Dissent = Extremism?
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Bulletin #89</div> After having seen a Nazi parade, a famous German novelist once said "I can't eat as much as I want to spew." (tamed translation). I kinda feel like that right now.
Regular readers of the <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/' target='_blank'>New York Times</a> might have already read about the FBI bulletin #89, which can be read in its entirety on the <a href='http://www.aclu.org/' target='_blank'>ACLUs</a> homepage (<a href='http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=14452&c=207' target='_blank'>link</a>). Such bulletins are regularily handed out by the FBI to local law enforcers since the introduction of the Patriot Act. They usually detail ways of supporting the federal authorities in their efforts in the infamous "War on Terrorism".
This special bulletin was distributed on October 15th, ten days before the planned date of a number of demonstrations in several major American cities, most notably San Francisco and D.C. (A quick Google search will reveal that the Oct. 25th demonstrations were peaceful as can be).
Note that a letter to the editor by the FBI confirmed the authenticity of the following.
If you want a summary, the bulletin details the strategies of both peaceful protestors and violent radicals, but blurs both groups so far that the ones are simply regarded as sympathizers or passive supporters of the others; both groups are described with 'terrorist rethoric', moving them near such groups.
It is also openly admitted that profillic protestors are under surveillance.
What follows is an elaboration on the text of the bulletin, parts of which I'll quote.
--
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On October 25, 2003, mass marches and rallies against the occupation is Iraq are scheduled to occur in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, California. While the FBI possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of these protests, the possibility exists that elements of the activist community may attempt to engage in violent, destructive, or disruptive acts. Most protests are peaceful events; however, a number of demonstrations, including the biannual International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, are more likely to be violent and disruptive and to require enhanced law enforcement security.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This first part is absolutely agreeable. Lord knows that it's almost impossible to forsee whether a demonstration with peaceful intentions might have just enough idiots amongst the protestors to cause disarray, and even most protestors will agree that an "enhanced law enforcement security" is desireable during all big protest actions.
It stops being so innocent with the next part, however:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The following tactics have been observed by U.S. and foreign law enforcement agencies while responding to criminal activities during protests and demonstrations.
Protestors often use the internet to recruit, raise funds, and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations. Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with the police and to resolve any logistical issues.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take a good look at the sentences "Protestors often use the internet to recruit, raise funds, and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations" as well as "Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with the police and to resolve any logistical issues." (note the "training camps", a term usually used in connection to terrorist cells) and how they are used in combination with the description of "criminal activities during protests and demonstrations".
This half-paragraph clearly admits that the organizers of demonstrations (who are the ones doing the 'recruiting', 'fund raising', and 'coordinating') are viewed as (at least potential) criminals and under surveillance of "U.S. and foreign law enforcement agencies". Allow me to repeat that the demonstrations of the 25th of October were peaceful gatherings in which groups such as veteran organisations took part.
A little further down:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Traditional demonstration tactics by which protestors draw attention to their causes include marches, banners, and forms of passive resistance such as sit-ins. Extremist elements may engage in more aggressive tactics that can include vandalism, physical harassment of delegates, trespassing, the formation of human chains or shields, makeshift barricades, devices used against mounted police units, and the use of weapons—such as projectiles and homemade bombs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, a correct assembly of points about protestors on the one, and radical vandals on the other hand. I doubt that we'll have to discuss which of these ways is the better one to voice ones opinion, but read on:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even the more peaceful techniques can create a climate of disorder, block access to a site, draw large members of police to a specific location in order to weaken security at other locations, obstruct traffic, and possibly intimidate people from attending the events being protested.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suddenly, "even the more peaceful techniques" are aiming to support radical actions - or how else can one interpret the "draw large members of police to a specific location in order to weaken security at other locations"? In other words, not only the organizers, but also peaceful attendees are suddenly at least supporters of what one could describe as terrorist behaviour.
