In MN, Massive Police Raids On Suspected Protestors 961
X0563511 alerts us to events in Minneapolis and St. Paul in advance of the Republican convention (which has been put on hold because of Hurricane Gustav). Local police backed by the FBI raided a number of homes and public buildings and confiscated computers and other material. From Salon.com: "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." Here is local reporting from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Aided by informants planted in protest groups, authorities raided at least six buildings across St. Paul and Minneapolis to stop an 'anarchist' plan to disrupt this week's Republican National Convention. From Friday night through Saturday afternoon, officers surrounded houses, broke down doors, handcuffed scores of people and confiscated suspected tools of civil disobedience ... A St. Paul City Council member described it as excessive, while activists, many of whom were detained and then released without charges, called it intimidation designed to quash free speech."
Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Informative)
If only it were the police; it looks like the FBI may be involved as well http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/31/raids/index.html [salon.com]
For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this. This is utterly unacceptable.
Re:In Soviet Russia. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you COULD travel inside the USSR without showing papers. Train and airplane tickets were anonymous and you did not need to show ID to board a train or an airplane.
Re:This is not how you stop riots... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling (Score:2, Informative)
The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant.
Now, I have only the same information you do, probably less. But the quote above seems to indicate that they actually did have a search warrant.
Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling (Score:5, Informative)
From: http://www.nornc.org/ [nornc.org]
This isn't a peaceful assembly if you ask me:
"How we get there (the strategy):
1. Start Strong - Throw all of our energy into the first day. We'll kick this off right and stretch the militarized police state out so far that it can no longer contain and suppress our voices and desires.
2. Transportation Troubles - This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."
This is the group that the Star article describes as having been arrested.
Repeat of the NY Republican Convention (Score:5, Informative)
This happened in NY City in 2004 [usatoday.com] during the Republican Convention although the police waited until the convention had started. My brother was one of the thousands swept up in the sweeps the police did to clear protesters from the street. His lawsuit is still pending, most likely he will wind up with a nice settlement, but the goal was to get these "troublemakers" off the street and that was accomplished. The same marching orders are likely in effect for the Republican Convention this year, and by the time the lawsuits are settled in four years the next election will be on the horizon. Kind of depressing that the police can get away with this bs.
Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling (Score:5, Informative)
But consider this : in order for Those In Power to keep their power, they have to do a number of things;
1) Subvert the Constitution - because it gets in the way of their plans.
2) Create an atmosphere of Fear - this is accomplished in a number of ways;
a) Create more criminals - this is done by adding lots of laws.
b) Engineer situations where you can create enough world tension that eventually you can say you
are in a permanent state of "war".
3) Dumb the people down - again, this can be accomplished in a number of ways;
a) Culturally - dumb down the Press, TV
b) Educationally - dumb down the system.
What you have seen is the use of point 2)(a) in that basically They Can Get You For Anything if you do something
to disrupt their plans.
Welcome, America, to your Police State.
So peaceful!!! (Score:3, Informative)
There is video on this... (Score:1, Informative)
Crookandliars.com has some interviews and coverage on these raids.
story #1 [crooksandliars.com]
story #2 [crooksandliars.com]
Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling (Score:5, Informative)
Note the quote from the police - Police said despite the massive traffic disruption on the motorway, the man had the right to protest peacefully.
Bob
The Seattle Riots (Score:3, Informative)
"Well a couple of brain dead anarchists breaking windows and throwing bottles does not create a riot."
Anyone that says the Seattle rioters (PRIOR TO the police response) were just "a few brain dead anarchists" are at best misinformed, or worse, utterly full of shit. Everyone from Greenpeace to Earth First planned "direct action" in Seattle, and lots of violence was on the menu for the Earth First types. The cops may have overreacted, but lets can this BS meme that the cops were overreacting to a handful of rowdy boys. There were people that had planned violent activities for weeks prior to those meetings, and they were certainly more than a handful. Furthermore, once they got started, the crowd seemed plenty eager to join in the festivities... including things like busting up every Starbucks and McDonalds they could find.
Don't pretend it was a bunch of naive innocents vs. the gestapo.
Re:Amendment I (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like someone forgot to read the first addition [wikipedia.org] to The Constitution...
