OpEdNews has received numerous written and video reports of lawful citizens being illegally detained, arrested, and subjected to excessive force by local and federal authorities in St. Paul-Minneapolis and in Denver at both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions.
Law enforcement authorities raided private homes, breaking through doors, windows and floors to gain entry into private residences, where citizens were gathered in peaceful, lawful assembly.
Tear gas, pepper spray, smoke bombs, rubber bullets, percussion grenades, and batons were reportedly used on law-abiding citizens engaged in peaceful protest. Police drove their cars into crowds to disperse them. We have reports that Ramsey City Jail refused arrestees or detainees access to lawyers, and that St. Joseph Hospital denied arrestees or detainees water.
Preemptive search and seizure has been employed as a means to intimidate and prevent peaceful assembly and lawful dissent. Professional and volunteer journalists have been arrested, in an apparent targeted action to suppress coverage of police action.Such actions were reportedly pre-approved by local city councils.
OEN is a media site that works diligently to keep otherwise neglected or suppressed news in the forefront.A free press is our last line of defense in a democracy against tyranny. With the arrest of Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman and her producers, a line has been crossed.For fully credentialed journalists to be forcefully grabbed and arrested is an incredible breach of trust and law.
This behavior by Denver, St. Paul and Minneapolis police, Ramsey County sheriffs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is fundamentally un-American and threatens the very fabric of our society.If those who enforce the laws are free to violate those laws, there is no rule of law.
Our constitutionally protected rights to peaceably assemble, to speak freely, to move without restriction, to protest and criticize our government, to be free of unwarranted search and seizure of our personal property, to be free of intimidation by those sworn to uphold the law are basic inalienable rights in a democratic society.
A free press where reporters can engage in their journalistic duties without threat of arrest must be restored.In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights proclaimed that "The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments." That we have come to such a crossroads should be a wakeup call to news organizations, and to all Americans.
The editorial board of OpEdNews calls for an immediate end to these violations of citizens' Constitutional right to assemble and express dissent. The right to the freedom of the press must be respected and restored. We call for an investigation into all charges of unlawful and unconstitutional actions. We demand full accountability for these outrageous police actions.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D) 302 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Main Line: 202-224-3244 Main Fax: 202-228-2186 Toll Free: 888-224-9043
Senator Norm Coleman (R) 320 Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 Main: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152
Sen. Coleman Minnesota Office in St. Paul: 2550 University Ave W, Suite 100N, St. Paul, MN 55114 Main: 651-645-0323 Fax: 651-645-3110 Toll Free: 800-642-6041
US Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D): 1714 Longworth HOB, Washington, DC 20515 Office: 202 225-6631 Fax: 202 225-1968
McCollum Saint Paul District Office 165 Western Avenue North, Suite 17, St. Paul, MN 55102 Office: 651 224-9191 Fax: 651 224-3056
Cheryl BW, managing editor
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (27 articles, 26 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 412 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 12:01:11 PM
Thank you so much, OEN editorial board, for a well summarized statement which says it all and for such integrity. You are real advocates and we appreciate you!
Comments:
"A free press where reporters can engage in their journalistic duties without threat of arrest must be restored.In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights proclaimed that "The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments." That we have come to such a crossroad should be a wakeup call to all Americans and news organizations.
The editorial board of OpEdNews calls for an immediate end to these violations of citizens' Constitutional right to assemble and express dissent. The right to the freedom of the press must be respected and restored. "
In order for this to happen, the Patriot Act (and other unconstitutional post-911 "laws") must be overturned. Period.No investigation into the unlawful arrest of Amy Goodman and of peaceful protestors will yield any fruit, unless the unconstitutional Patriot Act is significantly altered or overturned.
The ACLU takes the moderate position of amending the Patriot Act, based on decades of experience proving that to overturn such "laws" would be a wasted effort. But either way, we citizens must do something.
I suggest OEN editors and journalists, bloggers, readers all work together to this end. Rob, can this become a focused project of OEN's? Could people be asked to investigate the facts, the "laws", the FBI documents posted to the ACLU's website, and to inform OEN readers in this way? Knowledge is power: To educate readers about these laws would be to yield effective activity and reporting.
Consider the words of the Center for Constitutional Rights:
“In its rush to pass the Patriot Act just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, Congress overlooked one of our most fundamental rights – the right to express our political beliefs, especially those that are controversial,” says CCR Senior Attorney Nancy Chang. “Now it is up to the judiciary to correct Congress’s excesses.”
"Those that are controversial" would seem to include not supporting terrorists as one would imagine, but instead such things as 911 truths (witness: 911 truth-sayers dubbed "terrorists" by the Administration); protesting against Bush and the Administration's policies (NUMEROUS examples of entities dubbed "terrorists" exist on the ACLU's website where nothing more than supporting the environment and peacefully objecting to the Iraq war are concerned); "National Security" and "State secrets" are terms used to cloak crackdowns on lawful dissent and not on terrorists (see ACLU's website, all over the place and not just once or twice!) etc...