Do I have to note yet again that Oct 25th came and went without protestors flinging "homemade bombs"?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->During the course of a demonstration, activists often communicate with one another using cell phones or radios to coordinate activities or to update colleagues about ongoing events. Other types of media equipment (video cameras, photographic equipment, audio tape recorders, microphones, and computer and radio equipment) may be used for documenting potential cases of police brutality and for distribution of information over the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how they have to note upon that - kinda like saying "don't get caught with your pants down", isn't it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Extremists may be prepared to defend themselves against law enforcement officials during the course of a demonstration.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The next paragraph is very interesting as it implies a definition of an "extremist" according to his/her 'gear'. Some examples (emphasis added by yours sincerely):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Masks (gas masks, goggles, scarves, scuba masks, filter masks, and <b>sunglasses</b>) can serve to minimize the effects of tear gas and pepper spray as well as obscure one’s identity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd better leave my Ray Beans at home, then...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Extremists may also employ shields (trash can lids, sheets of plexiglass, truck tire inner tubes, etc.) and body protection equipment (<b>layered clothing</b>, hard hats and helmets, <b>sporting equipment</b>, life jackets, etc.) to protect themselves during marches.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words: Better don't bring your coats, either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Activists may also use intimidation techniques such as videotaping and the swarming of police officers to hinder the arrest of other demonstrators.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suddenly, there's no clear divide between "activists", up till now a description of peaceful protestors, and "extremists" anymore, and the use of a camera becomes an extremistic action. So much for journalism on the spot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After demonstrations, activists are usually reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement officials. They seldom carry any identification papers and often refuse to divulge any information about themselves or other protestors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't it shameful how they refuse to give informations they aren't obliged to give?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Post-demonstration activities can include fundraising in support of the legal defense of accused protestors and demonstrations of solidarity calling for the release of the accused.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this can go uncommented...
--
Now, let's keep in mind that this bulletin was sent from FBI to other law enforcement agencies. It is thus meaningful in two ways:
First, it's part of the informational basis on which said law enforcement agencies were supposed to base their treatment of the protestors. Looking at the information conveyed within, one can hardly assume they were seen as citizens of the 'home of the free' pursuing their right of free speech, but instead as potential criminals, as "extremists" with malovelent intentions.
This does, second, shed a light on the FBIs definition of 'extremism', which can be regarded as the step into terrorism. Not only armed attacks on innocents, but also peaceful dissent are suddenly considered potential dangers for the security of the US. Now consider that these bulletins are in direct connection to the legislation of the Patriot Act.
Looking back at previous discussions both of domestic and foreign US policy, two arguments of those supporting these policies stood out: The one basically stated that all said and done, the United States are still the democracy in the confrontation with Iraq, that their policy, while not always completely agreeable, was still put forth by people supporting democratic ideals such as free speech and thus ultimately an agreeable one.
The other noted that any kind of cutback on these ideals aimed solely on hard terroristic activities with clearly destructive intentions, that these cutbacks were thus indeed attempts at defending those aiming to use the rights arising from those ideals in a peaceful manner, and by this ultimately benevolent actions.
Now, we have an authentic document out of one the biggest federal executive agency that describes not hell bent terrorists, but simple citizens as 'extremistic', thus blurring the line between destructive malovelence and peaceful dissent.
The consequences of this policy can already be felt: The costs of "enhanced law enforcement security" during the recent NAFTA negotiations in Miami, for example, were payed out of anti-terror funds, namely the recent additional funding for Iraqi peacekeeping...
"True freedom means always the freedom of the dissenting opinion." - Rosa Luxemburg (German socialist, killed in 1918 by right-extremists)
Regular readers of the <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/' target='_blank'>New York Times</a> might have already read about the FBI bulletin #89, which can be read in its entirety on the <a href='http://www.aclu.org/' target='_blank'>ACLUs</a> homepage (<a href='http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=14452&c=207' target='_blank'>link</a>). Such bulletins are regularily handed out by the FBI to local law enforcers since the introduction of the Patriot Act. They usually detail ways of supporting the federal authorities in their efforts in the infamous "War on Terrorism".
This special bulletin was distributed on October 15th, ten days before the planned date of a number of demonstrations in several major American cities, most notably San Francisco and D.C. (A quick Google search will reveal that the Oct. 25th demonstrations were peaceful as can be).
Note that a letter to the editor by the FBI confirmed the authenticity of the following.
If you want a summary, the bulletin details the strategies of both peaceful protestors and violent radicals, but blurs both groups so far that the ones are simply regarded as sympathizers or passive supporters of the others; both groups are described with 'terrorist rethoric', moving them near such groups.
It is also openly admitted that profillic protestors are under surveillance.
What follows is an elaboration on the text of the bulletin, parts of which I'll quote.
--
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On October 25, 2003, mass marches and rallies against the occupation is Iraq are scheduled to occur in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, California. While the FBI possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of these protests, the possibility exists that elements of the activist community may attempt to engage in violent, destructive, or disruptive acts. Most protests are peaceful events; however, a number of demonstrations, including the biannual International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, are more likely to be violent and disruptive and to require enhanced law enforcement security.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This first part is absolutely agreeable. Lord knows that it's almost impossible to forsee whether a demonstration with peaceful intentions might have just enough idiots amongst the protestors to cause disarray, and even most protestors will agree that an "enhanced law enforcement security" is desireable during all big protest actions.
It stops being so innocent with the next part, however:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The following tactics have been observed by U.S. and foreign law enforcement agencies while responding to criminal activities during protests and demonstrations.
Protestors often use the internet to recruit, raise funds, and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations. Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with the police and to resolve any logistical issues.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take a good look at the sentences "Protestors often use the internet to recruit, raise funds, and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations" as well as "Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with the police and to resolve any logistical issues." (note the "training camps", a term usually used in connection to terrorist cells) and how they are used in combination with the description of "criminal activities during protests and demonstrations".
This half-paragraph clearly admits that the organizers of demonstrations (who are the ones doing the 'recruiting', 'fund raising', and 'coordinating') are viewed as (at least potential) criminals and under surveillance of "U.S. and foreign law enforcement agencies". Allow me to repeat that the demonstrations of the 25th of October were peaceful gatherings in which groups such as veteran organisations took part.
A little further down:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Traditional demonstration tactics by which protestors draw attention to their causes include marches, banners, and forms of passive resistance such as sit-ins. Extremist elements may engage in more aggressive tactics that can include vandalism, physical harassment of delegates, trespassing, the formation of human chains or shields, makeshift barricades, devices used against mounted police units, and the use of weapons—such as projectiles and homemade bombs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, a correct assembly of points about protestors on the one, and radical vandals on the other hand. I doubt that we'll have to discuss which of these ways is the better one to voice ones opinion, but read on:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even the more peaceful techniques can create a climate of disorder, block access to a site, draw large members of police to a specific location in order to weaken security at other locations, obstruct traffic, and possibly intimidate people from attending the events being protested.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suddenly, "even the more peaceful techniques" are aiming to support radical actions - or how else can one interpret the "draw large members of police to a specific location in order to weaken security at other locations"? In other words, not only the organizers, but also peaceful attendees are suddenly at least supporters of what one could describe as terrorist behaviour.
Do I have to note yet again that Oct 25th came and went without protestors flinging "homemade bombs"?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->During the course of a demonstration, activists often communicate with one another using cell phones or radios to coordinate activities or to update colleagues about ongoing events. Other types of media equipment (video cameras, photographic equipment, audio tape recorders, microphones, and computer and radio equipment) may be used for documenting potential cases of police brutality and for distribution of information over the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how they have to note upon that - kinda like saying "don't get caught with your pants down", isn't it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Extremists may be prepared to defend themselves against law enforcement officials during the course of a demonstration.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The next paragraph is very interesting as it implies a definition of an "extremist" according to his/her 'gear'. Some examples (emphasis added by yours sincerely):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Masks (gas masks, goggles, scarves, scuba masks, filter masks, and <b>sunglasses</b>) can serve to minimize the effects of tear gas and pepper spray as well as obscure one’s identity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd better leave my Ray Beans at home, then...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Extremists may also employ shields (trash can lids, sheets of plexiglass, truck tire inner tubes, etc.) and body protection equipment (<b>layered clothing</b>, hard hats and helmets, <b>sporting equipment</b>, life jackets, etc.) to protect themselves during marches.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words: Better don't bring your coats, either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Activists may also use intimidation techniques such as videotaping and the swarming of police officers to hinder the arrest of other demonstrators.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suddenly, there's no clear divide between "activists", up till now a description of peaceful protestors, and "extremists" anymore, and the use of a camera becomes an extremistic action. So much for journalism on the spot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After demonstrations, activists are usually reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement officials. They seldom carry any identification papers and often refuse to divulge any information about themselves or other protestors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't it shameful how they refuse to give informations they aren't obliged to give?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Post-demonstration activities can include fundraising in support of the legal defense of accused protestors and demonstrations of solidarity calling for the release of the accused.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this can go uncommented...