I very much hope to see someone very publicly hauled in front of a judge over this. Even if they were all let go, breaking up this assembly was itself a violation of the First Amendment.
Trampling on and interpreting laws nowadays isn't too hard to get away with, but direct violations of amendments are still a good deal more difficult to slither out of.
Buckets of urine (Score:2, Informative)
The /. summary kind of cherry-picks the bits that it mentions. If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready, in addition to the slingshots, bow and arrows, and gun that police seized. It's pretty clear that whatever protest these people were planning was going to go beyond peaceful words, unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.
It also notes that these informants were working on the inside of the protest groups for quite some time, to minimize any doubt that these folks were up to no good. So, in other words, the cops were doing their job, and Slashdot has, in typical form, made it some sort of repression of the proletariat by the current administration.
Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling (Score:3, Informative)
You think your wish not to be disrupted should trump the right given by the constitution to peaceful assembly
Keyword: peaceful assembly. Blocking traffic is just about the textbook definition of disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct, i.e.: disturbing the rights of your neighbors to be left the hell alone. It's called the public order and it's generally one of the things that society demands from the Government.
Sturmabteilung (Score:2, Informative)
"From April 1924 until late February 1925 the SA was known as the Frontbann to avoid the temporary ban on the Nazi party. The SA carried out numerous acts of violence against socialist groups throughout the 1920s, typically in minor street-fights called Zusammenstöße ('collisions')."
Re:Buckets of urine (Score:5, Informative)
Here's your "better explanation." Not that it will change your thinking in the least.
Also, since when was ownership of a firearm evidence that someone intends to perpetrate a crime? The NRA would like to have a word with you.
Re:Buckets of urine (Score:3, Informative)
they said on the cnn, the buckets of urine were from a house that didnt have working bathrooms.
Re:"Part of Free Speech" (Score:3, Informative)
Correction [slashdot.org].
Re:Buckets of urine (Score:5, Informative)
The Star-Tribune SUCKS. Can't trust them. I've lived in Twin Cities.
My sources (in MN) say that that most the buckets were gray water and a few were because there was no bathroom (the place was over crowded.) Not to mention there is no crime for pissing in a bucket.
In addition, the Star Trib spends time on the anarchist group when most the raids were OTHER groups that were not anarchist and the paper didn't explain that and left it for the reader to mis-characterize all the other people involved in the raids when most of them were peaceful people gathering on private property.
They were NOT civil to reporters in all situations. Plus in some cases the people they held were the people asserting their constitutional rights. (there no warrants in most cases.)
Plus if you have been following, there were reports of the FBI trying to get students to be informants for them... One student spoke out about it months ago; one wonders what kind of characters volunteer for it-- and how trustworthy they are if they hate these protesters to begin with and that is why the agreed to be a voluntary government spy.
here is another link
http://www.twincities.com/ci_10346122?source=most_viewed [twincities.com]
Re:RTFA you twats (Score:2, Informative)
Re:i call BS (Score:1, Informative)
Their protests were not planned against the police, the FBI, the sheriff or any other representative of the government. Their goal was to disrupt the Republican National Convention and prevent free speech and political discourse.
Maybe you should spend more than a fraction of a second glancing at TFA? I mean if you'd tried at all you would have seen this page [nornc.org]:
Or you could have found this page [nornc.org] titled "Anarchy and the RNC: Protesters Won't Rule Out 2008 Violence". Sounds peaceful.
And if you tried at all you'd be able to locate one of the warrants. [mnginteractive.com]
Well, I showed mine. Now you show yours indicating (quoting from your original post) "these people aren't violent anarchists, they are citizens protesting the government." I mean, their website is titled "NORNC" and they have page after page detailing how they intend to disrupt the Republican National Convention. But maybe I misunderstood and they aren't actually intending to disrupt peaceful political assembly or to interfere with the representatives of millions of Americans getting together. Please, show me where I'm wrong and you're right. Otherwise acknowledge that you were wrong and speaking completely without basis.
Re:Buckets of urine (Score:5, Informative)
unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.
Maybe they didn't pay their sewer bill.
