EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Punishing Protest, Policing Dissent: What is the Justice System For?
This year promises to be another historic year of people calling for change worldwide. Citizens took to the streets for a wide variety of reasons, from the Wisconsin Capitol to D.C., which hosted many actions last year including the highly visible civil disobedience of activists seeking to halt the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. The resulting mass arrests, totaling over 1,200 by early September, surely played a large role in President Obama’s decision to delay approval of that climate- and water supply-threatening project.
The climate justice movement also experienced a low point this year, though, when its most visible young leader, Tim DeChristopher, was sentenced to two years in prison for disrupting a Federal oil and gas lease auction by peaceful means. Even though the auction was later shown to be illegal, DeChristopher’s case proceeded in a manner that made it clear that the government’s prosecutor sought to make an example of an activist who showed no remorse.
Tim DeChristopher (photo: 350.org)
For his part, Tim saw it as a necessary action to protect his future from runaway climate change, and seemed ready to prove that his movement is unafraid of such retribution when he refused to apologize or take a plea deal. As he told Terry Tempest Williams in Orion recently, “…it’s important to make sure that the government doesn’t win in their quest to intimidate people…They’re trying to make an example out of me to scare other people into obedience.” The punishing of protest is not unusual, and can result in long-term victories for those targeted, but that didn’t comfort Patrick Shea, DeChristopher’s lawyer, who said in a recent post that he’d witnessed “a miscarriage of justice, fairness, and what I believed America stood for.”
Occupiers, though, have racked up many more detentions, with 6,526 arrested in 110 U.S. cities so far, according to OccupyArrests.com. This wave of action and reaction has kept National Lawyers Guild (NLG) chapters and members very busy working to protect demonstrators’ constitutional rights. Founded 75 years ago to use the law to advance social justice and support progressive social movements, NLG coordinates attorneys, legal workers and law students, and provides legal briefing, case law research, legal strategy and tactical advice to activists. Over the past several months, its members have filed constitutional rights challenges, represented protesters in criminal court, trained and acted as Legal Observers®, and often provided ‘round-the-clock legal advice to Occupy encampments.
Their director, Heidi Boghosian, told me that guild members “…have probably pulled more all-nighters in the past few months than they did in all of college. But we hope that the Occupy movement continues, in as many creative incarnations as possible. For most of us, this kind of grassroots activism is what we live for.”
So I asked Boghosian this weekend how her view of the hierarchy of governmental threats to the exercise of political speech described in her 2007 book, Punishing Protest, has changed. She responded that two new significant trends are evident: “One, the use of high-technology and sophisticated military equipment, and two, cooperation between law enforcement and the private business sector, especially with regard to surveillance/spying and controlling media access to police actions.”
In some cities, such as New York, she said, “police are scanning irises of arrestees and are detaining those who refuse to be scanned. The stated purpose of the scans is to avoid mis-identifications in court, but this unregulated taking from those arrested for engaging in free speech activities is ominous; it would not be surprising if a database is being amassed of iris scans of political activists.”
NLG Director Heidi Boghosian. “Partnerships between law enforcement and corporations, including the news media, are cropping up with increasing frequency,” Boghosian said.In addition to police in Washington, D.C. using a truck with an infrared scanner to determine if individuals were sleeping at McPherson Square after they cleared tents from the Occupy encampment, other high-tech threats exist: “The federal government and local police agencies are using Predator drones with increasing frequency to spy on suspects domestically. The drones are equipped with high-resolution cameras, heat sensors and radar—it does not take much stretch of the imagination to see how the drones can be adapted for spying on political activists. These aircraft are capable of flying for up to 20 hours, making them more powerful than police airplanes or helicopters.”
Beside the high-tech threats, local governments preparing for large-scale protests before the political conventions are bolstering their standard toolbox with military equipment such as armed tanks. “The Tampa City Council voted to spend part of the federal grant money for the 2012 Republican National Convention— $50 million – for police “upgrades,” including a Lenco BearCat armored vehicle to supplement two older armored vehicles the city purchased through a military surplus program,” Boghosian said.