--
Now, let's keep in mind that this bulletin was sent from FBI to other law enforcement agencies. It is thus meaningful in two ways:
First, it's part of the informational basis on which said law enforcement agencies were supposed to base their treatment of the protestors. Looking at the information conveyed within, one can hardly assume they were seen as citizens of the 'home of the free' pursuing their right of free speech, but instead as potential criminals, as "extremists" with malovelent intentions.
This does, second, shed a light on the FBIs definition of 'extremism', which can be regarded as the step into terrorism. Not only armed attacks on innocents, but also peaceful dissent are suddenly considered potential dangers for the security of the US. Now consider that these bulletins are in direct connection to the legislation of the Patriot Act.
Looking back at previous discussions both of domestic and foreign US policy, two arguments of those supporting these policies stood out: The one basically stated that all said and done, the United States are still the democracy in the confrontation with Iraq, that their policy, while not always completely agreeable, was still put forth by people supporting democratic ideals such as free speech and thus ultimately an agreeable one.
The other noted that any kind of cutback on these ideals aimed solely on hard terroristic activities with clearly destructive intentions, that these cutbacks were thus indeed attempts at defending those aiming to use the rights arising from those ideals in a peaceful manner, and by this ultimately benevolent actions.
Now, we have an authentic document out of one the biggest federal executive agency that describes not hell bent terrorists, but simple citizens as 'extremistic', thus blurring the line between destructive malovelence and peaceful dissent.
The consequences of this policy can already be felt: The costs of "enhanced law enforcement security" during the recent NAFTA negotiations in Miami, for example, were payed out of anti-terror funds, namely the recent additional funding for Iraqi peacekeeping...
"True freedom means always the freedom of the dissenting opinion." - Rosa Luxemburg (German socialist, killed in 1918 by right-extremists)
Comments
Rather than drowning us in a long post here (which is why no one has replied - no one wants to read this much on the day after Thanksgiving), how about you pick a few points of this memo and we'll argue those. You're all over the place.
Bah. If you'd had a proper holiday yesterday like us you'd be too full of turkey to be so worked up. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
A. Meaningfully labels protestors as extremist and criminals
OR
B. Prudently leaves the opportunity of violent crimes. Heightens the awareness of officials so that they know what to look out for.
Honestly, I understand the concern of this, but it depends on how you view the police. Nem, I know that you have a very poor view of police, at least, based on my conversations with you. So with your view of police in America it would be understandable that you would interpret it as you did.
I am not ruling out your opinion, I'm just thinking that perhaps it's more of a technicality by the FBI just to leave the local police aware that sometimes these events <i>can</i> occur. Most importantly, they comment that there are peaceful protests, and sometimes they can be disruptive, especially if they intimidate (This has happened quite frequently at Abortion Clinics, even if you disagree, throwing things and feces at people as they enter is <i>always</i> a terrible way to behave).
The important aspects of this bulletin is that it never calls for <i>action</i> against these "warning indicators", it simply says, contact the FBI Joint Terrorism Force. Most likely, just in case things escalate.