There was no toilet in the apartment where the only bucket of urine was found. The other buckets were filled with dirty water, to flush the toilets that were in the building. But they, whoever they is, will turn off water. I live in Minneapolis in an apartment and so far this year we have gotten 3 notices the water will be turned off if the bill is not paid.
Falcon
Glenn Greenwald is THE MAN (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oblig. (Score:4, Informative)
This is utterly unacceptable.
I agree and I've written to Obama/Biden headquarters (again) to let them know that we citizens are expecting them to give us back the Bill of Rights. Writing here http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/ [barackobama.com] to express our concerns should be more effective than all of us bemoaning the situation on /.
If anyone knows of a site where the GOP candidates are also asking for comments (and having someone read them), please post it also.
Re:RTFA you twats (Score:1, Informative)
Considering the weight of a bucket of urine and the amount of security that's going to be at the RNC, wouldn't it have been better to fill a bunch of super soakers with urine instead of buckets? Seems the would-be protesters have a better explanation than the police "thrown on people" or you "flung at someone monkey style." How do you throw urine with your hands exactly? Besides, it was one bucket of urine from a nonassociated third party (he just lived in the illegal apt) and two buckets of gray water. Spend some time in the southwest if you don't know what it is.
Re:Oblig. (Score:2, Informative)
Just because it's SOP that doesn't make it right.
The facts seem to contradict you. (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.seattle.gov/wtocommittee/history.htm [seattle.gov]
And the facts contradict your claimed experience.
The videos are still available. Check YouTube for them.
Re:Oblig. (Score:3, Informative)
From the first:
"Officers from the gang and fugitive units, as well as several districts, hit three-deckers and apartment buildings all over the city, looking for people who had defaulted on warrants for crimes including shoplifting, rape of a child, and assault and battery with a deadly weapon."
After a few years of violence marring what is otherwise a fun event, they decided to crack down on people who are committing actual crimes in order to lessen an annual spike in violent crime. That's nothing like arresting protesters in advance of a political event, not least because the people being arrested aren't protesters... and the event isn't at all political. While I appreciate your point, it isn't much helped by an example of police actually doing their jobs.
Your second example was a bit better, but I think it's worth noting that the protesters in that story are all anti-war demonstrators and hardcore liberals. And it is difficult to begin a scathing report on police abuse with "To their credit, the Denver police showed restraint in managing some peaceful large-scale protests".
Re:Oblig. (Score:3, Informative)
People misunderstand search warrant laws (Score:3, Informative)
Ba'athist Party in Iraq (Score:5, Informative)
The Ba'athist parties are about all thats left of that classical Socialist-Fascism
And guess who supported Saddam and the Ba'athists in Iraq in the 1980s? Republican presidents Reason and Bush Sr. Guess who was on Bush's staff or is now on Jr's staff who helped Saddam? Here are some photos of Rumsfeld and Saddam together [google.com]. They're shaking hand like old pals. At first Secretary of State Cheney also supported Saddam during Bush Sr's term in office. Support for Saddam only ended after he invaded Kuwait who, Saddam had accused of and was later verified, was slant drilling [wikipedia.org] into Iraq to pump Iraqi oil as if it was Kuwaiti oil. Before his invasion of Kuwait Saddam could do no wrong no matter how many people he used chemical weapons against.
Falcon
Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Informative)
For the record, when I submitted this I hadn't gone more than a few paragraphs into the articles, and hadn't realized it was for a Republican event. This wasn't submitted for any sort of bashing, more of an "oh my god people need to know about this" submission.
Re:Buckets of urine (Score:3, Informative)
If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready
Obviously you either didn't read the whole Star-Tribune article or you're trolling. TFA says, cut and paste:
"The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."
Falcon
too fucking bad (Score:3, Informative)
Their job is to follow procedure and not overstep the bounds of their warrant.
Re:Rock bottom (Score:3, Informative)
Really? What country do you live in?
I live in one where the black prison population per capita is six times higher than for whites [usdoj.gov], and the poverty rate for black children is more than twice that for white children [childtrendsdatabank.org]. Racial profiling ("driving while black") remains a pervasive problem. Women still don't get equal pay for equal work, and efforts to criminalize abortion - and even birth control - continue apace.
Are things better than they were in this regard 100 years ago? Sure. But that's damning with faint praise.
Re:Rock bottom (Score:3, Informative)
The US is not fighting a war?
So aircraft flying into some of the tallest buildings on Earth, and one flying to the largest office building on Earth and leaving 3,000 dead is an "idea"? No, that is a tacit act of war.
War is between nations, this was a majorly bad criminal act perpetuated by some people with an agenda.
Saying one can not fight "terrorism", in this case the fight is against Islamic-fascism, is like going back to 1942 and saying there can not be a war against fascism because that is like having a war against the dark.
The United Nations did have a war against an idea, from 1941-'45, and following that war, there wasn't much Imperial Fascism left in the world was there? National Socialism pretty much went away as did Japanese Imperialism. The Ba'athist parties are about all thats left of that classical Socialist-Fascism, and theres only one state left with that form of ruling government, Syria.
The United Nations didn't even exist until after the war. It was not a war against an idea. The war was started by Germany invading a sovereign country (Poland) and a good chunk of the world said no and declared war on Germany. Btw this was in 1939. The USA only declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on the USA. Read that again, America went to war because another country formally declared war on it. If the war was against an idea then Spain would of been invaded as they were also fascist yet Franco ruled till his death.
And the fascists were about as much about socialism as N. Korea is about democracy. Just because they have the word in their name means nothing.
Re:also (Score:3, Informative)
I just heard on the news they were planning to insight a riot according to an undercover informant and they confiscated a machete, a hatchet, throwing knives, axes, bolt cutters, equipment used in rappelling - and three 5-gallon buckets of urine.
Like all of those are illegal. NOT! As for 3 buckets of urine, from the Star-Tribune [startribune.com]:
"The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."
But hey, dont let that get in your way. please continue telling us about free speech and peaceful demonstrations.
But hey, don't let the truth get in your way.
Falcon
informants (Score:4, Informative)
There was an informant inside this organization that told authorities what was planned.
Here's a link about your informants: "Moles wanted" [citypages.com]. Informants only get paid if an arrest is made. Let's see, I'm a mole and I know if the info I give doesn't lead to an arrest do I tell the truth or do I lie?
Falcon
Re:Unconventional weaponry (Score:3, Informative)
the protesters, who at every large meeting have proven unable to restrain themselves.
I refer you to this post [slashdot.org] explaining how the protestors become "out of control".
If systematic police harassment were a part of your life you'd get pissed too.
Weird....there are TWO FA's.. (Score:5, Informative)
I was going to accuse you of inaccurate quoting, but now I find (while writing my comment) that there are TWO articles: the one you link to and the one the summary links to, which I checked first. In the article I read first I found this:
Quote
The alleged urine[...] was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket.
End quote
I haven't seen anything about coltraps or equipment for disabling buses in that one either. All I found was that
Quote
[The sheriff] displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine.
End Quote
I have not enough time to read all of the article you link to (gotta go to work :-( ), but I find this interesting...
To be clear: I quoted from the linked article.
The weird thing is that the article you link to is on first sight
Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA [startribune.com]:
Deputies seized a variety of items that they believed were tools of civil disobedience: a gas mask, bolt cutters, axes, slingshots, homemade "caltrops" for disabling buses, even buckets of urine.
From another article by the same newspaper, the Star-Tribune [startribune.com]:
"The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said."
As for the rest you list, when were they made illegal?
I'm not saying it's right to raid their houses and arrest them just for having it, but I'm having a hard time coming up with legal ways to protest using buckets of urine and equipment for disabling buses.
One bucket of urine in an illegally occupied apartment, the occupant of which had nothing to do with the protest group. And again, when was the other stuff made illegal?
Falcon
Have we only seen "one side of the story"? (Score:3, Informative)
The FBI says: this [winonadailynews.com].
ABC says this [go.com].
Do the police there have a history of unjustified assaults into houses and then trying to pretend that it's okay? Yes, they do. [startribune.com]
Are there more police assaults not being mentioned here? Yes, there are. [gothamist.com] They've been quite busy. [bacchus.gnn.tv] Overwhelming force against people who haven't resisted [theuptake.org] seems to be a constant.
