Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Antiwar March Ends In Tense Standoff, 396 Arrests
The final night of the convention led to confrontations between police and protesters. At least 396 people were arrested, an official said this morning.
Police arrested scores more people Thursday night after another series of tense showdowns with protesters on the final night of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.
Police push people back after a person was arrested during a protest at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., Thursday, Sept. 4, 2008.
(AP Photo/Matt Rourke) Sweeping into the State Capitol grounds in riot gear, police used snowplows, horses and dump trucks to seal off downtown from antiwar demonstrators attempting a march to the Xcel Energy Center.
"They chose not to leave when told to do so and now everyone's paying the price," said one officer on the scene.
This morning, the Joint Information Center said 396 people were arrested during Thursday's demonstrations, and a total of 818 people were arrested during the four-day convention. The numbers are preliminary; an official count will be released later today, said a spokeswoman for the center, which has been providing information about arrests and security during the convention.
Most of those arrested were ticketed and released, the spokeswoman said.
Thursday night, as police blocked off bridges to stop demonstrators from getting downtown, a rolling series of sit-down protests started on the John Ireland Boulevard bridge over Interstate 94. The arrests ended with more than 200 demonstrators, squatting with their hands on their heads, taken into custody on the Marion Street bridge.
Police used tear gas and pepper spray to quell some of the unrest.
A group of more than 700 demonstrators had a permit to rally and march. But they were angry the permit expired at 5 p.m., before delegates began arriving at the Xcel Energy Center for GOP presidential nominee John McCain's acceptance speech.
Among those arrested were two Associated Press reporters covering the event. They were issued a citation and detained, along with a KARE-11 TV photographer and more than a dozen other members of the media. All were released later in the evening.
"They're trying to steal our protest -- we have to ignore the police intimidation," Katrina Plotz, an organizer with the Anti-War Committee, hollered from a stage in front of the Capitol steps.
But ignoring the police wasn't easy during one of the largest shows of force on the fifth straight day of confrontations in St. Paul.
61 Comments so far
Show AllI swear, the treatment of protesters and the media by police at the last two consecutive RNCs should be the topic of a documentary or something. People have no idea that this stuff goes on.
But what I still find most chilling this time around is the preemptive arrests and the charges of TERRORISM leveled at those arrested.
I mean, I expect the charges to be used against so-called "eco-terrorists" (whatever that means), but these people hadn't even done anything yet and it seems like the worse that they were planning was an attempt to stop buses nonviolently.
Next time a bunch of drunken idiots flip a car over after a sporting event doesn't end in their favor, perhaps they should be charged with terrorism too. It's only fair.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Don't get too worked up about it. The charges are plainly nonsense.
What we've seen in the past is that the police want to arrest people and get them off the streets until the convention is over. So, they come up with these sorts of bogus charges. But, the track record we've seen is that these charges will never stand up. In NYC, the city didn't even bother to prosecute those who wouldn't meekly plead guilty. And any decent defense attorney would be able to get ridiculous 'terrorist' charges tossed out.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I'm not so sure Samson...The terrorist charges, massive coordinated police presence, and arrests of journalists that we've seen at this year's conventions are unprecedented. Especially since there are 300,000 illegals (or not) currently sitting in detention facilities strewn around the country - some for six months or longer. Like you say, I'm sure most this current group will be cut loose and ticketed, but I'm willing to bet that the anarchist groups won't get off with just a simple distruction of property charge.
"eco-terrorists" (whatever that means),"
So far the term refers to "Property Damage" and frighetining people when it supports anti-Civilization causes and direct action against the activities of Corporate Fascism: such as clearcutting, overdevelopment, vivisection and other crimes against non-humans and nature.
Somehow when property damage and violence supports right wing causes (such as the bombing of abortion clinics) the Corporate media and government do not use the term "Terrorism".
According to the current government's definition of "Terrorism", the Boston Tea Party which preceeded the American Revolution could be defined as "Terrorism".