I honestly feel that the problem here isn't that they want to maliciously harm people, or even violate our rights. I think it's simply just that the FBI is simply saying "We cannot afford another terrorist act, we need to watch all our bases. Here is a list of things that might happen in a protest. Things can escalate sometimes into violent acts. If you see any of these things and are concerned, contact us just in case so that things don't escalate. We're not trying to stop them from protesting, but keep it from turning violent."
This is what I understood mainly from reading that bulletin. I don't think the FBI is asking the local officials to discard common sense and violently pursue protesters because they might be extremists, but rather, it <i>can</i> happen, and therefore, we <i>must</i> be aware.
While I don't know what the meaning of this completely is, I can only try and shed another light on the document. I certainly am not attempting to debate anybody's opinion, especially Nem, because there is reason to believe that it might be one step against our rights. I'm not quite sure. But I would at least <i>like</i> to think it's just upping the cautiousness level of police.
Imagine if a protest did escalate ? What if 5 people were killed when violent protesters started throwing bricks and rocks at their opposing idealogues ? People would ask "Where were the police ? Why didn't they at least bother to make sure people weren't hurt ? Why didn't they make sure there was enough police to make sure things didn't get out of hand ? Why doesn't the federal government do something about this?". The main reasoning behind my perception is that the police and federal government are <i>responsible</i> whenever something does wrong, and theres no reason to leave anything to chance.
Anyways, I hope the FBI is respecting our first amendment rights.
<b>MonsE:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bah. If you'd had a proper holiday yesterday like us you'd be too full of turkey to be so worked up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, well, that's just me, hungry and angry <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
But you get it wrong on the first line. I'm not going to start arguing how to react to rioters here, but none of your peacekeeping missions were on US soil. Last time I checked, the United States are not a recently occupied warzone, and thus, the danger of outright riots, which appeared on <i>no</i> occasion throughout the whole history of the anti-war protest actions (despite sometimes obvious attempts of provocing such, for example police officers on horseback charging into protestors on New Yorker demos, good yet biased source <a href='http://www.nyclu.org/civil_liberties02_03/tumultuous_season.html' target='_blank'>here</a>), is miniscule.
Note that the memo lacked any kind of advice along the lines of respectful treatment or de-escalation, which are usually the two primary measures to be taken in case of violent actions during a demonstration.
I purposely was all over the place here, because I don't want this to be reduced to nagging over one or two words - by the way, yes, training camps are training camps, but rehearsing slogans in the bus bringing you to the demonstration doesn't really qualify for that.
<b>Sirus:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly, I understand the concern of this, but it depends on how you view the police. Nem, I know that you have a very poor view of police, at least, based on my conversations with you. So with your view of police in America it would be understandable that you would interpret it as you did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should know that my father is manager of one of Germanys biggest prisons. I have a high opinion of police work, but I also know how police procedure should work, and this is not it.
You assume that this bulletin could just as well "Prudently leave the opportunity of violent crimes. Heighten the awareness of officials so that they know what to look out for.".
Now put yourself into the perspective of one such official: You're in the quite possibly biggest stress situation you can get into: Having to deal with a large body of people that has to be managed while it's moving through an area that's just not built for easy observation and reconnaisance. Mons will be able to tell you a few rather gruesome stories about raid situations - police officers managing demonstrations are constantly aware of the possibility of this happening.
Now take this situation, and insert this memo, which does not even so much as mention the possibility of 'good' protestors - even peaceful actions can, after all, be nothing but support for violent ones. Imagine you got this as your directive - all protestors are potential extremists. And then imagine seeing one protestor near you lifting a bottle that seems to be enveloped by cloth.
See what I'm getting at? Such a memo isn't a precaution, it's in a way a piece of panic-creation - because someone basing his actions on it will not assume that bottle to be a makeshift to keep the tea in it warm, he'll think 'molotov cocktail'. As I said, during the whole of the anti-war protest actions, which attracted a crowd not really comparable to the militant Pro-Lifers you cited, the police was the more violent faction, and I'm sure not out of malovelence, but out of fear.
One may now argue that this is but one tiny glimpse at the whole of the information conveyed between FBI and other authorities and that the rest might be by far less intimidating.
