The Shocking Truth Behind the Crackdown on Occupy

[Bikewer]

I think the Roaches successfully isolated themselves to the extent that many of the Tea Party folks had little idea they were being bankrolled and organized by Coporate interests...

At least, until they were outed.

 

[Brainster]

Really? Really?

Yes, I know it's completely unfair to the French, who had little choice but to collaborate with their occupiers.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I don't think that the crackdowns were carried out because of some sort of command from DHS.

But
1) having DHS involved at all is pretty scary. Scarier than having the FBI involved. Maybe that's just some illogical prejudice I have, but DHS seems much more "military" to me. Remember that DHS is supposed to be dealing with groups like al-Qaeda. Is OWS considered a terrorist group now?

2) Having a bunch of mayors meeting and planning how to shut down a protest is also pretty creepy. Again, it's not federal-government-fascism creepy, but it's a bit worrying. Why would you try to coordinate your crackdowns, if you didn't want to "send a message"? Maybe it's not an attempt to conceal insider trading. Maybe it's just a good, old-fashioned attempt to silence dissent, and shut down a movement.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I don't think that the crackdowns were carried out because of some sort of command from DHS.

I agree. I see no evidence of such a thing from any branch of the federal government, including hardcore Tea Party Republicans in Congress (like King et al).

What I think is going on is that given the circumstances there are some bad apples among the cops who are over-reacting and/or using the situation to bust some heads. And I don't say this lightly: I have a friend whose brother was at an Occupy event and literally got his skull cracked by a cop's baton as he was lying facedown on the ground with three other cops on top of him.

He wasn't resisting arrest and he wasn't armed, yet this one cop (and as far as I know it was only one of the bunch) took it upon himself to "teach this hippie a lesson". This was also all caught on video (a la Rodney King), and it is creating a firestorm of criticism. My friend's family has already hired a lawyer and boy are they going after this cop (and maybe even the department), big-time.

I have an old family friend who was in federal law enforcement (an FBI field agent), and he will tell you that under those circumstances, there is no justification for that cop smashing his baton repeatedly into the back of the head of a defenseless and subdued man.

That cop is a top-notch asshat... but evidence of a grand conspiracy involving the Tea Party, the President, Congress, the DHS, and various billionaire interests to squash dissent this most certainly is not.

1) having DHS involved at all is pretty scary. Scarier than having the FBI involved. Maybe that's just some illogical prejudice I have, but DHS seems much more "military" to me. Remember that DHS is supposed to be dealing with groups like al-Qaeda. Is OWS considered a terrorist group now?

No. Do you have any evidence that OWS is classified as a terrorist group, or are you just freaking out for the sake of freaking out?

2) Having a bunch of mayors meeting and planning how to shut down a protest is also pretty creepy. Again, it's not federal-government-fascism creepy, but it's a bit worrying. Why would you try to coordinate your crackdowns, if you didn't want to "send a message"? Maybe it's not an attempt to conceal insider trading. Maybe it's just a good, old-fashioned attempt to silence dissent, and shut down a movement.

Or maybe it's an effort by some politicians to try looking good by giving the appearance they are in control and keeping things on an even keel. You know, "keep the trains running on time" and all that jazz. Protestors in the park just kind of looks bad.

There are other possibilities besides the nefarious ones which you seem predisposed to proposing.

 

[Metullus]

*snip*

2) Having a bunch of mayors meeting and planning how to shut down a protest is also pretty creepy. Again, it's not federal-government-fascism creepy, but it's a bit worrying. Why would you try to coordinate your crackdowns, if you didn't want to "send a message"? Maybe it's not an attempt to conceal insider trading. Maybe it's just a good, old-fashioned attempt to silence dissent, and shut down a movement.

Or maybe, given that they were experiencing similar problems, they thought it wise to see what actions other jurisdictions were implementing and perhaps share ideas and commiserate a little bit.

 

[000063]

I don't think that the crackdowns were carried out because of some sort of command from DHS.

But
1) having DHS involved at all is pretty scary. Scarier than having the FBI involved. Maybe that's just some illogical prejudice I have, but DHS seems much more "military" to me. Remember that DHS is supposed to be dealing with groups like al-Qaeda. Is OWS considered a terrorist group now?

They also include Customs and Borders, the Coast Guard, ICE, and FEMA.

2) Having a bunch of mayors meeting and planning how to shut down a protest is also pretty creepy. Again, it's not federal-government-fascism creepy, but it's a bit worrying. Why would you try to coordinate your crackdowns, if you didn't want to "send a message"?

You're assuming the "crackdowns" were coordinated, instead of parallel. Black Friday was coming up, and the mayors would want to clean up the streets.