Actually, the Boston Tea Party was completely, 100% terrorism. Violent acts seeking to instill fear in an opponent and further a political agenda. The US government is the world's largest provider of terrorism, they just refuse to define it as such.
I'm just not going to condemn terrorism for being terrorism. Instead let's evaluate it based on its effectiveness and the morality or immorality of its objectives. Clearly, the police actions at the RNC (especially the preemptive arrests of journalists) are terrorism, and an immoral form of it. But other forms of terrorism can ultimately help reduce the loss of life from a revolution, or encourage the people to stand up for themselves. People should be scared. The police are both incapable of protecting them and unwilling to do so. Once we realize that the police state does more harm than good, we can enact change.
all one can say is:
BRING OUT THE GOON SQUAD.
The only terrorists in St Paul were INSIDE the convention center, or outside in riot gear. That this happened in Minnesota, one of the most progressive states in the country makes this even more appalling.
""They chose not to leave when told to do so and now everyone's paying the price," said one officer on the scene."
There is so much wrong with that statement that it is hard to know where to begin. Perhaps with the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Note that the words, 'when permitted by the government', or 'when allowed by the police' do not appear in that text. My personal feeling is that the people who back in the 1780's insisted on these rights being defined before they accepted this constitution would be shocked by this.
What the police officer is saying is that any police officer can at any time cancel citizen's first amendment rights by the simple act of 'telling them to leave'.
The second part of that is the notion of collective punishment. The part about 'now everyone has to pay the price.' In international law, this is a concept that has been firmly rejected. You can not collectively punish a population because of the actions of some. This is precisely what the Nazis did in Europe in the 1940's. And its why the Nazis are still hated to this day.
The one thing we really should do as a movement is to clearly and constantly point out that this is a very 'anti-American' statement. This police officer is rejecting the very basic notions of America. He probably wears an American flag on his uniform. Too bad we can't have a public ceremony where that is ripped off, because he's clearly stated that he is opposed to the fundamental principles upon which America was founded.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Wow samson, I think this is the first time you haven't brought up the complicit democratic party---thanks for keeping your eye on the ball here...
Has anyone read the Patriot Act? Can it be read? Are there sunset clauses in the 2nd one? Does it include laws that limit assembly?
(I heard on NPR this morning that "over 300" were arrested at the RNC convention this week---great reporting!)
I tried to read the Patriot Act when I found it on-line. But after scrolling through what seemed like hundreds of pages to find the "meat," I gave up and saved it to a disc. Haven't gone back into it. I have a feeling it's probably so cryptic that only a last year law student or a lawyer would be able to decipher it.
To, ~madcow~, in re. September 5th, 2008 1:49 pm
The trick with the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (that's the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001") is that its not so much a Law, but a huge collection of Amendments, Revisions, and Alterations of existing Laws.
Its a bunch of "where it now reads 'and' will be changed to read 'the' on lines 44-67 blah, blah, blah..." with only reference numbers and names for the laws it changes. So, this makes it impossible for anyone without a Law Library to understand what the hell is going on with this Act.
I took a Quarter-length course on it and I still don't really get the whole thing but to have a go at your questions:
1. Yeah. Some. Kinda. Not the Members of Congress who passed it, but other people.
2. Not without many other documents to reference. Unless you mean "allowed" to be read. Then the answer is Yes, of course, it's an Act of Congress -your servants in Government- the paper it's written on, the ink with which it is written, the file it is in, the filing cabinent that is in, and finally the building that surrounds all this is Public Property. Your Property. My Property. Our colletive Property.
3. Don't know. But remember that a new Congress can chuck all this out- as long as they have the resolve to do the right thing. The "Patriot" Act changed many laws, therefore an "Anti-Patriot" Act could change them back, or again.