Possible, but while there's nothing other than our hope for goodwill to back that assumption up, the opposite assumption has at least one indicator going for it: This bulletin.
[edit2]Trying to expand the foundation of this topic, I'll go after a few traces and gather some cases of highly obstructive police policy around such protest actions. This'll have to wait till tomorrow, however, as I'm about to go to bed. 'night.[/edit2]
I <i>completely</i> understand your viewpoint Nemesis. I have not decided my mind either way, but simply, for the sake of objectivity I presented another view. For now, I will simply assume nothing, and wait for their actions to reveal their intent.
You beat me to that one, Nem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: Ok, what previously existed here was a partisan cheap shot. But I do think politics do play a role in this, so I'll let my other posts stand.
I'm going to organize a Sirus protest and you'd better believe it's going to turn violent <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
[Jest] Zero to Liberal in one sentence BM, that's gotta be a new record[/Jest]
Heh . . . 0 to liberal. Jerk <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->. Being around my extended family for more than 24 hours has more or less heightened my knee-jerk response.
But seriously, do you wield the same hammer upon 'your' mob as you do 'their' mob? Again, it does leave a scary amount of room for interpretation, to be dictated by <i>whatever</i> entity is currently in power.
Edit: Besides, let's not kid ourselves-- what are the vast majority of domestic organized protests actually protesting these days? The bets are a bit hedged to begin with . . . as Nem pointed out, to a certain extent, there is an effort to manufacture <i>fear</i> here. Not only in the local law enforcement-- but doesn't the fact that this memo got out seem a bit like intimidation? <i>I'd</i> sure think twice about protesting.
*edit* oh yes, I do acknowledge that on its surface the memo can be defended as perfectly reasonable, but let's not kid ourselves. There's an obvious slant to its language, and I would not mind if they had picked different words.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But seriously, do you wield the same hammer upon 'your' mob as you do 'their' mob? Again, it does leave a scary amount of room for interpretation, to be dictated by whatever entity is currently in power. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure plenty of political organizations would go nuts over this if it ever happened. I imagine the ACLU would start kicking heads in if they heard that pro-lifers some how got away while the Feds turned a blind eye.
<a href='http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=14450&c=206' target='_blank'>Yeah, well...</a>
The ACLU surely will react, so let's turn on the telly, and see how it all pans out in the next months.
Just another comment, since the document is illegal is it against the rules to have a direct link to it ? Legally, it's not allowed to be disseminated outside of Police enforcement.
Also, peaceful protests, such as passive resistance; sitting in spot for example isn't always 'peaceful'.
I've seen protestors sit in the middle of popular intersections and block up traffic just to be heard. It's not like the protestors just sit on a bench somewhere to be noticed.
I'm going to agree with Sirus here; actions do speak louders than words, and I'll just wait and see how these laws are actually enforced.
Finally, some side comments:
From what I've seen, protestors are usually more destructive/annoying than the policemen themselves... hard working families who are late to work because of a group of bums who they could care less about making them have to suffer reprocussions in their jobs is hardly fair, and much less destructive than a police officer who accidentally injurs a protestor. Altough sometimes the case is death (rare), I'd have to say my oppinion of protestors is far below my modest oppinion of police, of whom I have the upmost respect for. They do a difficult job indeed.
I also like how you think that it's okay for protestors to make police or the government institution at hand look bad in anyway possible:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->During the course of a demonstration, activists often communicate with one another using cell phones or radios to coordinate activities or to update colleagues about ongoing events. Other types of media equipment (video cameras, photographic equipment, audio tape recorders, microphones, and computer and radio equipment) may be used for documenting potential cases of police brutality and for distribution of information over the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I like how they have to note upon that - kinda like saying "don't get caught with your pants down", isn't it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet it's obvious here that you think the excutive branches of our goverment shouldn't make any preperations at all, no? Do you honestly think the policemen recruited are perfect by nature, much like your protestors?
Why can't the policemen say the protestors go to training camps, yet they themselves cannot prepare themselves against the potential enemy?
