as well.
I think there's a useful discussion to be had about what private property looks like. Should a corporation be allowed to hold a monopoly over millions of acres of land over a span of hundreds of years, for instance? I think most folks, anarchists and extreme leftists included, would consider a home and a family garden a perfectly legitimate piece of "private property". But, somewhere, as the stakes get higher, and the abstractions for the entity that "owns" the property (and who is responsible for what happens on that property, such as pollution, violence, etc.) becomes more diffuse, there is useful discussion to be had about whether that is legitimate private property or not.
I believe it is a stretch to say that an entity as diffuse as the United States (or any nation state) should be able to prevent billions of people from traveling freely from Mexico to Canada.
In short, I think "private property" is a good and useful fiction that we can probably all agree on, when we are speaking of individual humans who live and work on a piece of property. When you begin to make up fictional entities to "own" the property, I am less confident of the rightness of the theory.
> Why would you think your free speech rights should give you immunity from deportation if you're not actually here legally?
You are implying that only people who follow the laws in the US have the right of free speech. That's a very, very sad way to look at things, as it means anyone trying to actually change anything has no basic rights.
i.e. same sex couples, people smoking weed, etc. etc. These people are breaking the law (in most of the country) but they absolutely must be allowed free speech to talk about it. If not, how can anything ever change or get better?
Taking away free speech from people that don't follow the current laws of the US means a very bleak future.
Your right to free speech begins and ends with speech. You have a right to call for marijuana legalization, but if marijuana is illegal and you light up a joint in front of a cop, then yes he can arrest you and this is no violation of your free speech rights. Correspondingly, your right to free speech, right here and right now, is naturally pre-empted when you have no legal right to even be in the country. From the perspective of the US government, you are perfectly free to exercise your opinion about immigration reform from outside of the borders of the USA. The fact that this is obviously less desirable from the point of view of the illegal alien is basically irrelevant to what they have a "right" to do.
What you are talking about is civil disobedience, but you don't seem to understand how that works either. Civil disobedience is knowing something is against the law, and doing it anyway as an act of political resistance to motivate change in the system. Even then, you accept that an act is illegal and that you are breaking that law, rather than just blanket argument that anybody who is actively protesting a law should be allowed to break it without legal consequences because they disagree with it. I get it, you're for immigration reform so you think it's a stupid law and you don't care if they break it. But I'm arguing from the standpoint of a general legal principle.
> I get it, you're for immigration reform so you think it's a stupid law and you don't care if they break it.
Not at all.
I'm for allowing people to assemble, peacefully protest and have their voice heard.
I'm for not escalating unrelated charges to people trying to do so.
Once you let that happen, you'll very quickly find every single person is breaking some obscure law or other, and every single person will be arrested when they even talk about voting for the other party.
Because that's standard practice for breaking up protests. See: false flag NYPD starting altercations with police at OWS in order to give police justification for violently putting down the protest.
"If it was considered illegal i think the officers should be punished at least to some extent."
I think they should be, too. The judge had some harsh words for the APD, and the charges were reduced to misdemeanors and the sentence (which was originally looking like years in prison) to time served. Though, one of the protesters in this case ended up spending about 2 years in jail because he had a past warrant (he missed his court date for that old warrant in Dallas because he was in jail on a felony charge in Houston, so they punished him for missing that date). He was just released a few weeks ago.
It's also worth mentioning that APD did not reveal their officers had made the devices or suggested their use in the action, and fought to not reveal their involvement in court. The Houston police department, who were prosecuting the case, didn't even know APD was involved in the protest, until a few lucky breaks led to three of the six undercover officers being outed. It is, frankly, miraculous that those seven kids aren't still in jail and shackled with felony convictions. Dumb luck revealed that they'd been setup, and the prosecutors were forced to fold.
But, it's happening every day. This is standard operating procedure when dealing with protesters; and, not just at the national level. And, as far as we can tell, the chain of command on this particular operation went all the way up to the chief of police. It was not rogue cops going beyond their assigned duties to set kids up for felony charges.
Some references, so this doesn't end up being dismissed as a paranoid fantasy (I know it's pretty unbelievable stuff):
More came out later based on open records requests, but my google fu is failing me at the moment. In short, it was actually worse than we knew during the early stages of the trial when these three articles were written.
"Why are Police officers encouraging crime to begin with?"
You tell me.
Why would police officers encourage crime, encourage violence, encourage escalation in tactics, etc.?
This reminds me of the book Where the Dog Is Buried by Czech dissident and activist Pavel Kohout. It is basically a book about various tactics that the police in communist Czechoslovakia used to harass and intimidate him and his fellow activists.
Some of those tactics were surprisingly creative and twisted... from using 'flexible laws' to justify arrests and constant surveillance to tricking him into emigration - he was a playwright and when police gave him a permission to travel to Austria to see the opening night of one of his plays he thought it was maybe a peace offering after years of troubles with the police. He went there with his wife but while they were there the police invalidated their passports and when they wanted to return home they were not allowed to cross the border and they were both forced to emigrate.
I suspect most Americans would be disgusted by all of this, if they were really aware of it
I don't think that's true. I think Americans actually like it this way. It gives a soccer mom a deep sense of contentment that if anyone so much as looks at her precious little darling she can summon a SWAT team to punish them. It just so happens that right now you have a President who is more than happy to deliver on this. There is an old saying: a country gets the government it deserves.
because there was no easy/centralized way to spread propaganda. One had to use terror/fear to stay in power. The truth was obvious, so somebody had to keep population scared, so they don't revolt. Nowadays, subtle propaganda works. You air day and night stuff explaining people that white is black and black is white and this works. People see the truth, want to revolt, but then "the experts" from the silver box explain that the opposite is actually true. Everybody happy thinking they are free while they are slaves to the banks and constantly monitored by the Government.
In the same way, government could ignore the law, fake election results, and whatever - and no one would be wiser, because the only form of mass information distribution, newspapers, are government control.
I suspect the situation had been as bad or worse before radio and television; that throughout history with very minor exceptions, there has not been a functioning democracy anywhere (in the common meaning of the term). I don't find your argument there was one convincing.
It's more than just the current president. last I checked the patriot act wasn't a presidential decree. It would be nice if it were only a matter of getting new president and all are governmental woes went away. Problem is until the middle class stops believing sound bites and starts making all parties accountable to the middle class corporate interests will provail.
I have to agree to this because I feel that there is a serious disdain for protesters in this country. Many people I know seem to feel that hurting or arresting peaceful protesters is okay.
The amount of apathy in this country is staggering.
Guess its not fun to find out how bad it is to express a point of view. Go look at all the hoops abortion protestors have to jump through. They wouldn't even dare cross the threshold of the business because by law most can't even come within shouting distance of their targets.
So yeah, welcome to the club. Business and government use the power of the later to enforce their will. The sad part is, people will cheer this type of behavior on provided its exercised against people they don't like but suddenly they are all aghast of when it hits them.
As with all other forms of freedom of speech, asking the government to silence people you do not like is akin to allowing government to silence you when someone else does not like your speech.
Freedom of speech as it's written in the 1st amendment is NOT a blanket of protection against everything you say.
"In America, you’re simply guaranteed the right to speak without the government taking action against you. However, that doesn’t mean your employer can’t fire you for bad-mouthing him on Facebook, and it certainly doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want with full impunity"
> Guess its not fun to find out how bad it is to express a point of view. Go look at all the hoops abortion protestors have to jump through. They wouldn't even dare cross the threshold of the business because by law most can't even come within shouting distance of their targets.
Abortion protestors don't merely express a point of view, they deliberately attempt to prevent people from accessing health services at places where an abortion may be provided. A protestor that disrupts a business or barricades themselves to a door can reasonably be expected to be detained or arrested, but not charged with terrorism or charged with major felonies.
Anti-choice protesters have assaulted women trying to get low cost health care, have murdered doctors, and have aligned themselves against the poorest, least powerful people in this country (poor women of color). Recently, a pro-life group distributed a message suggesting pretending to provide rides to women needing health care, but actually kidnapping them and taking them to a church. This is crazy shit, and some of them are terrifying people.
I also believe you're misrepresenting the state of affairs. Anti-choice protesters can protest right outside of clinics on sidewalks, streets, etc. At least in my state, they can. And, I've not seen much in the way of police violence against anti-choice protesters. I haven't seen police setting up anti-choice protesters and encouraging them to commit violent acts. Maybe this is happening, and I just don't know it, because I'm not in those circles (I think it's assumed here in this thread that I'm left wing, but that's not really accurate; though I am firmly pro-choice). I know it isn't happening in my state, however, as I saw it with my own eyes. Pro-choice groups were stalked by police, while pro-life groups were ignored even when they became aggressive and got physical.
Anyway, I've never asked for pro-life activists to be silenced. I do think that if they physically prevent someone from getting medical care, they are violating that person's basic rights. I also find it particularly reprehensible that they target the poorest and least powerful people. Wealthy white women get abortions all the time at places other than Planned Parenthood or other free and low cost clinics; but, pro-life groups would rather harass the weak and poor, who are often just needing birth control or medical services unrelated to abortion.
These are all features of a system described by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin as Inverted Totalitarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism -- that is, while it's a totalitarian system, unlike traditional fascist/totalitarian states it's driven by the pursuit of cost-effectiveness rather than some abstract ideology.
Welcome to one of the failure modes of representative democracy.
This police state we are living in currently will only end once we vote in politicians that actually care about the politician. We can decide as a society whether or not we want to get distracted by things like gay marriage, abortion, swift boats, birth certificates, or if we care about things like liberty and freedom.
But it's up to us. We voted in these monsters, and we need to vote them out.
Are there any resources or groups dedicated to getting ahead of overzealous prosecutions like this? I know there are options one somebody has fallen victim to a misguided process, but it would be nice if there was a constructive effort to make sure law enforcement maintains some perspective from the onset.
The ACLU for one. It's a hugely challenging problem these days however, for a group like the ACLU they're like a dinghy boat floating around in a hurricane.
I know Devon Energy pretty well. I know they have a strong PR department and their is no way they want this to be blown up. They need the Keystone XL pipeline built. My guess is this is a case of overzealous security guards and OKC police. Time will tell though.