4. No, that would be hard to do. The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is much sneakier. First it muddles up a bunch of old Laws makes them vague and confusing and therefore difficult to apply. Second, it carves out a bunch of exemptions in regard to "terrorism", "suspected terrorism" "conspiracy to do all kinds of stuff", and -important for the protesters to remember- "Anarchists" and "Anarchist Groups" that allow Police and Federal Agents to do all kinds of crazy B.S. Remember in the first or second season of "South Park" where Stan's Uncle or whatever and his 'Nam buddy aren't allowed to hunt, but all they have to do is yell "Its comin' right for us!" and they can kill whatever they want, however they want in "self defense"? The "Patriot" Act does kinda the same thing, an Agent or Officer simply shouts "Suspected Terrorists!" and those Citizens' Rights and huge swaths of the Law and Legal Precedent magically disappear and the Cop can do whatever they want. That's a gross simplification, but I hope you get the "feel" of the thing from it.
What should be really disturbing is the continued "Nationalization" of Law Enforcement that the RNC and DNC situations demonstrate. The "Joint" actions between local Police and the FBI and the "cooperation" between the Dept. of "Homeland" Security and the local Sheriffs, all this stuff seems to be leading to a Federalized, Centralized, command structure and heirarchy for Law enforcement in the U.S., with the old-style "Metropolitan Police" responsible for Citizen Protection morphing into a Brotherhood of Paramilitaries directed at Citizen Repression.
The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is an essential part of all this, but the momentum toward this Radical Change has gone beyond that now and the problem is much larger and more difficult.
If only the Members of Congress who signed this monstrosity without reading it would develop the courage and honor required to admit that mistake (the not reading) en mass and publicly!
That would cut some of the wind from the sails of this fascist Revolution.
Also remember the Courts, as packed full of political appointments and old yachting buddies as the Federal Courts are, this stuff is slowly percolating through the system.
And the Civil Courts? Let's just say I wish I was Amy Goodaman's Attorney. Nothing more fun that stickin' it to the fascist bastards in the only place they feel pain -their wallets.
Have Fun,
-matti.
awesome info matti---thanks much!
I totally agree with you, of course! But I wonder how many people who visit this web site also support the Second Amendment, which reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
I support the second amendment as well as the first. BUT - like everything else in our lives, I believe that just as we're free to own a car, with the rules and regulations that go with that ownership, that we should also have rules and regulations for our gun ownership.
So out of curiosity, is our free speech also subject to rules and regulations that go with ownership?
It seems to me that free speech, a right listed with 4 other freedoms in the 1st amendment and the right to bear arms, in the second amendment all alone by itself, are being interpreted very differently in this forum. If you have rules for one why not the other? And if you do have rules, would not planning to throw urine bombs, damaging property, disrupting a convention not also be outside the rules?
I think the behavior of the police at this event was deplorable, but not unexpected. We expect our rights to be upheld, but we aren't really so excited about guns and gay marriage (really an odd combination...) here on this forum. Seems very selective to me... portable morality - applies to me not to you.
Count me in too. I support the 2nd Amendment (even though my British friends think that's crazy) but I support it because it is there and I don't support the idea of picking and choosing which parts of the Bill of Rights are worth supporting. I thing picking and choosing opens a door, and I know I don't like where that door leads.
I believe this is fair comment. Good points all. Though any police officer does under law have that power to direct, he better be really sure in exercising it and should be responsible for it. Doesn't always happen that way.
I agree that all these charges will fade away in all likelyhood.
Generalized statements about all "police officer(s)" and their "power(s)" are not applicable.
There are many Police organizations under the jurisdiction of many Governments, City, County, State, and Federal. All representative, and therefore all ultimately aswerable to the People.
I realize that you may not be advocating any change to this with your general statement, but -in light of recent events- I think it is important that everyone is clear on this and careful in what terms we employ to discuss this.
The Nationalization of Police is -at the least- a fascist-IC concept and is most certainly an UNAMERICAN one.
We must remain vigilant in our opposition to this.
Have Fun,
-matti.
Unfortunately, meanings can change. Today, this sentiment epitomizes Americanism. I am anti-American, because America has become evil. I am comfortable saying that I am anti-American. The officer will not be stripped of his flag, so I choose to relinquish mine. It's silly to hide behind ideas like patriotism. Nationalism is NOT a virtue any more than gang pride or racial pride is. Once we recognize that all humans are in the same boat, we can start to move away from ridiculous and harmful practices like hatred, prejudice and war. War is often just a national hate crime.