On the link above, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) continues:
The Patriot Act amends the definition of material support (of terrorists) to include "expert advice and assistance," and makes it a crime to provide such advice or assistance no matter what its intent and purpose, and even where it has nothing whatsoever to do with furthering terrorism.
In a decision issued late Friday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that a ban on providing “expert advice and assistance” to terrorist groups violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution because it is so vague that it “could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment.”
Considering that the ACLU now represents Amnesty International, Food Not Bombs, Greenpeace, the American Friends SErvice Committee, and more such do-good groups dubbed as "terrorists" in an official capacity by the Administration, it would seem that the CCR is correct in its assessment of the gash to our First Amendment rights under the Patriot Act.
Hence, the break-ins to homes where lawful dissent is being organized, the arrest of Amy Goodman for giving "material support" to "Terrorists" who are nothing but peaceful protestors, etc.
CCR continues:
David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a CCR cooperating attorney, said, “This decision calls into question the government’s reliance on overbroad laws imposing guilt by association in the war on terrorism. Our clients sought only to support lawful and nonviolent activity, yet the Patriot Act provision draws no distinction whatsoever between expert advice in human rights, designed to deter violence, and expert advice on how to build a bomb. We think the Constitution demands that the law recognize the difference between furthering human rights and furthering violence.”
Here is what Opednews members/readers can do to get the Patriot Act amended or overturned, and quell such police violence and violations to posterity:
C) Next, read the ACLU's website for specific examples of innocent and law-abiding "terrorists" being targeted.
Here is one good example of do-gooders dubbed "terrorists": An FBI document posted to the ACLU's website titled "international terrorism matters" in which the peace-oriented Thomas Merton Center was investigated for organizing a peace rally:
D) Organize with well-informed citizens and meet with the police, briefing them in to the statistics. This will deter any ethical officers among them from acting in bad faith, where they may honestly believe that they are going after "terrorists". Because, given the Patriot Act's loose and "over-broad" definition of "terrorism", plus FBI powers to subpoena without probable cause or judge's review, all that has to be done is for the FBI to SAY that someone is a terrorist and the police (and the public) will automatically believe them. To brief the police in to the statistics of false dubbing of "terrorists" would be key to stopping the violations, at least where those police among the brood with integrity are concerned.
by
Kathryn Smith (100 articles, 2 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 442 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM
...and an indispensable part of the participatory community of OEN. Tirelessly and doggedly pursuing the right when the wrong is the easiest path, you are a credit and a beacon of light to all Americans.
Thank you.
by
JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 12:21:01 PM
Thank YOU, Michael ~ that is the kind of action we need our members - and all Americans - to take. If we don't publicly condemn these fascist tactics, by letter, thought and deed, they will surely continue.
And thanks for all your efforts in the Twin Cities... let's see more from you!
by
Rady Ananda (128 articles, 290 quicklinks, 37 diaries, 1130 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 12:34:56 PM
As long as we have Police Officers who are willing to sell out against the People they have sworn to PROTECT & SERVE, we as a country are dead. I am calling on all Police in the Twin Cities to drop their batons and return to serving the public at large. (ie- if there are any true Americans amongst you)
by
kato krause (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 177 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 2:05:37 PM
"The editorial board of OpEdNews calls for an immediate end to these violations of citizens' Constitutional right to assemble and express dissent."
In reviewing numerous videos and reading an equal number of articles, the protestors were permitted to assemble and express dissent peacefully when using non-violent resistence. However, this changes once violent methods of resistence were introduced - click here .
There is no Right to Rebellion, except for in the state constitutions of Kentucky and New Hampshire. The rebellion element of the protest adversely impacted the Right to Assembly when citizens and their property (exterior to the protest) were threatened. In fact, shame on the authorities if they DIDN'T act.
Does the Board also condemn the militant activism (aka violence) that appears to have been instigated by the protestors, or are these acts being attributed to government counter-intelligence agents (as some have suggested here at OpEdNews.com - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8994 )? If they are, then where is the evidence?
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1808 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 2:42:38 PM
did that CNN video show except for peaceful demonstrators and the words of some commentator claiming to have seen a few young men commit violence against property but apparently deeming it unworthy of filming? And exactly how did he know they were anarchists? If you took the trouble to follow all of the protests, you would have found one describing the talking points for the administration. Guess what? All of the arrested were to be called anarchists! I guess there just isn't a credible communist threat anymore.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 399 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 3:25:42 PM
Thank you for taking the time to answer... for others
Perhaps I "hoped" that... but I do not "know" that... because the Board's condemnation against the violent protestors has not been written - as it was against the state. I doubt that the Board will condemn these protestors' actions because it would take away some of the thunder from their condemnation of the state's actions.
And I'm sure, if a comment was made by the Board on this obvious hypocrisy, it would read something like, "It's nothing personal, just political."
At day's end, though, I see a whitewashing of personal responsibility on the part of the militant protestors. The self-proclaimed anarchists may have started the violence but the mob certainly didn't try to stop it. Up until the violence, law enforcement respected the protestors' right to assembly. Once the protestors broke away from the permitted venues, the use of violence was witnessed and the rest is history - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEO4rlKfh5U&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyoB0nfkBEo&feature=related .