Our military/police proceedure to is prepare for everything, analzing the enemy in anyway possible; yes the enemy. You may think it is indeed wrong to label both peaceful protestors and destructive rebels together, but they are all in the same boat; they are protestors. While it may seem to go overboard to label them together, at the end of the day everyone goes home safely because our docuements were a bit overcatuous. To say we are labeling dissent = extremism is a bit underhanded IMO.
And more to boot, our method of police/military proceedures of being over cautious and somewhat unpolitically correct not only works in theory, but it works in real life; these tatics are time tested and our military is second to none.
So you may want to rethink your position Nem.
This is the only thing I would refute...Speechwriters, lawyers and politicians are all very keen as to what imagery they inject into thier statements. Especially when dealing with "buzzwords" such as "training camps", weapons of mass destruction" and others. The recent correlation between "training camp" and "terrorist cell" is not without intention. It is meant to draw up a certian image in a persons mind. (there is a tem for this, but I cant think of it now)
There is an immense amount of scrutiny over exactly what kind of verbage goes into things of this nature, and the use of such associated imagery in not innocent. Drawing up the image of a training camp in correlation with protest organizers is either fully intentional, or a huge mistake.
Well, for starters, they wouldn't necessarily have US style rights,or a US style press monitoring and reporting on the situation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Yes, and before you quibble, I understand that the operative word is 'peaceably').
Additionally, there’s some baggage associated there, too—I think there’s an inherent tension (understatement) with foreign troops quelling citizens in their homeland. I mean, you’ve seen how nutty protesters can be here. Now imagine that they’re being checked by Saudi police. Kaboom.
But again, the point is that the vague language in this thing is <i>dangerous</i>, and it can be abused—not necessarily based on what the protesters are doing, but upon that which they are protesting. You have to admit, the man sitting in office right now does seem to get protested an awful lot.
Well, for starters, they wouldn't necessarily have US style rights,or a US style press monitoring and reporting on the situation.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So those CNN cameras that were always on us in Haiti and Cuba and Los Angeles were not turned on? There are a whole lot of statements in this thread that would best be served instead as questions. Questions to those who have practical experience in this matter.
Well, for starters, they wouldn't necessarily have US style rights,or a US style press monitoring and reporting on the situation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So those CNN cameras that were always on us in Haiti and Cuba and Los Angeles were not turned on? There are a whole lot of statements in this thread that would best be served instead as questions. Questions to those who have practical experience in this matter. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right.
Hence the 'not necessarily', which I included to mean, 'There exists the possibility that coverage would not be the same/possible/etc'. It was hardly the sort of universal negative which would invite such condescension . . .
*useless info snip*
Does filming change the dynamic? Judging by your reaction, I would guess yes, since you make them sound quite invasive, and you were certainly aware of their presence.
So, I guess my point to Monse is this: yes, you have a Hell of a lot more practical experience with this sort of thing than I do. No argument whatsoever there.
However, if I may, you're also extrapolating. You're taking your (admittedly broad) experience, and then extrapolating off of that to make a generalization about all protesters. I mean, especially in a foriegn country, doesn't the US presence drastically change the dynamic? I will phrase it as a question, so you don't get all snippy again <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Now I'm all turned around and confused. Am I even on topic anymore?
Edit: I was thinking about this on the ride home and removed bits because it I rambled and didn't make a whole lot of sense.
I think the important idea that MonsE's and BM's discussion has revealed is that there's quite a bit of spin on this topic. The language of the bulletin leaves a large gray area left to be manipulated by any group. The most important thing is MonsE's reaction, he has experience in these events and this bulletin was <b>written to people with the <i>near or same</i> knowledge as MonsE</b>. The document itself isn't not legal to be viewed by anyone outside law enforcement, and there's probably a reason, it's worded and geared towards law enforcement, not the ACLU.
There's certain jargon that's understood by a law enforcement individual that may seem questionable to a media viewer.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yeah, right. <i>Jerk</i>. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But I am finding it very difficult to believe that you did not notice the LA Riots being shown on TV, nor the reaction from 7th and 5th (mine) Marine regiments who were present towards the tail end of the riots to backup the floundering LAPD. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did, and I noticed one guy <i>not</i> doing his job properly. No names mentioned, though.