Also, I'd like to note the numerous instances of anti-sedition acts throughout our history. This is not the first time that the government has tried to squash our right to free speech, and it's not the first time it has impinged upon the freedom of the press. America was never perfect, and from the outset there was a fear of true democracy (for instance the institution of the electoral college and representative government), and oppression of certain peoples. The spirit that inspired the revolutionaries to rebel against England is the same spirit that inspires me to rebel against the government that they set up to reinforce their imperfect ideas. Looking back upon the constitution or its framers is reactionary and anti-progressive. They were no less fallible than we are today. So let's try to find out new, better solutions to the problems that they clearly failed to adequately solve.
If you are against us, I fail to see how you will help solve anything? Are you sure you are anti-American or just unhappy with our present course? I hope.
I anti-American in the same way that I oppose every nation and all national identity. National pride leads to needless, hate-and-revenge driven wars. National pride obfuscates the fact that all humans are essentially the same. Patriotism shares all of the dangers of religious zealotry: renunciation of logic and conscience in favor of adhering to ideas asserted by others, in-group/out-group distinction (and hence alienation, contempt and hatred), group-think and self-deceit, close-mindedness, etc. Nationalism is the seed of the fascism we are seeing today.
I love the American people, just like I love the Palestinian people, the Iraqi people, the English people, the French people, the Japanese people, the Russian people, the Chinese people, the South African people, the Mexican people, the Cuban people, the Australian people, the Indonesian people, etc, etc, etc. I hate the American government, just like I hate the Palestinian government, the Iraqi government, the English government, the French government, the Japanese government, the Russian government, the Chinese government, the South African government, the Mexican government, the Cuban government, the Australian government, the Indonesian government, etc, etc, etc.
I specifically chose the term anti-American for two reasons.
One, it was pertinent to the issue at hand and illustrated my point that fascist ideals ARE inherently American ideals and this nation grew out of the repressive worldview of the puritans. I reject everything America stands for: imperialism, capitalism, hypocrisy, aristocracy disguised as democracy, double-speak, corporatism. I don't care one way or another about destroying the country, but I stand in opposition to its ideals.
Two, it offends people. Getting offended is having your worldview challenged. If I get one person to rethink their beliefs, it's worth whatever ostracization that gets heaped on me.
Lastly, thank you for latching onto one word out of my whole post instead of thoroughly reading and responding the the actual ideas I was attempting to share. It gave me a great opportunity to go into great depth on a point completely tangential to what I was trying to say, thereby distracting from the initial conversation, while still serving to illustrate the superficialist aspect of the American mindset.
Yep, here is American democracy....which the current administration are trying so hard to shove down other countries' throats....at work. i watched, appalled, a group of bicycle police push and shove a lone demonstrator, spray her in the face with something quite powerful, and then push and shove her again. bullying and violence are the only things they know. so much for democracy....have Americans not yet worked out that it doesnt exist? have they not yet cottoned on to the fact that virtually all their 4th amendment rights have disappeared in the last 8 years? what hope is there?
land of the free........?
How is this different from Tibet this is only worst
Fear the day when these protesters will be armed
I look forward to it. It'll be the beginning of a revolution.
Land of the free, and the home of the brave?
You Merkins are funny!!!!
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
I was talking to my friend who is a journalist in Beijing about this funny thing I noticed:
When repression of protest occurs in China, the Western media overly emphasizes police action while downplaying what provoked it (ie, they never show that the people police are mistreating were throwing rocks or waving bottles or clubs around). Sometimes the media even outright distorts information (like showing a protester being put in an ambulance to be take to the hospital, but typing in the caption that they are being taken to jail... and since none of us Westerners can read the characters on the ambulance, we are none the wiser).
And yet the very same media, when it comes to protest in the U.S., overly emphasizes the actions of protesters (ie, OMFG, they broke a window!) while downplaying police violence and basically blacking it out from the media. Police responses are always tempered and appropriate and the result of out of control protesters.