What disturbs me the most in watching these and other videos is the... excitement and glee (?) of the protestors. I compare these observations to my own experiences in Iraq, where life was held by a thread for Iraqis and soldiers alike (something these protestors will NEVER know) and my distinct impression was/is fear, sadness and anger - in that order.
It really is striking - the difference - between the violent protestors in the US and violence in Iraq. Maybe it's not a fair comparison, but it's what came to my mind after watching a number of videos. Americans truly don't know how good they really have it.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1808 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 6:56:47 PM
Police started "preventive" arrests before anyone did anything.
They arrested clearly identified members of the press.
These are horrendous atrocities upon democracy and the constitution.
And you throw in your snippy little remark about violent protesters.
The police have the responsibility to uphold the laws. A protester breaking something is wrong, but that is NOTHING, NOTHING, compared to police trampling on rights.
Too bad you don't see the huge difference. Your response is like complaining in an ER that your hangnail is not being treated soon enough, after an explosion has mangled hundreds of bodies.
by
Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 9:25:56 PM
"They arrested clearly identified members of the press."
Every protestor there seems to have had a camera of some sort – just look at the videos; it's Protesting Tactic 101 to video and do so copiously. Do you know which protestors in the videos are members of the credentialed press versus those with online blogs that claim they are the press? And even members of the press do not think that the press was targeted.
"'I don't think the police officers were targeting journalists,' [Evan] Vucci[, an AP photographer] said. 'The group they were going after was a pretty aggressive group, and I think they'd had enough of them. ... I think the cops were amped up.'" - click here .
But in your world, Rob, the police are not permitted to be amped up, huh? They're supposed to be non-feeling machines of the state that hurt because they enjoy hurting? I don't think so.
"These are horrendous atrocities upon democracy and the constitution."
Ditto but for those using violence as a means of resistance.
"And you throw in your snippy little remark about violent protesters."
There's nothing snippy on my part about it. I'm deadly serious about the violent protestors being given a pass on their criminal actions. They displayed a contempt not only for the established law but also the spirit of the majority of peaceful protestors. And yet... you focus solely on law enforcement. Interesting.
"The police have the responsibility to uphold the laws. A protester breaking something is wrong, but that is NOTHING, NOTHING, compared to police trampling on rights."
Right, right – and these folks were just collateral damage in the protestors' quest for justifying other humans as a means to a greater end - click here . Tell me, if a protestor is committed to breaking something, how far away is he from breaking someone? And what good is a right to you if you're nothing more than a casualty of another's desire? You'd sound like a needless victim to me.
"Too bad you don't see the huge difference. Your response is like complaining in an ER that your hangnail is not being treated soon enough, after an explosion has mangled hundreds of bodies."
I see the difference and wonder why these militants aren't being held accountable by OEN. Again, interesting.
But your analogy is overly dramatic. In light of what was allegedly lost versus the real damage done, my response is like that of Camille Desmoulins (an active member of the Revolution) to his wife prior to his death by the French mob via the guillotine:
"J'avais rêvé une république que tout le monde eût adorée. Je n'ai pu croire que les hommes fussent si féroces et si injustes," or "I had dream of a republic that everyone adored. I could not believe that these men were so wild and so unjust."
Where has personal responsibility gone when men such as you, Rob, turn a blind eye on the practitioners of violence in the name of protest? Strangely moot is where you be.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1808 comments)
on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 11:14:10 PM
"Police started "preventive" arrests before anyone did anything." This is actually true...click here while you can and will easily argue that these folks were planning on doing something violent or illegal, if you read the article you’ll find that all those arrested were later release without charge.Why?Because they had not committed a crime, indeed even with their planted police informants they could not even get conspiracy to incite a riot charge to stick due to lack of evidence.
"They arrested clearly identified members of the press."
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now has received the John F Kennedy award for journalism, the George Polk award, and the Overseas Press Club award.She has been an international journalist for over 20 years.Democracy Now is syndicated in over 100 countries around the world and several public and cable stations here in the US including NPR.At the time of her arrest, she and her producer and camera man were wearing their RNC convention floor press pass (the high level press pass for the convention with background and bonding required).They were arrested while filming a police crack down on protestors occurring right outside the front door of their office.
"These are horrendous atrocities upon democracy and the constitution."
This statement, while I agree with it, is actually more emotive than factual.Arresting the press while covering a news event –could- be a violation of free press.And preemptively arresting protestors and then not charging them (assuming there was a warrant) is not much more than an error in judgment on the part of the judge issuing the warrant.
I feel the issue is not so much weather or not the police acted in an appropriate manor, but rather if that reaction was proportionate to the threat.But more than that, there is a sense of imbalance based on partisanship.Consider that Amy Goodman is facing terrorism charges and the methheads who were planning on assassinating Obama and caught with guns, drugs, and manifestos are not. Instead the Bush appointed US Attorney Troy Eid said they would face drug and firearms charges.
by
erik mouse (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments)
on Thursday, September 4, 2008 at 2:42:07 PM