“Partnerships between law enforcement and corporations, including the news media, are cropping up with increasing frequency,” she continued. “Routinely, police shut down entire city blocks sweeping up everyone in sight, and control or prohibit credentialed journalists’ access during the process. That happened in New York when members of the press were kept away from a middle-of-the-night closing of Zuccotti Park, and in Los Angeles in late November when the LAPD shut down Occupy Los Angeles.” Boghosian noted in this case that, “Reports indicated that television news helicopters stopped sending images of officers marching toward City Hall because the news station entered into an agreement with the LAPD to not reveal their plans. The police imposed an air space blackout forbidding all but law enforcement helicopters to film above Solidarity Park.”
How much is the government reaction to Occupy changing how dissent is policed, I wondered? Boghosian answered that police have access to technology to monitor protesters in ways not previously possible. Besides facial recognition, Internet data mining, and even drones, “…a high technology facility is planned for lower Manhattan, where Wall Street businesses will cooperate with the New York Police Department in spying on citizens. NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly expressed the department’s commitment to implementing a security plan that will include a centralized coordination center with space for full-time representation from Goldman Sachs and other corporate partners.”
Then there’s the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, which issued a subpoena asking for three months of information from a Twitter account of a person arrested in the ‘trap-and-arrest’ of Occupy Wall Street marchers on the Brooklyn Bridge. The defense attorney, NLG member Martin Stolar, filed a motion to quash the subpoena contending that it was overbroad, was issued for an improper purpose, and constituted an abuse of the court process. He also wrote that the range of information requested suggested that the DA might be using the subpoena for investigative purposes rather than to provide evidence to uphold a charge of disorderly conduct.
Police also dealt a blow to using new media to cover protest actions when they raided the Brooklyn studio of Globalrevolution.tv, a website that aggregates live streaming content on the Occupy movement and arrested six of its volunteers. “Police had delivered a notice to vacate prior to the raid. Authorities claimed that the conditions in the space were perilous to life,” Boghosian noted drily.
Combine these developments with the new National Defense Authorization Act, (a broad and likely unconstitutional new law described by Glenn Greenwald as “…the first time indefinite detention has been enshrined in law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s,”) and one sees a broad and robust reaction to what Time magazine dubbed “the year of the protester.”
To the NLG’s Boghosian, not only is the NDAA unconstitutional, but also immoral and inhumane. The provisions on indefinite detention clearly violate due process and it overall “turns international humanitarian law on its head by mocking the concept that prisoners of war may be detained only until the end of hostilities,” she said. “As propaganda about radical Islam replace communism in the United States government’s rubric of fear, the executive branch abrogates any semblance of democracy. It was important that Chris Hedges brought his legal challenge to hold our leaders accountable and to propel critical issues into the public forum. I hope that he has a chance at prevailing and urge more citizens to bring such challenges to unlawful government actions. They may not like to let on, but judges read the newspapers. The silver lining in this is that the NDAA formalizes the many illegal practices already occurring, allowing formal challenges to be brought against them.”
From the multiple Occupy encampments to the climate camps on mountaintops in Appalachia to the one outside the courthouse in Utah where Tim DeChristopher took his defiant stand, all of the developments in how dissent is policed forces one to wonder whether the U.S. Justice System is actually about justice. Louis Wolcher, Professor of Law at University of Washington School of Law, told me that the term ‘justice system’ actually “…conflates law with justice, whereas the word justice means far more than law, as does the word ethics.” NLG’s Boghosian added that justice is also about politics, in that politics trumps justice and laws in most cases. “It takes a brave judge, and morally courageous lawyers, to stand up and make the just and legal decision in the face of the dominant political paradigm.”
What the justice system is actually for is a huge question, one that must be answered by the legions of activists, lawyers, and citizens who want to ensure a more transparent, just, equitable, and sustainable society. In the absence of such a response, the exercise of free speech in the U.S. will be increasingly constrained.
Heidi Boghosian, Patrick Shea, and others will continue the discussion of what the justice system is for next week: Punishing Protest: Live Discussion of the U.S. Justice System, February 21. The event is free and all are welcome to join by phone and computer to learn more, share their thoughts, and ask their questions.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


22 Comments so far
Show Allyou are still allowed to protest - if you obtain the correct permit.