Does anyone else find this to be a ridiculous double standard?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Yes, expected as well as ridiculous. American hypocrisy fails to surprise me anymore.
perceptionexperiment September 5th, 2008 3:36 pm
Do you honestly believe that protestors here are treated the same as they are in China?
Other than that, fair point.
Comparing the USA's policies with those of other states is mostly irrelevant because the state is just a tool of the people. It's better that we judge the intent of the people. In the social democracies the state FEARS the people, indicating civic responsibility among the people. Per capita, the Chinese have managed to resist supporting the activist state to a MUCH greater degree than Americans have. This means that overall China stands on much higher moral ground than the USA. You might congratulate your Chinese peers for their civic responsibility in denying the state their personal support. The state should be a passive tool of the people, NOT activist.
"...our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
This is disgusting. There is no freedom here, anymore. Thank you, Republicans, for destroying the Republic and everything it stands for.
Thank you, Republicans, for destroying the Republic and everything it stands for...
Actually, the heavy handed use of police against popular dissent started under Clinton, in places like Seattle and DC. The Canadian "liberal" PM Chretien then fully supported violent police repression in Quebec city.
And the APEC summit in Vancouver, BC in 1997.
just all around criminal behavior by st paul and other police and armed goons.
i heard they arrested a 5 year old during the home raids last weekend.
people all over the country will have to be in the streets all during the elections this fall.
Clinton was Republican-lite. Aside from the (mostly cosmetic) wedge issues of guns, gays and abortions, he was as much a corporate-friendly kleptocrat as the worst of them. On issues like NAFTA, banking/finance deregulation, big pharma and health insurance "reform" and media/free speech issues, Clinton's policies were as good for the corporate elite as those of Reagan or Bush the First.
That wouldn't do. Bill, especially, played the corporate cronyism game as good as GOP elite did. This threatened to attract the real power behind the GOP, corporate money, away from the Republican Party leaving it with only a bunch of fundies and racists to feed it's campaign coffers.
That's why he is reviled so badly by the Republican "base" -- he was an easy target upon which to focus the hatred of the socially conservative, so that's what they used to impeach him, and to defeat the next two Democratic presidential candidates.
History Repeats
STUDENTS IN NORWAY RIOT AGAINST NAZIS; Police Arrest Quisling Enemies
Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
October 7, 1940, Monday
Officer, are you protecting the public interests? Or are you protecting elite interests? You have NO authority to protect elite interests.
""They chose not to leave when told to do so and now everyone's paying the price," said one officer on the scene."
Samson has already pointed out that the police do not have this power. Such power probably rests with the mayor who would have to read the riot act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
This seems to be part of US law and why the authorities cannot use existing law is inexplicable.
madcow September 5th, 2008 1:49 pm writes, "Wow samson, I think this is the first time you haven't brought up the complicit democratic party---"
-Please allow me to make up for Samson's omission.
This affront to Democracy was set up by the Democrats when they capitulated to the stolen election of 2000. The one they love to blame on Nader. Once the Pugs realized they have nothing whatsoever to fear from Dems they grew bolder and stole another one. They outed CIA agents, broke Geneva Conventions, started wars of aggression, ignored laws with signing statements, defied subpoenas, and illegally spied on citizens.
By doing nothing except to insist impeachment is off the table the Dems sent a powerful message to the Pugs: The sky is the limit. The Pugs obliged and have done as they pleased without the slightest consequence. The weakness of their supporters is highlighted by their continuing support even after being betrayed. Lesser-evilism is the rule not the exception for Dem Party supporters.
So the cops threw protesters in jail for protesting in spite of their right to do it and what do the Dems say? Silence speaks louder than words. Once thrown in jail they could be held there for at least 36 hours (not counting weekends and holidays) essentially eliminating their chance to protest. Those saying not to worry because the charges are bogus are missing the boat.