Obviously, they don't want media coverage. But, I think you're misunderstanding how they'll go about it. The companies behind Keystone XL, have exerted tremendous efforts to have protesters charged under terrorism laws. There have been training sessions for local police departments, put on by TransCanada and energy companies that want to see fracking continue unhindered. Those sessions teach small-town police departments about military tactics for attacking protesters, causing them harm, and how to most effectively charge them with huge laundry lists of offenses. Media rarely covers this stuff no matter what police and corporations do.
As far as Keystone XL and other pipelines across the country the training programs are for actual terrorist attacks. An attack on a pipeline is a mess if local law enforcement does not know how to deal with it. I remember sitting in my dad's office looking at a pipeline map and asking him who "protected" all of it? At the time his response was no one. Anyway's the mess in Oklahoma City had to deal with four people at the Devon Tower downtown. If protesters get anywhere near pipelines or fracking zones, well there is pretty long history of legal action against people trespassing on energy production sites. It is whole new territory charging people for protesting at corporate office building under a "terrorism hoax" law in the State of Oklahoma that has not even been tested. And if this actual goes to trial there will be strong media and legal coverage. Of that much I am certain.
<update>
The state of Oklahoma has historically gone after activist groups. The IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) & Green Corn Rebellion being the extreme examples.
It really ought to be an ethics violation investigateable by a state bar association if a prosecutor pulls a stunt like using absurdly trumped up charges. AFAICT, at the end of the day, state bar associations have the power to reign in prosecutorial abuses like this one. Prosecutors like this are actively harming the pursuit of justice, and I can't see how any group of peers (i.e. lawyers who vary in area of specialization) would not look at this behavior as a gross disservice to the profession, and that such gross disservice warrants being disbarred.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about state bar associations being able to control this misconduct.
The trouble with this is the state of the law and the power dynamics in play. It's almost impossible to prove that charges were "absurdly trumped up" because there are so many outrageously broad felonies on the books and prosecutors are clever enough to choose ones that at least vaguely resemble what the defendants were actually doing. Meanwhile you have to protect prosecutors who attempt to prosecute politically powerful defendants from the defendants using their political power to retaliate against the prosecutor. Which means that prosecutors have a lot of discretion and bar associations, while theoretically capable of taking action, generally won't.
At the end of the day it's the "who watches the watchers" problem. Prosecutors are the ones supposed to be prosecuting misconduct. Who are we going to get to prosecute them, and how is it we can trust them to do it when they ought to and not when they ought not to, any more than we can trust the original prosecutors?
The answer has to be in taking away the ability to abuse the law by taking away the broad prohibitions with high penalties that prosecutors are so fond of abusing. There is no call for a non-violent offender to be made a felon in any but the most exceptional and rare of cases, which means that the law should make it nearly impossible for a prosecutor to make that case. It is not necessary to use the penal system to destroy the life of everyone who makes a wrong decision; particularly when structuring things that way also allows it to destroy the lives of everyone who makes a reasoned decision to resist the status quo.
Is the absurdity the charge or the statute though? Why is there a law on the books that allows them to be charged for glitter?
The answer is because an over-reactive police force encountering an "unknown substance" may end up spending significant resources shutting down the area and checking it for chemical and biological weapons, and nobody wants them to do that but neither does anybody want to be seen blaming the police for being overly cautious, so the blame is assigned to anyone giving them an excuse to do it. And then the police and prosecutors are given another weapon to use against harmless protestors that amounts yet again to felony causing trouble for the establishment.
The problem is the system rather than the people. "Punish the prosecutors" is trying to cure the disease with more of the disease.
Well, you need to be prepared for such things when you want to play politics. In some places you can be beaten by police, in 'more democratic' countries you'll be thrown into legal repression machine.
And so we've arrived. A terrorist is now anyone you happen to disagree with (who also happens to be politically weaker than you). Now we find out how monumentally bad all of those 'special' anti-terrorism laws we let slip into being over the last decade truly are.
That's why when i see "terrorists were arrested" in the news i think yea right... you mean people who don't share the powers views and may or may not be violent.
The word "terrorist" has lost its meaning to me since just about everyone not doing as they're told are classified as a terrorist now.
It's just another buzzword that has lost all its original meaning.
People with power will do everything they can to keep their power. That includes pepper spraying peaceful protesters, forbidding them form using public address systems, or yes, charging people with terrorism in order to stifle descent. It is sad, but not surprising.
118 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 221 ms ] threadEdit: if the prosecutor doesn't smack the cops upside the head first!
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp...
If this coverage reaches a few who are willing to get arrested for the cause, they'll launch additional protests hoping for more exposure.
If protesters manage to keep themselves in the news cycle, they may actually make a difference.
Every single person will think twice about attending a protest next time, which would be the end of democracy (if it isn't already gone in the USA)
And it would be hard to convince a jury that these guys actually intended to perpetrate a terrorism hoax. Who'd believe that someone could mistake glitter that fell off a sign for a dangerous substance?
The above is all paraphrased from a couple of news reports in Russian that I watched last week.
There is a well known phenomenon in politics and society of the pendulum swing. Childhood friends who discovered politics in University and hated each other because one was socialist and the other capitalist, find that after 40 years they have EACH reversed their positions and still can't reconcile. Or the USA who used to hold up the Soviet Union as an example of the wrong way to do things and consequently avoided doing things that might appear to be Soviet style. But now that there is no Soviet Union to compare itself to, the USA has copied the worst excesses of Stalin's KGB. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation still holds out the Soviet Union as a standard of comparison -- it is their history after all -- and actively moves away from Soviet style solutions embracing capitalism and individual liberty to a far greater degree than Western countries. While corruption in the USA grows unchallenged, the Russian Federation is in the second decade of a campaign to root it out both high and low.