Maybe it's not an attempt to conceal insider trading. Maybe it's just a good, old-fashioned attempt to silence dissent, and shut down a movement.

You haven't mentioned the possibility the protests are breaking the law, and that that might be enough. Very few people seem to want to.

 

[Trakar]

...Or maybe it's an effort by some politicians to try looking good by giving the appearance they are in control and keeping things on an even keel. You know, "keep the trains running on time" and all that jazz. Protestors in the park just kind of looks bad.

There are other possibilities besides the nefarious ones which you seem predisposed to proposing.

Personally, I would consider that nefarious. Acting in the public realm to enhance their own image/electability rather than in consideration of the greater public good, is counter to public service representation. I don't know that the OWS movement is in accord with the greater public good, but has there been any real effort by politicians to meet with, hear and substantively address their issues and concerns?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Personally, I would consider that nefarious. Acting in the public realm to enhance their own image/electability rather than in consideration of the greater public good, is counter to public service representation. I don't know that the OWS movement is in accord with the greater public good, but has there been any real effort by politicians to meet with, hear and substantively address their issues and concerns?

I would call it politicians acting like politicians.

As for your question, not many politicians have met with OWS directly (I think Elliot Spitzer has some connections with OWS). That's probably at least partly because, due to the nebulous nature of OWS, it's pretty damn hard to meet with any leadership in an essentially leaderless movement. This, of course, assumes that politicians are even interested in meeting with OWS in the first place, which most are not.

I think if the thinkers in the OWS movement are smart, they will start organizing people to start moving from the soap box towards the ballot box. Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[Trakar]

I would call it politicians acting like politicians.

unfortunately, I'd all too often have to agree. Doesn't change my position but if you prefer your wording I won't reject the idea that most modern politicians are nefarious.

As for your question, not many politicians have met with OWS directly (I think Elliot Spitzer has some connections with OWS). That's probably at least partly because, due to the nebulous nature of OWS, it's pretty damn hard to meet with any leadership in an essentially leaderless movement. This, of course, assumes that politicians are even interested in meeting with OWS in the first place, which most are not.

I think if the thinkers in the OWS movement are smart, they will start organizing people to start moving from the soap box towards the ballot box. Just my $0.02 worth.

definitely have to agree with that as well.

 

[Brainster]

Personally, I would consider that nefarious. Acting in the public realm to enhance their own image/electability rather than in consideration of the greater public good, is counter to public service representation. I don't know that the OWS movement is in accord with the greater public good, but has there been any real effort by politicians to meet with, hear and substantively address their issues and concerns?

The issues they appear to want addressed are removed from the ability of mayors and local governments to handle. To give just a simple list:

1. Reduce influence of Wall Street and corporations in politics
2. Don't bail out banks
3. Reduce student loan debt
4. Provide more jobs

Meanwhile, the problems that the OWS participants are cause are purely local in nature: poor sanitation, crime, drug abuse, noise, increased cost for law enforcement, etc.

Are you beginning to see why mayors from around the country might want to participate in a conference call to discuss strategies?

 

[Trakar]

The issues they appear to want addressed are removed from the ability of mayors and local governments to handle. To give just a simple list:

1. Reduce influence of Wall Street and corporations in politics
2. Don't bail out banks
3. Reduce student loan debt
4. Provide more jobs

So you are saying that the OWS should only occupy federal property?

Meanwhile, the problems that the OWS participants are cause are purely local in nature: poor sanitation, crime, drug abuse, noise, increased cost for law enforcement, etc.

None of which is without resolution , merely lacking in funding. most tornados, floods and other disasters are local as well. Truck out porta potties, extra peace officers, clean water and showers, set up a health clinic and file with the federal government for disaster relief.

Are you beginning to see why mayors from around the country might want to participate in a conference call to discuss strategies?

Might be more productive for the protestors and the mayors to demand an open meeting with the white house and the leaders of congress. That's a CSPAN moment I'd tune into.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

No. Do you have any evidence that OWS is classified as a terrorist group, or are you just freaking out for the sake of freaking out.

It's a simple question: Why is DHS involved?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

They also include Customs and Borders, the Coast Guard, ICE, and FEMA.

And OWS falls under the purview of which of these...?

You haven't mentioned the possibility the protests are breaking the law, and that that might be enough. Very few people seem to want to.

"But they're breaking the law!"
Who cares?
I remember hearing that about Rodney King, too. Supposedly, he was "resisting arrest", so they were allowed to beat the crap out of him.
I don't doubt that OWS is breaking the law. But the law is wrong. We have the right to peaceably assemble.

