The Pre-Crime of Pre-Protesting
by KevinAugust 31st, 2008
One of our nice Republican friends needs to explain to me why this is not the action of a police state:
Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff’s department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than “fire code violations,” and early this morning, the Sheriff’s department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.
Jane Hamsher and I were at two of those homes this morning — one which had just been raided and one which was in the process of being raided. Each of the raided houses is known by neighbors as a “hippie house,” where 5-10 college-aged individuals live in a communal setting, and everyone we spoke with said that there had never been any problems of any kind in those houses, that they were filled with “peaceful kids” who are politically active but entirely unthreatening and friendly. Posted below is the video of the scene, including various interviews, which convey a very clear sense of what is actually going on here.
… Several of those who were arrested are being represented by Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers’ Guild. Nestor said that last night’s raid involved a meeting of a group calling itself the “RNC Welcoming Committee”, and that this morning’s raids appeared to target members of “Food Not Bombs,” which he described as an anti-war, anti-authoritarian protest group. There was not a single act of violence or illegality that has taken place, Nestor said. Instead, the raids were purely anticipatory in nature, and clearly designed to frighten people contemplating taking part in any unauthorized protests.
… The Uptake has this amazing video interview with the Democracy Now producer who was detained today. As the DN producer explains, she was present at a meeting of a group called “I-Witness” — which videotaped police behavior at the 2004 GOP Convention in New York and helped get charges dismissed against hundreds of protesters who were arrested. The police surrounded the St. Paul house where they were meeting even though they had no warrant, told them that anyone who exited the house would be arrested, and then — even though they finally, after several hours, obtained a warrant only for the house next door — basically broke into the house, pointed weapons at everyone inside, handcuffed them, searched the house, and then left. Here is a blog post from one of the members of I-Witness asking for help during the time when they were forced to stay inside the house (see the second post — it reads like a note from a hostage crying out for help). This is truly repugnant, extreme police behavior designed to intimidate protesters, police critics and others, and it ought to infuriate anyone and everyone who cares about basic liberties.
This is intimidation by the organs of the sate against people who have done nothing other than express an intent to exercise their constitutional rights. It is state-sponsored thuggery, plain and simple, intended to make clear that the Constitution applies only to those who hold approved of opinions. They intend a free country only for those with no wish to take advantage of that freedom. Anyone else, apparently, is a threat that must be dealt with like these protestors, journalists, and lawyers were dealt with.
Categories: General, Legal Issues, Politics |
Ignoring the whole copyright issue involved with pulling the majority of a copyrighted post, providing a link to the original source at least helps deal with questions involving both the authenticity of your information, and the rest of the story that individual felt fit to print.
Suffice it to say that I’m unconvinced that Greenwald is a particularly enlightening or — dare I say — honest source, especially as those papers cited by his link, such as the New York Times, do not support his more significant accusations as far as I can tell.
Gatt -
So what are you arguing? That it didn’t happen? That it did but “gee it really wasn’t all that bad so what’s the problem?” What’s the problem, that is, with (from the NYT article you find so reassuring) “detaining” (what a wonderful euphemism) over 50 people and rummaging through six houses via “search warrants aimed at groups believed to be organizing demonstrations,” search warrants after such hideously incriminating items as “photographs and maps of St. Paul, paint, computers and camera equipment.”
OMG! Organizing demonstrations? Having maps? Clearly we have been saved from terrorist anarchy!
Your suggestion that Greenwald is a dishonest source based solely on the fact that his and Jane Hamsher’s on-the-scene reports included details not in mainstream media accounts is, on its face, at best silly, a transparent attempt to attack the message by attacking the messenger. It will not fly.
Kevin’s challenge to explain why this was not the action of a police state remains unanswered.
I’m sure leaving “including fire bombs, Molotov cocktails, brake fluid,” off that list was entirely accidental. It is, after all, in no way a typical police procedure to include both the items specifically believe to be illegal or dangerous and other non-dangerous information that is important for providing a case on the warrant.
Oh, wait…
Seriously, people, that’s the part of the warrant that cites what police can search for and seize without getting into the more frustrating legal issues later in court, not the part citing the pictures being incriminating on their own.
unreliable comes from the information not being covered by others reporters. I was pointing out that the man might have his own personal biases, at least per say compared to a writer that doesn’t staves off accusations of bias against conservatives by calling Republicans non-conservative, and thus it might be better to wait until we see the full information behind the story rather than just his experience and the statements of other individuals with a significant personal tie to the situation.