Chechnya (Ichkeria)... Sochi (Circassia)... Karelia (Finland)... and so many more...
KGB was formed in 1954, after Stalin's death. It is historically meaningful because of all the changes that were happening right after Stalin's death when USSR was changing from mass violence oppressive state of Stalin to the totalitarian state with more targeted violence. In particular the role of agency like KGB (while still having the same goal of state security) was shifting to being of less of enforcer/executioner and more of information gatherer and "mind controller" Big Brother style.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Soviet_secret_pol...
As for the rest of your post - it is just propaganda blabber.
What Stalinism was about was the use of organized crime tactics that Stalin had used during the revolution and previously being brought into use in government. The thing that usually prevents this from happening in a normal situation is that the mob bosses get obsessed with material possessions, women and comforts and get distracted from running a government. In Stalin's case though he wasn't going to be satisfied until he had completely taken over the world in the name of Marxism/Leninism and that kept him focused throughout his political journey. It also didn't hurt that he had an enormous intellect and memory to keep the whole thing together. It's weird because it was all ideologically consistent and had probably seemed all practical and reasonable to the cadres. Simon Sebag-Montefiore explained this in his book "Court of the Red Tzar" as them thinking of themselves as "Warrior Priests". Molotov, a true believer himself, even complained that after Stalin the government became filled with opportunists and not revolutionaries.
Many people that should never have been locked up in the first place.
> will not demand Ukraine to take any particular internal actions in return for financial help
Except cut off their gas supply if they do not go with Russia.
> While corruption in the USA grows unchallenged, the Russian Federation is in the second decade of a campaign to root it out both high and low.
Somehow, mysteriously, rooting out corruption is mostly successful against opponents of Putin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_C...
Why the representatives you sent to DC and state capitols are happily voting for AETA-style bills instead of, say, proposing and voting for anti-AETA bills, for example something like "reaffirming and extending the 1st Amendment rights" bills and/or the bills that would treat as a terrorism any assault on the [at least Constitutional] rights of protesters?
If they could pull off 9/11, I'm sure they can do that again with domestic "enemy". But then what's the purpose? Why to do that? Usually, not to loose power. But they are in the power all the time anyway (military/industrial complex). So, what gives?
These are among the sweetest, and gentlest, people I know. Some are barely older than children (the youngest person I know charged with a felony was 19 when she was charged with "Use of a criminal instrument" for locking her arm to a fellow protesters arm using a device suggested and made for them by a team of undercover Austin Police Department officers).
It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with. It includes violent, or at least threatening, police presence at any protest of significance (which means many populations cannot safely express dissent; anyone with warrants, regardless of what they are for, has no free speech because they will be snatched from a protest, anyone who is an undocumented immigrant has no free speech because they will be snatched, etc.). It includes violent arrest tactics; police are trained in "pain compliance" techniques, which include spraying pepper spray into protesters eyes, and forcing their eyes open to do so. It includes widespread spying at the local, state, and federal level, as well as spying by corporations like Stratfor. It includes charging activists with laws intended for violent terrorists, so that arrest is no longer a minor inconvenience, but a life-altering event. When non-violent activists are facing years in prison, for causing nothing more than minor temporary inconvenience, something is horribly broken.
I suspect most Americans would be disgusted by all of this, if they were really aware of it. But, it's not very frequently reported in mainstream media. I only know about it because I know some of the people involved and follow activist-oriented news sources.
It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism. I think that in itself is a more significant indication of how hopeless the situation in America is. It underlines the main reason why serious social change is so difficult.
Put it simply: the government exists to protect the interests of corporations and wealthy people. Dissent of any kind challenges the status quo and therefore must be discouraged and quelled by any means necessary. The rights of "The People" (i.e. the poor) mean jack shit, because The People only exist to make the rich richer. This has been the case since the country's founding.
This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.
I had an inkling, as I think most people do, even the people who most benefit from the status quo. But, being born white and male into a middle class household granted me a tremendous amount of privilege to avoid ever having to see it too closely, without even trying very hard. Having been exposed to technology at a young age, and encouraged in that pursuit, granted me a near complete lack of need to actually work all that hard to survive. It's easy to believe in a meritocratic society when you believe you're meritorious enough to deserve all the good things that happen to you and to avoid all the bad things being inflicted on others.
Let's just say I've grown as a person over the past few years.
It is called opening your eyes, cleaning them of the propaganda-rheum and seeing, wide awake the real structure of the world we live in.
I am a white male, totally privileged. Absolutely lucky to be that way by chance. And you know what - I know of this privilege, I did nothing for to earn.
I know, that the system is rigged like in a mobsters casino. And you know what - I believe it sucks real bad.
And people like you make it harder for everyone fighting for change. Or for people turning their backs on this system, robbing it of its support.
So please, do me a favor: Go home and play with your new shiny toys - what ever keeps you asleep in a world, that needs more people being awake and seeing for real.
