Slashdot Mirror
Feds Helped Coordinate Occupy X Crackdowns
Lawrence_Bird writes "The Feds helped break up the Occupy protests by providing advice and assistance from the FBI and DHS. From the article: 'Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said on Monday that her city and others across the country coordinated their crackdowns of Occupy Wall Street camps. Rick Ellis, a Minneapolis-based journalist for Examiner.com, reports that these cities also had the help of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." In related conspiracy news, apcullen wrote in with a story by Time Magazine guest columnist Naomi Wolf who claims: "Instead of imminent safety issues, the timing of the crackdown was far more likely to do with the fact that the Occupy movement was planning something media-savvy at last: a 'carnival' on Wall Street on Thursday in which protesters would telegenically tell their individual stories of hardship, job loss and disenfranchisement. It is that event that posed a 'safety risk' — to the efforts of Wall Street and the Bloomberg administration to manage the narrative."
You don't get it. OWS is protesting fraudsters like Christy Mack and Susan Karches and the increasing disparity between wage growth between the upper and lower clases.
Yeah, but this happens in Oakland even without the occupy protests.... its a shithole (I've lived there.)
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.
The coverage of the Tea Party (at least for the first six-nine months, before people figured out they were a bunch of Koch-funded ex-Birchers) was mainly positive in the mainstream media and followed almost immediately, regardless of what you may have heard from your right-wing blogs.
Now look at the OWS coverage. It was almost completely ignored by the mainstream media for the first week, generally discounted thereafter (They don't have an agenda! They aren't serious!), and then actively denigrated by reprinting local government press releases (Homeless and ex-cons are taking over hippie-land! Something must be done!). Not to mention the fact that mainstream media is still using the Tea Party (and its advocates) as "the" representatives of conservative thought in this country - even though it's popularity even among self-identified conservatives has fallen through the floor.
Corporate, mainstream media is still giving conservatives blowjobs while lobbing brickbats at liberals. There is no "liberal media". Mainstream media is overwhelmingly in the pocket of conservatives and (more importantly) the corporate masters for whom they are the "useful idiots" (ala Stalin).
That is all.
Wasn't this pretty predictable? I can't see how anyone participating in these protests could have imagined that they would be allowed to stay indefinitely without getting rousted by the cops. It's a form of civil disobedience. What is the point of arguing about whether DHS and FBI are involved, about details of the law, about various mayors' secret motivations, etc.? If you do civil disobedience, you expect to get hauled off to jail.
Actually, it is only civil disobedience if you ignore the order to vacate. However, even those who did vacate were arrested outside the park as they were leaving. So, yes, once lawfully ordered to leave, some did refuse the order and were arrested. Many more were arrested, however, that had already left.
As for DHS and FBI involvement, it matters, because it is limited federal resources being applied to local problems. Again, the only law being broken was for the failure to leave when told to do so. The FBI and DHS involvement occurred prior to this. Is it really the role of government police authority to be used on citizens when no federal laws are being violated?
The irony is that people camping out in the park may be an embarrassment to city officials, but doesn't cost them much. Arresting and processing them through the legal system is a whole different story.
I know some of the people doing the Occupy Portland livestream, so I would like to hear your or any other person's criticisms of it. Is it the video or audio quality? Camerawork? Lighting? Choice of subjects? What people are choosing to say?
I will pass on any comments you have.
If you would like to see it, it is at
http://occupyportland.org/livestreammedia/
I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.
I don't think that they denied anyone access - it's just that you'd have to listen to those damn drum circles and put up with a higher population density. Even so, I don't think there are laws against making a park uninviting, unless you want to start talking about "public nuisance" laws, in which case, you could probably charge anyone at any protest.
Look at it this way - not many people want to use parks between 10pm and 5am (which is why most curfew laws aren't vigorously protested). If the OWS folk had simply showed up each day (without camping) between the hours of 5am and 10pm, they would have been just as "disruptive" to the general populace even though they were not permanently camped. I'm not sure how you prevent this sort of "permanent protest" without also getting to the point where you can step on other protests that are shorter-lived.
That is all.
Too bad the 1%ers don't read history or they'd be a hell of a lot more scared than you are. But the fact that they (or rather, the government they bought) repeated the 1920s during the Bush years and almost repeated 1929 shows that they've never cracked open a history book in their lives.
BTW, the link is to a volume that was required reading in an undergrad history class I took in the '70s. It's a very good read. It's also scary how it mirrors the times we live in now.
Free Martian Whores!
Squatting on property that isn't yours isn't a speech issue, it is a trespass or theft issue.
That's simply a bogus argument:
1. The reason the protesters were on private property rather than public property is that they'd been barred from using public property.
2. The owners of the private property never objected to the protester's presence there. In order for being on someone else's property to be considered trespassing, the owner has to not want you to be there (e.g. if I walk through a church parking lot and nobody complains, that's not trespassing).
3. The private property in question was actually required, by city ordinance, to be open to the public at all times, so even if they had objected they weren't allowed to do anything about it.
No permits
You don't need a permit to stand on a sidewalk holding a sign, unless you are planning on blocking something. The initial protests were in places the protesters had every right to be without a permit. The police responded with pepper spray.
paid for portapotties, etc.
The Occupy Wall St general meeting which is more-or-less in charge requested permission to have portapotties brought in, paid for by the protesters. The police refused to allow that.
Hell, most left the place cleaner than when they arrived.