What is your point? Nothing to be concerned about?
the clues: "allowed" "permit"
But they can refuse to give you a permit, for some made-up reason. Or they may let you protest - someplace else where no one will hear you. A clever bureaucrat can always find some way to do something indirectly that he is prohibited from doing directly.
And stay in permitted areas.
please sir, may I?
"Partnerships between the big companies and law enforcement!" Oh like the ones between the Axis powers and their collaborators in the Second World War. Oh, yeah, that's when we were on the right side of "world revolution."
I left out the media as mouthpieces and "partners" in the crime of making "war on democracy" as John Pilger would call it. In the last century much more applied in the Third World!
Are we in survival mode yet?
"What is the justice system for?"
***
First off, it's spelled Just Us. As in the .1 percent, which has structured the system to protect its interests from troublesome "citizens" (sic).
That's what the Just Us System is for.
Just as the Defense Dept is really the Aggession Dept, the Justice System in now the Strong Arm of Oppression Dept. See Naomi Wolf's "End of America" which spells out how a society transforms itself from a democracy to tyranny. It's all spelled out.
The names of Government initiatives are typically "Newspeak." There was a time when the United States had a Department of War and a Secretary of War. Then, during the Truman administration (specifically, in 1947 and 1949) administrative changes were implemented to change the name to the Department of Defense. Not coincidentally, this occurred in the same era in which the United States was most vigorously expanding its war capabilites to function in hostile capacity in so-called "peacetime." Also, not coincidentally, this occurred just after the last declared war in which the United State was engaged: the Department of Defense has thus NEVER participated in a declared war, and has always been officially "at peace," ostensibly "defending" the United States without belligerency against other nations. Of course, the truth is quite the contrary. The 1940's marked a major step up in America's worldwide military activity. We have been more aggressive since that time than we ever were before. (And it's not as though we were "Mr. Nice Guy" prior to the Truman presidency.)
The Department of Justice has had a longer existence. (It was begun in 1870 by the merging of the Attorney General's office with various other legal offices of the federal government.) Nevertheless, its name is also an example of "Newspeak." It has existed primarily to control any activiites by citizens which threaten the existing administrations of government.
The fascists have reasserted themselves yet again. They were forced to work in the shadows after WW11, but are back to where they were before and even more dangerous because of advances in technology. The human race is in for a fight for survival. If there was ever any doubt that money is evil, severe austerity, endless war and police brutality have put that doubt to rest.
Good work!
"forces one to wonder whether the U.S. Justice System is actually about justice." Is she for real? I knew the answer to that when I was ten years old, how is it that anyone with a brain doesn't?
Calling it the justice system is really a misnomer. It should be called the injustice system!
The justice system is a weapon wielded by the powerful against those who are defenseless. Taking it away won't be easy.
Domestically, this was/is the *entire* point of the phony "war on(OF) terror."
That way when the populace revolts, and justifiably so, they're no longer US citizens exercising their civil rights, they're "terrorists."
I think that we should be protesting this: Cheney, et al. should be... detained.
http://www.welcomethelight.com/2011/04/april-gallop-military-officer-pentagon-911-victim-sued-cheney-was-in-court-todaynews-blackout/
Ms. Gallop’s attorneys plan to file a petition for a re-hearing en banc to appeal to all judges in the case to agree to accept the case. If that gets denied, they will file Cert with with SCOTUS, which will probably also be denied.
However, the following points are grounds for challenging the decision of the Judge. These are facts which had to be ignored to make the decision to dismiss without trial. It is clear by what is reported here that the plaintiff did not have a fair hearing. The record of this hearing shows the judge to be biased, and bade the wrong decision... period.
1.
Mineta clearly told the Commission of the young man’s reporting of the progress of the plane heading for the Pentagon, first 50 miles out, then 30, then 10. When Cheney responded to the aide’s question about the orders still standing, he said, “of course, the orders still stand; have you heard anything to the contrary?”
Judge Chin decided to make no effort to confront the issue, whatsoever.
....and his failure to acknowledge the fact raises questions that are disturbing in the extreme.
2.
Judge Chin made no mention of the fact that two governmental entities, the National Transportation Safety Administration and the 9/11 Commission, could not agree on the supposed flight path of the plane alleged to have hit the Pentagon.
Necessarily ignored as well are the unavoidable inferences of governmental complicity, in the cover-up and in the execution of the attack, that arise from the disagreement. The incompetence of governmental entities may be posited as an explanation for the disagreement, but for a judge to make such a finding before a trial, is to invade the province of the jury.
3.
As a third instance, Judge Chin ignored entirely the passages in the Complaint which refer to expert analyses of the contents of the purported “black box,”
...the flight data recorder is completely inconsistent, not only with the physical ability of a Boeing 757, if it were to have come in contact with the building, not only with the known functions and capabilities of flight data recorders, but also with the videotaped evidence of the flying object which the government claims captures the impact of that object with the wall of the Pentagon. The only possible tactic that a judge could choose in deciding to dismiss this case, given the contents of the Complaint, is to ignore page upon page of printed words.
4.
Judge Chin makes no reference to the fundamental importance that must be attached to the physical whereabouts of Defendants Rumsfeld and Myers as the attacks were carried out..
The two highest ranking members of the chain of command, other than the President, were thus at the helm and saddled with the duty of protecting the country and the soldiers at the Pentagon in those moments. Whatever efforts they made to prevent the attack on the Pentagon were unsuccessful even though sufficient time and armaments existed to mount a defense.
they cannot avoid the scrutiny that ordinarily follows failure in the line of duty.
Rumsfeld and Myers have both denied their presence at the video-teleconference and at the heart of the command structure shortly after the South Tower was hit, and the world knew that a terrorist attack was under way.
5.
the Complaint also asserts that the defendants were aware of the danger faced by occupants in the Pentagon in sufficient time to evacuate the building and save many lives, but did nothing. Not one paragraph, sentence, phrase or word in Judge Chin’s decision addresses this claim.
If you have judge who does not follow recognized standards, then he is on record as having done so.
If there is record of a biased judge and an unfair decision, then why is it not being challenged? I would think
that another party could pursue this avenue of court misconduct. If you have judge who does not follow recognized standards, then he is on record as having done so.
This should be built upon. It is better than starting a new case over again, or at least should not be wasted.
Besides, it was an unfair treatment of the plaintiff.
"Punishing Protest, Policing Dissent: What is the Justice System For?"
Today it serves one purpose only. That of protecting the financial elite from those they seek to make subservient. It's rare to see any examples of it's old role of providing recourse to freedom and justice for all. Like everything else it's been privatized. With privatization for profit comes the necessity to pay for services rendered. If you can't pay you don't get service. That's the business model we are now all living under while fewer of us control the wealth of our nation the price for basic liberties is inflating.
At some point we will be restricted from purchasing it all. Even if we can come up with the money. It will become a restricted privilege, available only to a restricted class. Break out your copy of Animal Farm. The "pigs" now control the running of the farm.
People are virtually unanimous in the concern for clean safe environments. Yet they are powerless against entities of capital. Most major problems in our society can be attributed to this same model. Rather than picketing every time a corporation makes a foray upon the public, the people need to change the model. It's time to consider the concept of the general strike. This means has been used effectively throughout history and is the only weapon that will stop the tyranny of capital, which is unrestrained. The people have the absolute power to change society. We only lack the imagination and vision.
Wikipedia has a nice piece on the general strike.
The sad history of our injustice department continues. Google "whistleblowers" and one will see that those who blow the whistle on the government generally are punished ranging from marginalized, to actual murder. Here is a partial list of noted whistleblowers and their punishment:
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis - His report on the Afghan war is in the ensuing article.
Daniel Ellsberg - The pentagon papers about the Vietnam war.
Roger Boisjoly and William McDonald - They tried to stop the Challenger shuttle launch because of the defective O rings. Their careers were destroyed
Bradley Manning - Military crimes in Iraq - solitary for over a year.
Terry Reed - Reported the involvement by the CIA in the importation of tons of cocaine to finance the illegal shipment of arms to the Nicaraguan contras. He spent the next three years as a fugitive and his lawsuit was shut down by justice dept.
Karen Silkwood
The Cuban Five - still in prison for infiltrating our terrorist orgs
Juan Posada Carilles - His trial for the bombing of a Cuban airliner has been "postponed" by the justice department