Zeitgeist is a name to Marxism that doesn't suck. Anything green is left by definition. RT is official Russian Government propaganda channel. All the journalists you see there are FSB agents are have to cooperate with FSB.
At the same time US backed NGO in Russia are banned from receiving any money from the outside world and the Russian media are tightly controlled by Kremlin. There is no "voice of America" in Russia.
Why to fire bullets when soft skills of youth and intelligentsia indoctrination will do? It woke out great for them, hasn't it? We have a president Marxist, perfect product of the same forces in the educational system in the USA.
Just look how US becomes more and more like Russia as the years pass. I.e. oligarchs (the 1%), poor getting poorer, the police state, lack of democracy. The country is being russiaficated and nobody even notices what is the root of the evil. Genius!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doqvkC-jYk
It's a simple question. The post you replied to didn't even mention Zeitgeist or RT, it's you who equates "opening your eyes" with those.
Are you meaning to say that any and all outrage about totalitarianism is, like anything "left", planted by the KGB, and just a means to subvert the US, so it can be overtaken by totalitarianism? So what is your solution? A better police state to defend liberty?
Which of the two parties that can plausibly win elections do you believe does not do terrible things?
I worked for years for third party politics. I was a card-carrying member of the LP. Worked for ballot access for both LP and the Green Party. If that's how you want to activate, go do it. I'm done with it. I see the system for what it is: Corrupt.
As long as we have first-past-the-post voting, laws stacked against any third party or independent candidates, and a complicit media, third parties are a pit into which people throw their passions and their energy and their money, with no resulting change.
You do what you gotta do, and I'm gonna do what I gotta do. What I gotta do is help build communities of resistance, and make it as expensive and inconvenient as possible for this shit to keep happening.
But given this situation, I also blame the voters. Polarization is pretty high. Voters readily pledge loyalty to the party line rather than individually consider the pros and cons of each platform's ideas. Voters don't realize that the less precommitted they are to their party, the more pressure they exert over congress. I.e. the less confident politicians are that the same demographics will reelect them, the more likely politicians will actually pay attention to the voters. pg has noticed this, among others.
Unfortunately, zealotry is a tough nut to crack. It's hardwired into human psychology. One can find it in politics, religion, sports, warfare, the dynamics of any group in general. And consciously or not, the parties encourage it (since each party's optimal signalling strategy is to differentiate themselves as much as possible). The media encourages this too, definitely consciously since it feeds their bottom line.
Given Indirect Democracy is here to stay, I think the worst problem is the lobby system. Not only has the power of the voters been diluted, but it's taken a backseat to that of the lobbyists. I'm not saying corporations are conspiratorially colluding to directly control congress, but each corporation's individual bribes certainly incentivizes the government's behavior, and arguably more so than the people's votes.
Not really. The fact that people are individuals who always make decisions at the margins means you can fall into a sort of network effect hysteresis trap. If you have Party X who gives you 20% of what you want and is polling at 49%, Party Y gives you 22% of what you want and is polling at 49%, and Party Z gives you 80% of what you want and is polling at 2%, if you believe the polls are accurate, you have a much larger expected gain from voting for Party Y instead of Party Z.
This is true even if the voter preferences are universal -- if e.g. everyone would get 15%-30% of what they want from X and Y, and 70-90% of what they want from Z.
I believe the odds of activism like this stopping fracking companies is actually very good. Which is why they are being met with police brutality. Suppose fracking protestors can reduce the likelihood of fracking companies to get local land exploitation permits from 95% to 90%, then that is a huge win and will save many wildlife areas.
It may not be "meaningful change" in the large scheme of things, but wins in many small fights compound and leads to bigger changes. Convincing people that they can't make a difference is the most efficient method for suppressing dissent.
To win you need to be strong, skillful or lucky. When you are none of these things you are wasting your time seeking confrontation.
David won against goliath because he was skillful.
It is also useful to know that this kind of action isn't generally subject to arrest. This is a simple "make a little noise, get asked to leave, leave" kinda of thing. It is clear that even this minor act of disobedience is being punished in this absurdly over the top way in order to keep people thinking like you: It's too risky, it's too confrontational.
So, I have to repeat: What would you suggest? You are saying this is foolish, you are saying it should be done differently. But, you don't offer any suggestions for what would indicate skill (and no one will ever be "strong" against a foe as powerful as the fossil fuels industry).
And, maybe these folks are just hoping for luck, in the face of overwhelming odds. If enough people take a spin, maybe somebody will hit the jackpot that turns this tide. Given the circumstances, and our seeming inevitable slide into the madness that is global climate change (which, I'll assume, you're familiar with and not one of the nutty right wing climate change deniers), I'd say we need more people taking that chance, not fewer.
But, if you have better ideas, I'm all ears.
"Ideally the protestors in the film should represent the entire range of the political spectrum (right wing to left wing. gun rights to animal rights. pro-life to pro-choice. etc)."
Ideal is hard to find in the real world. This is a very one-sided battle, and pretty much always has been in the US. The powerful and rich are aligned against the powerless, and have the police, courts, and lawmakers, on their side.
You'd be very hard pressed to find right wing protesters being abused in the same way as environmental protesters (or, at all, for that matter). Because the right wing protesters aren't fighting for anything that oil companies, for example, would find threatening. It takes a combination of vast wealth and state/corporate collusion to get the kind of violence we've seen in the environmental activist community.
I've been amused to note that Alex Jones-sponsored gun rights rallies are vastly less likely to be harassed by cops than anything I would be involved in.
The kind of dissent that is most likely to be quashed is that of the powerless against the very powerful. White guys who support the death penalty don't fall into the category of "powerless" and their opponents are not the powerful (the powerful like having more tools to keep poor people in line and to give teeth to their threats, so are unlikely to worry about someone supporting the death penalty).
Pro-life vs. pro-choice? This one I'm really familiar with. Take Texas as an example...during the recent battle over womens reproductive rights here, the surprisingly peaceful pro-choice side had their heads smashed in (http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-12-arrested-tx-senate-oks-s...), were aggressively searched , had tampons removed from their purses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/cheats/2013/07/12/texas-co...), were falsely accused of trying to bring feces and urine into chambers (http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_23960175/el-paso-times), were spied on by DPS officers. No pro-life proponents were arrested, or detained, or harassed, despite the occasional actual assault on pro-choice protesters. All of this, despite the fact that pro-life supporters have literally murdered people in support of their cause...I'm not suggesting that DPS should have been harassing pro-life folks the way they were harassing pro-choice folks; just that it's clear which side the power was aligned on, and to what end.
Most right-wing "dissent" is manufactured outrage over imagined slights (or wealthy white people being pissed off that poor brown people could possibly want to be treated equally). I lean libertarian, some days, and so I'm sympathetic to some "right" causes...but, it's clear that when business and the poor go to war, it is a one-sided battle and nearly all the violence is being initiated by police. If we have to find examples of right wing protesters being abused in the ways that those on the left are being abused, we'll never see anything resembling the documentary you've imagined.
Anyway, I went looking to see if such a documentary existed, since I'd like to show such a thing at one of the Revolution in the Park movie nights I host in Austin. Couldn't find anything exactly along those lines, though it looks like someone was planning to make one last year, but seems to have stopped updating: http://examplesprotestdoc.wordpress.com/
But, most document...
I've never been to anything remotely related to Alex Jones, but having organized and attended a number of civil rights rallies, it's probably just an issue of demographics. Cops, Sheriffs and deputies tend to be more staunch second amendment advocates, except in larger cities. Also, and bear in mind this is anecdotal, but second amendment supporters tend to be the most respectful of the police tasked with keeping the peace at the rallies, and go far out of their way to keep from making those cops' jobs more difficult. Conversely (and again, anecdotally, but with lots of experience), anti-second amendment protestors seem to be far more unruly, with a contingent (at least in Maryland) that seem intent on trying to make the cops feel bad for their ambivalence.
With regards to fourth amendment rallies I've attended, the cops are decidedly more hostile, because they likely feel like they're the target of some of the protest. Also, in my experience, most of the cops justify their own fourth amendment violations as justified, or rationalized in some other way. Surely, they trust their own instincts, and they likely don't have any problems violating the fourth amendment rights of someone __if it leads to their arrest__ for some other crime that they initially suspected them of. On top of that, as the fourth amendment is typically violated by those in power, and the cops tend to be in power, the protestors there tend to harbor animosity.
I could go on forever, but I don't think you're far off the mark, except that you drew the line between left wing and right wing, and I think you're undervaluing how much a factor police bias plays in the issue.
Look into the history of gun control. When the Black Panthers were talking about the second amendment, Ronald Reagan, et al, were for control.
Maybe (being neither Democrat nor Republican) I just don't think in terms of left vs. right, but I definitely see your point. Having been involved with both left and right-wing protests though, at least a part of it is how the officers are treated. I've been at fourth amendment rallies and had pleasant conversation with cops, despite being there for a 'left-wing' purpose, and without giving any secret Republican handshakes or anything.
Why would you think your free speech rights should give you immunity from deportation if you're not actually here legally? Protesting while obviously out of compliance with the law is quite a bit different from being suppressed by a completely fabricated charge.
It is one of many chilling effects that makes large scale movements all but impossible in the US. Police simply wander around spotting people they think might have something in their past that allows them to arrest them. I'm a middle class white guy, and I've been detained and had my ID run at least a dozen times in the past two years, merely for having the gall to show up at a protest. I've never been arrested, and never had a warrant, so I don't fear being detained the way many would...but knowing that you will very likely be targeted just for being present, even if you aren't breaking any laws, insures a whole lot of people simply don't show up.
So, by saying this is OK, as long as it is not a "completely fabricated charge" you're insuring that there is no such thing as a large scale movement to change anything in the US. Most people cannot afford to be targeted by police in the way that a lot of activists I know have been.
I believe that undocumented workers have the right to free speech. I believe that people with warrants have the right to free speech. They don't have that free speech because they know they are likely to be targeted by police if they exercise that speech for dissent (just like anyone expressing dissent becomes a target). It's just that the cost of being targeted by police is so much higher than it is for someone like me.
Local police departments actually are not supposed to enforce immigration laws. It's even likely unconstitutional in some cases for local police officers to target people for searches and ID checks based on the assumption that they are here illegally. It's not even about my beliefs on the issue. It's about local police policy and ordinances.
The reasons that local police departments aren't tasked with immigration enforcement are many.