Now, like all of us, I would love to see a more detailed statement from the police. But I've just been looking and what I'm mostly finding is variations on: "Minneapolis/St. Paul police could not be reached for comment Saturday."
cherry picking (Score:3, Informative)
The /. summary kind of cherry-picks the bits that it mentions. If you read the Star-Tribune article, you'll note that the protesters had buckets of urine at the ready
Who's cherry picking now? If you read the Star-Tribune article you would have read how there was only one bucket of urine, and it was in an apartment without a toilet where a illegal occupant was. And you would have read who that person had nothing to do with the protesters.
in addition to the slingshots, bow and arrows, and gun that police seized
I used to own at least one of each of these as well as a rifle and a blow-gun. Does that mean I was planning something illegal? In that case my dad was a criminal because he gave me the rifle when I was young. And the person who sold me the gun was one too even though we were both in the US Army when he sold it to me.
It's pretty clear that whatever protest these people were planning was going to go beyond peaceful words, unless someone has a better (serious) explanation for the buckets of urine.
It's clear to whom? To you? Maybe you don't need much information as I need to decide guilt.
It also notes that these informants were working on the inside of the protest groups for quite some time, to minimize any doubt that these folks were up to no good.
And those informants were getting paid, but they only got paid if there was an arrest [citypages.com]. Let's see, if I became an informant and I knew I would only get paid if the info I gave led to an arrest but there was nothing being planned that was illegal, would I tell the truth and not get paid or would I lie so I would be paid?
So, in other words, the cops were doing their job
No, so either you don't have enough info or you're trolling.
Falcon
Re:also (Score:3, Informative)
Well, state's rights was the secessionists' last line of defense, politically before the actual war. But they wouldn't have had to go to war over those rights if a) the north had ignored the abolitionists and let slavery continue or b) they had voluntarily come up with a plan to terminate slavery. So saying the battle was purely states' rights is completely disingenuous. Stating that the civil war was purely over states rights is like stating that the war on terror is only going after the perpetrators of 9/11.
On the other hand, based on the 2nd amendment clause of "...a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE...", I think the south was actually constitutionally correct at the time that secession was legal, ASSUMING that states rights were actually being violated. The constitution states clearly that the rights not given to the federal government belong to the states or the people, and the 2nd amendment is clearly designed so that the states and the people could defend the rights of the individual state against encroachment by the federal government.
So the question then becomes whether the federal government was actually trampling on states rights. And the answer is: probably not. Based on the interstate commerce clause, the federal government could have killed off slavery with various prohibitions at the federal level: transporting slaves across state lines, interstate trade in slaves, use of funds from one state to finance slave purchase in another state would have stood constitutional muster even before the commerce clause was broadened so much in the 20th century.
And the south was screwing itself over economically, anyway. The main reason large slaveholders couldn't free the slaves even if they wanted to was because they were up to their eyebrows in debt collateralized by their slave holdings.
Re:Rock bottom (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, in exactly the same way that the DPRK is democratic.
It's more complex (Score:5, Informative)
The horrible number of casualties were the result of
A) First and foremost, failure to adapt fast enough to new weaponry and tactics. E.g., took an awfully long time to sink in that a rifled gun shoots accurately to IIRC 300m, while against muskets it was reasonably safe to march to 100m and stand tall. (Oh, you could get hit by musket fire too, but, as an officer in the age of muskets put it, only if it was aimed at someone else;) There were years of horrible massacres, where thousands of soldiers were marched in formation to 100m, and then they shot essentially point blank at each other, standing tall and taking the volley.
B) Incompetent charges that ignored the officers' advice and marched some soldiers to slaughter. E.g., Picket's Charge.
C) Essentially, the first attempt in history at having a broad front war. Previously war had been historically a set-piece affair, where two armies would meet, fight, and that was it. E.g., when the Gauls invaded Rome, or Rome smacked Carthage, or whatever other historical war, don't think that they had a front across Italy. It was basically the army of one side vs the army of the other in _one_ point, and that decided the fate of the war. They might leave a detachment behind to besiege some city or whatever, but there was no coordinated effort by multiple armies. The American Civil War was arguably the first where that was even attempted, and it resulted in hideous casualties as essentially there were more battles all over the place and more generals trying to win some glory by breaking the opposite line in some God-forsaken place.