Where is the outrage that citizens can be locked up for exercising their rights? Who will give them back the three days of their lives they spent locked up? Even if eventually the charges don't hold up, they already served three days in jail for nothing. Instead of protesting they got locked up. That is an outrage. I hope the the ACLU files law suits on behalf of the true heroes who paid a price for their principles. My hat is off to all of them- KUDOS!
Yeah I lay this on the doorstep of the Democrats too! Go Greens! Go Nader! Go any 3rd party that is opposed to war, for people and against corporate and government corruption!
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
…..Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,…
QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS
,WHAT,WHO,WHY,WHERE,WHEN
FREEDOM
WHAT is this thing called freedom that some say they have and don’t? Is it that the one claiming freedom is still walking around and not behind a guarded fence? The leaders who say that we must let them keep us safe but must give up rights that lead to freedom? And the ones behind the fence with no guilt or proof of guilt? This is freedom?
who would have this thing, this philosophy, this right called freedom? Is it just the strong that would proclaim it and use force to drive home that they are free and all the rest of peoples should be like them? Is freedom granted with a gun or like money; the more you have the more free you are? Does this sound like my country and is it exclusive to it? Yes to the first and an emphatic no to the second. When all the me’s understand that it is the “we” peoples of the whole planet that have the right, there will be no freedom for any. All we have is a mirage.
why would anyone care if the strong dominate the weak and impose their version of what would pass as freedom because they said so? Has it been ever thus? There is no sanity in any of this and The Creator; even with giving all free will had surely hoped and desired that all the created would think as a “we” peoples and not as a me people that used freedom as a word and not as a right that all deserved and had a right to.
Where on this planet should there be freedom? Is it just for certain races, peoples, nations, regions, Where is it written that only certain ones would be granted this most basic rights of all humans? My fundamental thought is that if all peoples were to practice the “we” concept there would be no more war and with all the divergent groups, nations and peoples doing their own thing trade and other commerce would flourish and with all the different climes strife would be minimized. Without the “we” concept freedom cannot be for any.
When is this ever going to be and has it happened before? It has happened before because if I thought of it then it has been out there before. Solomon had it right when he said that “there is nothing new under the sun”. So many chances in history from many parts of the globe and it just does not matter how old a person thinks the human race is it is still many failed chances. Hope reigns eternal though in my heart and soul for it to come to fruition.
Tony 9/4/08
Regarding the centralization/militarization of "law enforcement" :
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_FALCON
Again, someone needs to organize a class action law suit or to congregate all the "anarchic criminals" together & file a 30 to 40 million dollar lawsuit against the city & the RNC. Fuck the pigs.
For those having a hard time dealing with the hurricane of verbiage that is the misnamed PATRIOT ACT, look up Hitler's ENABLING ACTS, put in place the day after the Reichstag fire (set by the SS and blamed on a Dutch Half-wit with communist leanings)
They are much more straight forward and clear cut, but does the same thing, suspends the civil liberties of the Weimar Constitution and authorizes warrantless searches, wiretapping, monitoring of telephone conversations, and the removal of anyone deemed to be dangerous or an enemy of the state. Sound familiar?
That, too, was to be a temporary act, until the danger was over. It was repealed by the fact that the Germans were defeated and Nazism went underground. Seems to me it surfaces from time to time, here and there. Lately more here than there.
I was born and raised in St. Paul, and I'm really ashamed and sad to read about all this. Here are some of my concerns, similar to some already mentioned, plus a few I have not seen here:
1. Journalists were arrested, including professional MSM journalists (AP), independents, and citizen-blogger journalists. Cameras were confiscated, and in many cases, not returned when the people were released. This infringes on their right to come back to the protests and record police misconduct and extremism.