For example, imagine a domestic dispute between a person who is in the US without documentation and a partner who is here legally. Let's imagine the partner who is here legally is violent, and beats the crap out of the person who is here without documentation. How do you want this to play out? Do you want the person being abused to not call for help for fear of being deported? Or, do you want the cops to come do their job, help someone who is being hurt, and haul the abuser away leaving the victim of the abuse safe? Most jurisdictions in the US have chosen the latter. Cops have a lot of leeway to be assholes in this circumstance, but they're under policy guidance to help the victim and not make the situation worse.
Another example, say an undocumented immigrant witnesses a violent crime. Do you want them to be deported if they come forward and identify the assailant? Or, do you want them to be able to report the crime, give their testimony (even in court), and help put a dangerous person away?
I believe being part of the civic discourse, up to and including participating in a protest, march, rally, etc. is of a piece with these other examples. If a local police officer catches an armed robber, and that robber turns out to be an undocumented immigrant, I won't argue about immigration getting involved. But, if someone wants to speak to encourage more kind immigration law that effects them and their family? Yeah, I think they should be able to do that, without fear of being targeted.
Civil disobedience is great, and I support it. But, it is also an action that requires privilege. Many undocumented immigrants have families to support (often including children who are legal US citizens, having been born here); if they are arrested and deported for speaking out, their whole family suffers.
Admittedly, I fall very far on the side of being opposed to our immigration laws as they currently stand. I believe state borders are immoral, in and of themselves, regardless of how they are enforced. Even so, the reality is that local law enforcement shouldn't be using the threat of deportation to stifle dissent. Not because I say so, but because people all over the country have said so, and it is reflected in local laws and police department policies. But, when it comes to protests...the rules get tossed out the window. Protesters are nearly always considered second class citizens, and subject to more aggressive tactics; constitutional protections are considered much lower during a protest action, especially if some protesters are breaking the law.
Given that undercover cops often (so often that it is to be expected, and activist trainers have to cover it as though it will happen) incite law breaking in order to allow uniformed officers to engage more aggressively, I think it's time to turn that tide way the fuck back.
In short, I hear you. I might have even agreed with you at some point in the past. I understand where your position comes from. But, somewhere along the way, my allegiance flipped. I simply don't trust my government to have good intentions.
Shouldn't this extend to private property as well? Who are you to say who can and can't be in your home?
I believe it is a stretch to say that an entity as diffuse as the United States (or any nation state) should be able to prevent billions of people from traveling freely from Mexico to Canada.
In short, I think "private property" is a good and useful fiction that we can probably all agree on, when we are speaking of individual humans who live and work on a piece of property. When you begin to make up fictional entities to "own" the property, I am less confident of the rightness of the theory.
You are implying that only people who follow the laws in the US have the right of free speech. That's a very, very sad way to look at things, as it means anyone trying to actually change anything has no basic rights.
i.e. same sex couples, people smoking weed, etc. etc. These people are breaking the law (in most of the country) but they absolutely must be allowed free speech to talk about it. If not, how can anything ever change or get better?
Taking away free speech from people that don't follow the current laws of the US means a very bleak future.
What you are talking about is civil disobedience, but you don't seem to understand how that works either. Civil disobedience is knowing something is against the law, and doing it anyway as an act of political resistance to motivate change in the system. Even then, you accept that an act is illegal and that you are breaking that law, rather than just blanket argument that anybody who is actively protesting a law should be allowed to break it without legal consequences because they disagree with it. I get it, you're for immigration reform so you think it's a stupid law and you don't care if they break it. But I'm arguing from the standpoint of a general legal principle.
Not at all.
I'm for allowing people to assemble, peacefully protest and have their voice heard.
I'm for not escalating unrelated charges to people trying to do so.
Once you let that happen, you'll very quickly find every single person is breaking some obscure law or other, and every single person will be arrested when they even talk about voting for the other party.
If it was considered illegal i think the officers should be punished at least to some extent. Why are Police officers encouraging crime to begin with?
I think they should be, too. The judge had some harsh words for the APD, and the charges were reduced to misdemeanors and the sentence (which was originally looking like years in prison) to time served. Though, one of the protesters in this case ended up spending about 2 years in jail because he had a past warrant (he missed his court date for that old warrant in Dallas because he was in jail on a felony charge in Houston, so they punished him for missing that date). He was just released a few weeks ago.
It's also worth mentioning that APD did not reveal their officers had made the devices or suggested their use in the action, and fought to not reveal their involvement in court. The Houston police department, who were prosecuting the case, didn't even know APD was involved in the protest, until a few lucky breaks led to three of the six undercover officers being outed. It is, frankly, miraculous that those seven kids aren't still in jail and shackled with felony convictions. Dumb luck revealed that they'd been setup, and the prosecutors were forced to fold.
But, it's happening every day. This is standard operating procedure when dealing with protesters; and, not just at the national level. And, as far as we can tell, the chain of command on this particular operation went all the way up to the chief of police. It was not rogue cops going beyond their assigned duties to set kids up for felony charges.
Some references, so this doesn't end up being dismissed as a paranoid fantasy (I know it's pretty unbelievable stuff):
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-police-infil...
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Undercover-A...
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2012-09-07/apd-infiltrat...