 

[000063]

And OWS falls under the purview of which of these...?

Who said it does? It's the purview of local officials. However, there is nothing saying they cannot ask DHS or each other for advice.

"But they're breaking the law!"
Who cares?

The police.

I remember hearing that about Rodney King, too. Supposedly, he was "resisting arrest", so they were allowed to beat the crap out of him.

Speaking of injuries, less people have died or been seriously injured from the "militarized police action" than in the Occupy camps. Objectively, Occupy is more dangerous to itself than the cops are to them.

I don't doubt that OWS is breaking the law. But the law is wrong. We have the right to peaceably assemble.[/QUOTE]It is nice that private citizens can determine whether or not to comply with the law whenever they want. I'm sure "but I didn't want to follow the rules!" is going to hold up in court.

That was sarcasm.

Look up Cox vs. New Hampshire. Cities have the right to restrict the circumstances of the delivery of free speech for public safety. I'd say the increased crime rate, including actively telling people not to report rapes to the cops (possibly because it might make Occupy look bad), is a public safety concern. And I'd like to point out, again, the hypocrisy of wanting to create rules which are supposed to be egalitarian, even while demanding special rules for oneself.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Who said it does? It's the purview of local officials. However, there is nothing saying they cannot ask DHS or each other for advice.

I would like to know why they were involved. This is a government agency, which, I understand, was created to deal with terrorists, working with police to shut down a peaceful protest by its own citizens.

The police.

Why are you taking the side of the police? If there is an unjust law, the brave among us can challenge it by breaking it. Hiding behind the law does not absolve you from justifying your beliefs.
At one time, it was against the law for African-Americans and women to vote. The law is not always right.

Speaking of injuries, less people have died or been seriously injured from the "militarized police action" than in the Occupy camps. Objectively, Occupy is more dangerous to itself than the cops are to them.

Evidence?
Occupy does not want people hurt and/or injured. I'm sure this could've been handled, while respecting everybody's rights.

It is nice that private citizens can determine whether or not to comply with the law whenever they want. I'm sure "but I didn't want to follow the rules!" is going to hold up in court.

That was sarcasm.

Look up Cox vs. New Hampshire. Cities have the right to restrict the circumstances of the delivery of free speech for public safety. I'd say the increased crime rate, including actively telling people not to report rapes to the cops (possibly because it might make Occupy look bad), is a public safety concern. And I'd like to point out, again, the hypocrisy of wanting to create rules which are supposed to be egalitarian, even while demanding special rules for oneself.

Citizens should challenge unjust laws by breaking them. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in, even in the face of the police. People in other countries have done so much more; they have fought and been seriously injured, even killed. Look at Egypt! I would be embarrassed if Americans were so lily-livered that they packed their tents in after a few months, because the police asked them to.

And, if they did, what would the conservatives say? "Oh, I guess Occupy wasn't really serious after all! Just some kids, looking to make a ruckus. They fled outta there as soon as some cops shone a light on 'em! They do not have passion of their convictions." And America would have to agree that they're right.

By doing this, they are gaining the respect and admiration of many. People who already agree with them, yes, but also many on the fence. Taking the coward's way out is not the way to go here. I doubt that the haters are going to change their minds about Occupy no matter what Occupy does, anyway.

A final thought:
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." ---Justice Anthony Kennedy, Citizens United vs. FEC

 

[Brainster]

It's a simple question: Why is DHS involved?

As I pointed out earlier, there is no evidence DHS was involved. Wolf cited a crackpot blogger and Wonkette (but I repeat myself) which both linked back to a post on Examiner.com, another crackpot site, where the poster claimed to have an unnamed Justice Department source.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

As I pointed out earlier, there is no evidence DHS was involved. Wolf cited a crackpot blogger and Wonkette (but I repeat myself) which both linked back to a post on Examiner.com, another crackpot site, where the poster claimed to have an unnamed Justice Department source.

Thanks, that's good to know it's still just a rumor.

 

[WildCat]

None of which is without resolution , merely lacking in funding. most tornados, floods and other disasters are local as well. Truck out porta potties, extra peace officers, clean water and showers, set up a health clinic and file with the federal government for disaster relief.

That is absurd.

 

[WildCat]

Why are you taking the side of the police? If there is an unjust law, the brave among us can challenge it by breaking it.

So now OWS is all about the right to camp in public parks? Talk about mission creep!

 

[MattusMaximus]

It's a simple question: Why is DHS involved?

I don't know. For that matter, I don't know that DHS is involved at all.

Now, answer my simple question: do you have evidence that OWS is in any way, shape, or form being classified as a terrorist group?