2. The Twin Cities (ST.Paul-Mpls) "City Pages" (weeekly?) newspaper recorded an incident of a young male -- what to call him? "n'er-do-well"? was arrested and then approached by the police to attend vegan pot lucks (!?) and infiltrate peace protest groups in advance. Even Newt Gingrich claims the war on terror is bogus; we might conclude some things about some of the rationalle and result of 9-11 and pratriot act -- that it was not merely to deal better with foreign Islamic extremism (some of which we attracted and fed by channeling ISI funding for the Mujahadeen in the covert proxy war against the USSR--like having to be ready to kill the Frankenstein monster of our own creation)--but that it was in part about an aggressive new stance toward domestic groups, many quite peaceful. This is like COINTELPRO all over again. There were reports of youths in black, with bandanas, among the otherwise peaceful crowd. If someone is wearing a mask (think Boston tea Party), they usually are not doing it for artistic expression, and don't want their identities known because they're going to break laws and cause trouble. I'm glad some protesters took a strong stand against such violence, but we don't know how much of it sprung up of its own because of all the discontent and anger at Bush, and how much was propted by the Feds or elements IN the REPUGLICKAN PARTY. Rush Limberger, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reiley and Annie Coulter would have loved protester violence. We have known for a long time that they have used such Rovian tactics to win elections in the past. To not suspect a conspiracy is to be guilty of the saying Bush is famous for mangling: Fool me once, shame on you....
3. I know many people whose experience of the demonstrations was mostly quite peaceful, except for two things: First, the police or national guard, or whatever they were, in riot gear. Many of these were not St. Paul or Mpls police, but others brought in from outside for the special occasion of the RNC. It seems to me as if they may have used the local police more often on bikes, in shorts, and no riot gear, in the outer areas, not close to the Excel Center itself, and used the out-of-towners close by, as they might not have hesitated to use force against the locals. It concerns me that there was not more reporting about the mostly peaceful demonstrations, or about these dynamics of local and out-of-town riot-gear police.
4. Others have reported regarding the RNC purchase of millions in insurance to cover possible lawsuits against the police, which, they argue, then makes them feel free to be more forceful. The threat of lawsuits hurting individual abusers of power, as well as a local town that doesn't reign them in, should always be present to check this kind of power.
5. Many in the police and brances of the military tend to be conservative, not in the sense of Ron Paul and Libertarian Bob Barr (Bush critics), but conformists, more likely to be pro-Bush/Cheney/McCain, and against peace protesters. Even if there was VERY LITTLE use of force or violence by the crowds, it seems that the actions of the police were often meant simply to give the appearance of a "radical" event where there was none. Spray some pepper spray on some non-violent walkers, distribute some tear-gas, and you've got a media event. The MSM will report in favor of the police bias, and the majority of Americans will get the impression that protesters are bad, evil troublemakers, and even if you WANTED to join a peaceful demonstration, what's the use if you risk getting sprayed and gassed?
Don't worry about StPaul, most of the local reporting showed that most people were very peaceful. What concerns me is the distortion by the national MSM and the left wing blogs with agendas who obviously want to spin this for political reasons.
NPR had a balanced view nationally, but then again they have a big presence here in StPaul called MPR.
Remember, the government has used agents provocateurs for many years to create incidents and to discredit legitimate movements through violence. If the truth be known, many of those masked "anarchists" and rock throwers may well have been police agents disrupting a peaceful demonstration, or providing a trigger for mass police action and arrests.
It has worked before and I'm sure it still does. During the WTO demonstrations in Seattle, the demonstrators were non-violent, but practicing civil disobedience. The cops were doing their usual, macing demonstrators and bystanders alike. Then some masked "anarchists" started breaking windows. The cops, who were covering the marchers and demonstrators like a blanket, were always in the wrong place to catch the "anarchists," but they used them to increase the violence against the peaceful demonstrators.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
Too long, got to the end, forgat what the front was about.
As for being in the Twin Cities, most of the blame is being put on the anarchist goons (both local and outside) who started this crap. They came dressed in "ninja" black to a peaceful march carrying gas masks, goggles, and "medic" first aid kits. Do those sound like people who wanted to march peacefully?
the blame, my friend, is on all that sit on their big american butts and blog rather than get the hell out in OUR streets and sit down until 400million dollars a damn day for murdering iraqis is stripped from the military industrial complex. now go...