Sigh. My only point was that I didn't think an international protest would <i>necessarily</i> receive as much attention as a domestic one. You couldnt turn on the tv <i>without</i> seeing the LA riots, and (at least in my experience) while I remember seeing some footage from Haiti, it was much more fleeting and infrequent.
But like I said, I don't even remember what this was supposed to add to the conversation. Pfffff.
But in general I think the message of the text is "They might look peaceful and BE peaceful, but every single one of them MAY turn this demonstration into an open fight. So better don't let your guard down."
It's the simple "Better control every bag twice than miss the one with the bomb"-mentality.
But, as said before, the formulation of the text is in line with a lot of buzz-words and terms used by the bush administration in the past and present. As someone who does not like Bush and the way the american government has been doing their job lately (I'm an old-european like Nem0), it's probably a lot easier to find negative aspects in this text than somebody who recives this text and will be facing the crowds in the streets a few hours later.
I'd also like to point out that I critizise the writers of this text in some way, but not those who recive it. Mainly because I think that policemen and soldiers, while they have their orders, have a certain ammount of social intelligence (wrong term maybe) to see and judge wether they really encounter terrorists or not and wich meassurements they have to take. No soldier would walk in there, yell "Die you Taliban" and shoot the demonstrators...
And I think the way this discussion has turned is very fitting, as I concider the media presence a quite heavy factor. I will not start debating on weather the US media is controlled and/or censored by the government or other groups... but I think the way the media is reporting is very important for the way we see things like the text we're discussing.
Let's just say we have a demonstration in Washington.
Of course you have a lot of peaceful protestors there, parents with their children and so on. Then you have the activists.. those who organised this whole thing.. they may likely be the ones to underline their point of view with "passive" actions like human chains, sit-ins and so on. Then we have the "agressive" ones that think the best way to show their oppinion is by writing it on the wall of the capitol with the blood of a chairman. And not to forget the "hooligans" who don't really care what this demonstration is about... as long as there is a chance to fight some cops... or other protestors if the cops are too many to handle.
Next day you see a report on an american station showing scenes of the hooligans fighting the police.
Reporter says "What started asa peaceful march almost ended in a riot when demonstrators tried to break the lines of policemen that secured the area. Heavy fighting followed in wich many cops were injured"
Note: Demonstrators are active, police is passive -> demonstators cause the damage.
On another TV station you see a scene where a policeman is hitting some protestor.
You cannot see or know why he is doing it and if the protester was peaceful or agressive.
This picture alone implies the message of "police beats down protestors demonstrating for peace"
On german TV you might see a scene of the march, then some scenes of fighting.
"The mainly peaceful march to tha capitol ended in some heavy fightin when autonomous groups and the police met" or something like this. Here you may have a seperation of the reason why people where on the streets and the reason why people fought... and WHO fought.
The media IS a very important factor.
And people tend to act different when they know they are on TV. Just think of all the people in the middle east that dance and jump with their ak47 in the hand shouting "die USA die"... do you think they would do that when there was no TV camera? They got better things to do than dancing and wielding their weapons...
So tu sum up (as I wrote more than I wanted... again):
- the text has valid points, imho, but is written in a propaganda style wich I do not like.
- the authors of this text are to blame, not the recipients.
- media influences oppinions a lot.
[edit] eliminated one out of 158 typos
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was living out there and remember when Reginald Denny was pulled out of his car and stomped to death by about a dozen angry black men... it was all on tape, Live on the news they caught it, and they got off 100% scot free...
Hey MonsE, do you remember the <b>full, uncut</b> tape of Rodney King?
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was living out there and remember when Reginald Denny was pulled out of his car and stomped to death by about a dozen angry black men... it was all on tape, Live on the news they caught it, and they got off 100% scot free... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really...I saw a show ehere they actually zoomed in on one of the guys tatoos and digitally enhanced it to find out it was one of a kind (I think it had his last name on it. They caught that guy, the rest I dont know.