If I wanted to attack the messenger I’d point out his apparent allergy to modern conversational English terms, chronic misrepresentation of opponent positions, or hilariously and poorly executed sockpuppetry. I’d bring up exactly how well most posters here think of, say, Kopel, for similar crimes. If I wanted to attack the message, I’d point out that, at the very least, other sources have cited at least one home to have 37 vehicle-sized caltrops, and another to have gallons of urine sitting exposed, as were throwning knives. Components usable for molotov cocktails were also seized, although I’m unsure of the state they were in. (Minnesota Independent)
But, go ahead with the impressive furor that someone might question a single individual’s account of a politically unstable situation.
His challenge was aimed at, and I quote, “nice Republican friends”. I don’t answer to the call ‘idiot’; I don’t see why I’d change my policy on responding to insulting and inaccurate names here.
Oh, and since the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy marching orders have come down, I guess now I could point out that the organization in question’s website had some marching orders of their own, of rather questionable legality.
The honest answer is that I don’t know. I find it difficult to call lawfully carried-out search warrants specifically targeting individuals that were conspiring to commit assault and vandalism some sort of unconstitutional police state. If Greenwald is right and these individuals were targeted regarding the actual protests rather than the illegal methods, than it’s a hell of a lot nastier. I’m not a particular fan of ‘free speech zones’ to start with, so violating that law doesn’t really justify busting down doors, but the use caltrops and other forms of inherently disruptive actions are and should be unlawful.
And I’m sure it was accidental that you ignore the fact that no “fire bombs [or] Molotov cocktails” were found or that by your very own logic, the possession of maps and cameras is evidence of criminal intent. It was equally accidental to have suggested that had firebombs been found, it would have been “important” for there to be maps in order to prove a crime.
It was also accidental that you either failed to note or were unaware that the “components usable for Molotov cocktails” consisted of bandannas in vinegar, a standard protection against tear gas. And accidental to have not considered that with the number of houses and people involved, the number of weapons (and “weapons,” such as paint) found was minimal: Pick any six houses at random and I strongly expect you would find an equally impressive arsenal. And another accident to have swallowed without a thought the “gallons of urine” story without realizing it was probably bullshit.
And I’m certain it was a mere accident that you claim you were not attacking the messenger when you said Greenwald was not a “particularly enlightening or — dare I say — honest source.” As well as an amusing accident that you now string together a bunch of laughably wild and wholly unsubstantiated charges to say you were not attacking the messenger. And another accident that you argue he is “unreliable” because he reported things others didn’t - by which standard a great many reports about a great many events are equally unreliable.
Accidental, too, was the reference to the “swarm, seize, stay” “marching orders,” which amounted to a plan to disrupt traffic, and connect that to “conspiring to commit assault and vandalism.” And it was an especially big accident that while you attack Greenwald as unreliable you accept at face value statements of the police, who of course have no “biases.”
Needless to say, I accept without question that it was also an accident when after all that you fall back on the tired old excuse “I don’t know,” we gotta wait, gee I’m only asking a question why all the “furor.” You didn’t say you didn’t know, you didn’t say maybe it’s true, you dismissed the account as the unreliable account of a dishonest reporter and in so doing dismissed the importance and meaning of the entire event.
That last, I accept, was not an accident. It’s the only part of your argument that isn’t.
You do realize that issuing a search for a given item on a warrant requires probable cause, and that not even Greenwald has suggested that the warrants were issued illegally or improperly, right? I’m no particular fan of the legal system, today, but I usually find holding them to a standard of mind-reading perfection to be a little ridiculous.
And while I admit I take minimalism a bit further than most, I really was unaware that the average street would have a home with 37 vehicle-sized home-made caltrops.
You do realize that there are some judges who are just as bad as police in suppressing public behavior, right?
Yes, there are almost certainly some that pass out rubber-stamped warrants. I’m not a libertarian, but following Saysuncle and The War On Guns blogs tend to make those folk really obvious.
I haven’t seen any evidence of wrongdoing by the local judges, though, and while I’ll admit I lack the ability to read every source, I have been looking. I think there’s a pretty large difference in terms of police executing lawful and just warrants against people, even if those individuals end up being innocent, and a police state.
My last on this.
You do realize that issuing a search for a given item on a warrant requires probable cause
And you do realize that “judge-shopping” is SOP among police departments and there’s probably not a police chief in the country (or at least the police chief of anything deserving to be called a city) who doesn’t have a friendly judge they can call to get a warrant just on their say-so that there is “probable cause,” right?
Oh, I’m quite sure that all the “i”s were dotted and the “t”s were crossed; appearances, after all, must be maintained. But there is one other thing I certainly hope you would realize: There can be one hell of a gap between what is “lawful” and what is “just.” To assume, as you apparently do in spite of the eyewitness accounts, that the warrants in this case - and the police behavior in carrying them out - were both is to display a bias much deeper than any that could be laid at the feet of Glenn Greenwald.