When Bloomberg first suggested that people would have to leave the park so it could be cleaned, the protesters responded by cleaning up the park before the deadline.
I am officially gone from
Because the right of the people to assemble peaceably doesn't have a time-limit? "You may assemble, but not at night. Limit your protests in public spaces to ten hours a day" isn't in the Constitution.
No, but just because you are protesting doesn't allow you to violate the law. If there are laws in place restricting the ability to set up a camp in a park, bring in generators, create health code violations etc., it must apply equally to all citizens.
I also find it highly ironic that some of the protesters relying on the 1st amendment to enable their protest, also take offense
to the very same freedom of the press that amendment enables.
I don't know what you're referring to here, and I'm curious about it.
Here's a few examples
http://www.pixiq.com/article/occupy-wall-street-activists-assault-and-threaten-videographer
http://www.pixiq.com/article/reporter-assaulted-investigating-who-pooped-and-peed-on-the-bank
http://www.pixiq.com/article/occupy-dc-activist-threatens
Granted, these idiots are the 1% of the 99% that really give the well meaning protesters a bad name
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
GAH! You are willfully ignorant if you don't know what their agenda is at this point.
They are NOT! pissed off about people making money. Communists are the extreme minority of the protesters.
They are pissed about corruption in the system that disenfranchises the vast majority of people for the personal gain of a handful of plutocrats.
The vast majority of them don't give a damn about rich people being rich. The problem is that being rich means you can make other people poor.
What do we want done about it? Campaign finance reform for one. Balancing the budget by eliminating tax breaks and raising taxes on those most capable of providing the burden. Cutting graft and corrupt influences from the government.
Not an occupier, but have been down there at Occupy Portland on and off almost since it began.
>Drug overdoses in the camp went from none, to one per week, to multiple per week.
This could be true. It reflects Portland's general drug problems, and is not really high for the number of people there. Trying to pin it on the protest is not really honest.
>Reports of sexual assaults in the tents and makeshift structures were coming out almost daily.
Were these reports from within the camp, or from opponents outside of it? We are talking about regular camping tents set up in a public space, not really the kind of place where sexual assault would go easily unnoticed.
>Vandalism to the parks and surrounding businesses went out of control
I saw one spray paint graffiti on a wall, which is unfortunate but not out of character for the area. The protesters brought plenty of cardboard to make signs with, and almost all the messages and art were done on boards, not surrounding structures.
>I haven't gone down there myself
Well, that explains a lot
>the parks will require major repairs and some businesses were closed
The grass in the park died due to the tents, and I think the restrooms were clogged. However, the occupation did set up a fund to pay for that, I have no idea whether they have paid out of it though. As for businesses, I don't know of any that closed, though the 7-11 reported some shoplifting.
>The last straw was the elements in the camp seeking confrontation stock piling shields and weapons including molatov cocktails, rocks, sticks and homemade frag grenades made with glass and fireworks.
Where did you hear this, on Fox News? I did not see anything of that sort going on. The fuel for the generators was placed in a locked cage at the suggestion of the fire marshal a couple of weeks ago.
>I heard people starting to talk about forming an angry mob with their own sticks and rocks to go down and confront the camps if the police didn't do anything.
Do your friends beat up homeless people for fun?
>The mayor was/is sympathetic to the protesters but simply had to go with the national effort to crack down because a mutiny in his own police department and community was brewing.
The mayor and powers that be are simply trying to sweep problems of the city under the rug, or disperse them where they don't have to see them. The homeless problem, the drug problem, the unemployment problem are all problems of the city as a whole, but they want to be able to ignore that so they don't want a single, highly visible concentration of it.
Well, others have already responded to most of your post, but I wanted to respond to the pervasive myth that there's no clear goals. There are. But the media refuses to cover them. Just like you said they did to the Tea Party.
Go down to Wall Street or any of these other occupations and you will figure out the goals pretty quickly. Increase taxes on the wealthiest 1% and on major corporations (or at least close loopholes.) End the wars and bring our troops home. And end unlimited corporate campaign contributions (or possibly private campaign funding entirely.) Those are the goals. And they're extremely obvious if you set foot in any of the Occupy protests I've been to (Pittsburgh and NYC)
But then, I've sat there and watched the mainstream media -- I've watched cameramen literally walk up, ignore the hundred gathered around while someone is speaking about all these national issues, and instead spend ten or twenty minutes taking various shots of the five people playing drums and dancing, intentionally constructing their shots so that the people actually talking about these issues won't even appear in the background.
The movement has a clear message. But of course the media doesn't want you to see it.
How can an communist complain when someone steals 'their' stuff? Hey, there is no such thing as private property, man.
There is a difference between private property - that which is abstractly recognized as yours by the society to do as you see fit; and personal property - that which physically belongs to you / is used by you. Communism purports to do away with the former, but keeps the latter - the idea is that you shouldn't be able to own, say, a factory single-handedly (because you can't use it alone), but a car is perfectly fine.
OWS on the other hand is a genuine grass roots movement without any leadership, without media savvy, without spin doctors, without even self-policing to root out the hooligans and vandals who are attracted to any protest movement. Time will tell, which one is real and which one is astro-turf.
The 1% had even stronger media control, and even stronger stranglehold on the government machinery in the past. They were broken. If the 1% are smart they will voluntarily and peacefully allow the taxes to go up and bring deficit under control in a more equitable manner. If not, it is going to be a lot more ugly than a bunch of hippies camping out in some public park.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact