Welcome to the Police State

rmthunter · #1 09-02-2008, 08:08 AM

I suppose someone is very grateful for the flap over Sarah Palin and the news about Gustav. These reports are not getting the attention they should be*:

Quote:

… Perhaps most extraordinarily, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now — the radio and TV broadcaster who has been a working journalist for close to 20 years — was arrested on the street and charged with “conspiracy to riot.” Audio of her arrest, which truly shocked and angered the crowd of observers, is here. I just attended a Press Conference with St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and Police Chief John M. Harrington and — after they boasted of how “restrained” their police actions were — asked about the journalists and lawyers who had been detained and/or arrested both today and over the weekend. They said they wouldn’t give any information about journalists who had been arrested today, though they said they believed that “one journalist” had been, and that she “was a participant in the riots, not simply a non-participant.”

"Restrained"? I shudder to think what it would be like if they went all out.

"Conspiracy to riot"? WTF?

I'm pissed. I've already written my congressional delegation about this, asking for an investigation. And I hope everyone beaten, arrested, and threatened sues the city, county, state, and feds.

* If you dig, you can find some stories. This one is from NYT. The "riots" in the streets got two paragraphs from WaPo, buried in a story about -- you guessed it -- Palin and Gustav, which is what passes for convention coverage in Washington, I guess.

In view of the reports coming out of St Paul and prior reports of pre-emptive raids, you have to ask yourself if the police did as much to trigger the violence as curtail it.

**drmomentum**[$] · #2 09-02-2008, 09:17 AM

I've been watching TV news (unusual, for me) and heard almost nothing about this. You can find out about it online, but my guess is that the average TV-watcher thinks that the only cloud over the RNC is Gustav. Those are the only two stories.

When they spend so much time repeating themselves, you wonder why they couldn't provide some coverage of other issues. It's definitely not an airtime problem; it's a competence problem.

**slick4591**[$] · #3 09-02-2008, 10:03 AM

Dunno, Bob, but it's kinda hard to pick out the journalist and the liberal rioters in this video. And in case you didn't know it, the journalist should follow police instructions, too.

Video

**lynnzop**[$] · #4 09-02-2008, 10:17 AM

I was in Mpls/St. Paul last weekend, and there WAS some coverage of the arrests and riot. Not a lot, but then again, I wasn't really paying that much attention.

rmthunter · #5 09-02-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

slick4591 said

Dunno, Bob, but it's kinda hard to pick out the journalist and the liberal rioters in this video. And in case you didn't know it, the journalist should follow police instructions, too.

Video

Slick, if you take it in context -- such as the pre-emptive raids that happened last week on houses that were occupied by people who hadn't done anything, and the arrests of observers from lawyers' organizations -- you start to take the "police instructions" with a grain of salt.

Maybe you don't remember Chicago in 1968. I was here. The big lesson we learned is that the police are just as likely to start a riot as to control one. And I don't like the idea that you should be arrested because you might do something. Maybe. At some unspecified time in the future.

rmthunter · #6 09-02-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

drmomentum said

I've been watching TV news (unusual, for me) and heard almost nothing about this. You can find out about it online, but my guess is that the average TV-watcher thinks that the only cloud over the RNC is Gustav. Those are the only two stories.

When they spend so much time repeating themselves, you wonder why they couldn't provide some coverage of other issues. It's definitely not an airtime problem; it's a competence problem.

This is the McCain Convention. McCain gives good barbeque. And besides, he's a maverick -- just ask the lobbyists who are running his campaign.

**slick4591**[$] · #7 09-02-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

rmthunter said

Slick, if you take it in context -- such as the pre-emptive raids that happened last week on houses that were occupied by people who hadn't done anything, and the arrests of observers from lawyers' organizations -- you start to take the "police instructions" with a grain of salt.

Maybe you don't remember Chicago in 1968. I was here. The big lesson we learned is that the police are just as likely to start a riot as to control one. And I don't like the idea that you should be arrested because you might do something. Maybe. At some unspecified time in the future.

Haven't heard much about those raids, but my belief is they don't justify the rioting. And, when "you start to take the "police instructions" with a grain of salt" you're just begging to go to jail.

I was just a kid in Texas minding my own business when the '68 riots took place, so I don't don't remember much about them, but I have noticed that I didn't hear of any riots in Denver. Makes me scratch my head a little.

**drmomentum**[$] · #8 09-02-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

slick4591 said

Haven't heard much about those raids

This is my point exactly; not enough coverage so it's difficult to get a clear picture of what is going on.

It's not a question about whether any police actions justify riots; it's whether the police actions are justified.

To know that, I have to know more about what the police are doing. Which is why I want to see reporting from reputable sources rather than having to dig for details from possibly more biased places.

-JP

**slick4591**[$] · #9 09-02-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

drmomentum said

This is my point exactly; not enough coverage so it's difficult to get a clear picture of what is going on.