More came out later based on open records requests, but my google fu is failing me at the moment. In short, it was actually worse than we knew during the early stages of the trial when these three articles were written.
"Why are Police officers encouraging crime to begin with?"
You tell me.
Why would police officers encourage crime, encourage violence, encourage escalation in tactics, etc.?
Some of those tactics were surprisingly creative and twisted... from using 'flexible laws' to justify arrests and constant surveillance to tricking him into emigration - he was a playwright and when police gave him a permission to travel to Austria to see the opening night of one of his plays he thought it was maybe a peace offering after years of troubles with the police. He went there with his wife but while they were there the police invalidated their passports and when they wanted to return home they were not allowed to cross the border and they were both forced to emigrate.
I don't think that's true. I think Americans actually like it this way. It gives a soccer mom a deep sense of contentment that if anyone so much as looks at her precious little darling she can summon a SWAT team to punish them. It just so happens that right now you have a President who is more than happy to deliver on this. There is an old saying: a country gets the government it deserves.
Especially in a democracy.
I suspect the situation had been as bad or worse before radio and television; that throughout history with very minor exceptions, there has not been a functioning democracy anywhere (in the common meaning of the term). I don't find your argument there was one convincing.
The amount of apathy in this country is staggering.
So yeah, welcome to the club. Business and government use the power of the later to enforce their will. The sad part is, people will cheer this type of behavior on provided its exercised against people they don't like but suddenly they are all aghast of when it hits them.
As with all other forms of freedom of speech, asking the government to silence people you do not like is akin to allowing government to silence you when someone else does not like your speech.
"In America, you’re simply guaranteed the right to speak without the government taking action against you. However, that doesn’t mean your employer can’t fire you for bad-mouthing him on Facebook, and it certainly doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want with full impunity"
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/opinion/guest_opinion/fr...
Abortion protestors don't merely express a point of view, they deliberately attempt to prevent people from accessing health services at places where an abortion may be provided. A protestor that disrupts a business or barricades themselves to a door can reasonably be expected to be detained or arrested, but not charged with terrorism or charged with major felonies.
Anti-choice protesters have assaulted women trying to get low cost health care, have murdered doctors, and have aligned themselves against the poorest, least powerful people in this country (poor women of color). Recently, a pro-life group distributed a message suggesting pretending to provide rides to women needing health care, but actually kidnapping them and taking them to a church. This is crazy shit, and some of them are terrifying people.
I also believe you're misrepresenting the state of affairs. Anti-choice protesters can protest right outside of clinics on sidewalks, streets, etc. At least in my state, they can. And, I've not seen much in the way of police violence against anti-choice protesters. I haven't seen police setting up anti-choice protesters and encouraging them to commit violent acts. Maybe this is happening, and I just don't know it, because I'm not in those circles (I think it's assumed here in this thread that I'm left wing, but that's not really accurate; though I am firmly pro-choice). I know it isn't happening in my state, however, as I saw it with my own eyes. Pro-choice groups were stalked by police, while pro-life groups were ignored even when they became aggressive and got physical.
Anyway, I've never asked for pro-life activists to be silenced. I do think that if they physically prevent someone from getting medical care, they are violating that person's basic rights. I also find it particularly reprehensible that they target the poorest and least powerful people. Wealthy white women get abortions all the time at places other than Planned Parenthood or other free and low cost clinics; but, pro-life groups would rather harass the weak and poor, who are often just needing birth control or medical services unrelated to abortion.
Welcome to one of the failure modes of representative democracy.
They were never anti terrorist. They're anti american laws. Bad luck, other countries quickly copied this fantastic idea.
But it's up to us. We voted in these monsters, and we need to vote them out.
<update> The state of Oklahoma has historically gone after activist groups. The IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) & Green Corn Rebellion being the extreme examples.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about state bar associations being able to control this misconduct.
At the end of the day it's the "who watches the watchers" problem. Prosecutors are the ones supposed to be prosecuting misconduct. Who are we going to get to prosecute them, and how is it we can trust them to do it when they ought to and not when they ought not to, any more than we can trust the original prosecutors?
The answer has to be in taking away the ability to abuse the law by taking away the broad prohibitions with high penalties that prosecutors are so fond of abusing. There is no call for a non-violent offender to be made a felon in any but the most exceptional and rare of cases, which means that the law should make it nearly impossible for a prosecutor to make that case. It is not necessary to use the penal system to destroy the life of everyone who makes a wrong decision; particularly when structuring things that way also allows it to destroy the lives of everyone who makes a reasoned decision to resist the status quo.
The answer is because an over-reactive police force encountering an "unknown substance" may end up spending significant resources shutting down the area and checking it for chemical and biological weapons, and nobody wants them to do that but neither does anybody want to be seen blaming the police for being overly cautious, so the blame is assigned to anyone giving them an excuse to do it. And then the police and prosecutors are given another weapon to use against harmless protestors that amounts yet again to felony causing trouble for the establishment.
The problem is the system rather than the people. "Punish the prosecutors" is trying to cure the disease with more of the disease.
https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-J...
The police have been and will remain the hired half...
We're all terrorists now.
The word "terrorist" has lost its meaning to me since just about everyone not doing as they're told are classified as a terrorist now.
It's just another buzzword that has lost all its original meaning.