It's not a question about whether any police actions justify riots; it's whether the police actions are justified.

To know that, I have to know more about what the police are doing. Which is why I want to see reporting from reputable sources rather than having to dig for details from possibly more biased places.

-JP

You're going to get enough information from an article to a form an educated opinion about anyone's actions being justified? Do you have any idea how many week long trials I've sat through that only got 500 words printed about them, or only 20 seconds of air time? Don't kid yourself. It ain't happening.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #10 09-02-2008, 08:20 PM

On the one hand, there were the anti-war and anti-GOP protests in NYC that resulted in hundreds arrested and most of the arrests were tossed out (one batch just last month), but on the other hand a group doesn't look good when the stories of these current protests include things like "burning trash cans pushed into police officer cars." (Slick, I didn't hear of any protests in Denver either.) Yeah, I know, there's one side and the other side and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

rmthunter · #11 09-04-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

slick4591 said

Haven't heard much about those raids, but my belief is they don't justify the rioting. And, when "you start to take the "police instructions" with a grain of salt" you're just begging to go to jail.

I blogged about the pre-emptive raids myself, here. Here are the stories I based the blog on: Minnesota Independent, Glenn Greenwald, and Llindsay Beyerstein. These are not wild-eyed radical sources, but are among the most respected journalists on the Web.

I want to point out one thing that seems to have been submerged here in the talk of riots and justifications: these were raids against "suspected" demonstrators and protesters -- which activity itself is constitutionally protected speech. These people had not done anything, which in this society, until recently at least, was the sine qua non for being charged with a crime. The charges that were brought seem mostly to be "conspiracy to riot," which is tailor-made for a Bush-style regime -- it's also the kind of charge tailor-made for police who don't have any legitimate reason for arresting people.

Quote:

I was just a kid in Texas minding my own business when the '68 riots took place, so I don't don't remember much about them, but I have noticed that I didn't hear of any riots in Denver. Makes me scratch my head a little.

The police in Chicago in '68 probably did as much to cause the riots as the radical activists did. In fact, the investigating commission came down with the phrase "police riot," which seems to sum it up nicely. Historically, this has been known as "provocation." And can we talk about the history of the FBI, which is part of the Justice Department arm of the Republican party, in placing provocateurs in just these kinds of groups? (I'm not advancing a conspiracy theory here, but it would be naive to rule it out.)

You didn't hear about riots in Denver because there weren't any. And I find it odd that it's Republicans who seem to be the targets. Can you say "paranoia"?

rmthunter · #12 09-04-2008, 09:18 AM

Here are more reports.

**drmomentum**[$] · #13 09-04-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

slick4591 said

You're going to get enough information from an article to a form an educated opinion about anyone's actions being justified?

Well, it seemed unlikely that less information would help.

-JP

**conradd** · #14 09-04-2008, 02:02 PM

Bob, are you citing Glenn Greenwald as a respected journalist?

rmthunter · #15 09-04-2008, 02:14 PM

Yes.

I didn't say he wasn't partisan, nor did I say that he's not opinionated. He is, however, in my experience, one of the most thorough and careful commentators online or elsewhere. You may not like his opinions, but they are carefully thought out and his assertions are thoroughly documented, which is more than I can say for someone like Matt Drudge. Or the Washington Post, for that matter.

To be frank, I'd rather get information from a source that is honest about its agenda rather than one that's only pretending to be -- how shall I put it? "Fair and balanced"? It's not like I'm incapable of sifting out the biases.

**slick4591**[$] · #16 09-04-2008, 02:24 PM

My point is that what ever the agenda of the journalist you're only going to get a small part of the real story. They only have so many words to print and a person will never get a complete and accurate story. If you want to form an opinion from that then be my guest.

Quote:

You didn't hear about riots in Denver because there weren't any.

Exactly, but there were some demonstrations. Peaceful ones. So, if I use your standards for forming an opinion then my belief is Liberals are more likely to be rioters.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #17 09-04-2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

slick4591 said

My point is that whatever the agenda of the journalist you only going to get a small part of the real story. They only have so many words to print and a person will never get a complete and accurate story. If you want to form an opinion from that then be my guest.

This is too, too true. I've had too much experience in the past 10 years with knowing what is happening in a particular situation and seeing how it gets reported to the world. Not that I think it's intentional on the part of the press either, having been on their side too - some things will be distorted or misunderstood or left out or not known or what have you despite everyone's best efforts and without intent.

rmthunter · #18 09-04-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

slick4591 said

My point is that what ever the agenda of the journalist you're only going to get a small part of the real story. They only have so many words to print and a person will never get a complete and accurate story. If you want to form an opinion from that then be my guest.

That's exactly why you can't rely on any single source for news.

Quote:

So, if I use your standards for forming an opinion then my belief is Liberals are more likely to be rioters.

Who said all the demonstrators and protesters in Denver were conservatives? Not from what I heard.