D) Railroads. Unlike previous times in history, it was now trivial to keep reinforcing and resupplying a lot of army. Where previously you'd admit defeat or fortify and wait for reinforcements for a year (see Hannibal), here it became a case where it was possible to throw more soldiers at anything. And they did. With the logical results.
E) Lack of modern medical care. Wars had always been a crappy affair in that aspect. The Minnie ball caused horrible wounds, and there were no antibiotics or even anesthetics.
Additionally:
1. Focusing on _US_ casualties in WW1 and WW2 is rather misleading. The USA took only a minor part in the trench battles of WW1, for example. The finance and industry of the USA played a bigger role in both world wars, than the actual soldiers in the trenches.
For the countries which actually held the line in those wars, the casualties were a lot more horrible. The USSR in WW2, for example, lost ten _million_ soldier and some thirteen _million_ civillians in WW2. Let that sink in a bit, next time the "we won WW2" willy-waving contest comes by. China lost some 4 million soldiers and 16 million civillians, and their contribution to the attrition and over-extending lines of the Japanese should not be overlooked in the Pacific War. On the Axis side, Germany lost 5.5 million soldiers, and almost two million civilians. You don't think you were that good that you fought Germany single-handedly and caused 10 times more casualties than you took, do you? But at any rate, that's what WW2 was really like, for those in the middle of it. There's an estimated 72 million people who died in that war.
In WW1, the Brits took almost 60,000 casualites just in the first day of the Battle of Somme. Almost half of what you took in the whole war. And while I'm too lazy to look up numbers, France almost depleted their manpower to the point where they were out of conscripts for many years after the war. There's a reason for the pacifism and (in the USA isolationism) after the war. Humanity had never seen such carnage before, and was thoroughly shocked.
So writing only the USA casualties for both wars is IMHO highly misleading.
2. Again, the fact that something has happened before, doesn't excuse the present.
The general history of humanity started from ritualized mass-murder and slavery, and we had a long way to gradually become more... civilized. And I don't mean just having TV and Sla
Re:No protesters at the DNC? (Score:3, Informative)
I found a source [indymedia.org] for this. That will come in handy if folks need to present this info to others.
Re:Nothing is wrong with protesting an event. (Score:2, Informative)
In 2004, they had assholes H^H^H^H, sorry, PEACEFUL ACTIVISTS at the RNC who were throwing bricks through windows, deflating tires, pulling fire alarms, vandalizing property, stealing, harassing convention attendees after-hours, trying to sneak into the convention just to cause disruptions, etc, etc.
I can see, quite easily, why there'd be a reason to not want a repeat.
Do I think pre-emptive raids and confiscation of private property is a Good Thing? No. This kind of thing shouldn't happen. Before ANY party's political convention.
Re:Disruption != peaceably assembling (Score:3, Informative)
Blocking traffic isn't disturbing the peace -- it is disturbing your morning commute, which isn't protected by the constitution.
Eh, in my state it would be disorderly conduct:
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
Re:Oblig. (Score:3, Informative)
If you can't tell the difference between what they had and what you and I have in various drawers and in the garage, you're a moron.
Here's the complete list [indymedia.org] of what was seized from one house. I've got a lot of those items. Maybe not so much propaganda, but in a house full of people planning a demonstration I'd say that's probably normal. I don't have any throwing knives, but I do have a couple of honking big scary knives, and the only "rife barrell"s I have (can't the department give these guys some remedial English lessons?) are attached to working firearms. No caltrops, but if the pictures I saw were the items in question, they wouldn't stop a horse, much less a bus. Caltrops are legal to possess, in any case.
rife barrell (sic)
2 foam padding
2 jars metal staples from basement
4 boxes lititure propaganda (sic)
filter mask
climing (sic) equipment
2 boxes "sector packs and propaganda"
$670 US currency
rent receipt
computer hard drive
4 bike locks
2 digital cameras
helmet
filter mask
throwing knives
cell phone
goggles
literature propaganda
hatchet
bolt cutter
machete
box propaganda
spray paint
3 cell phones
I-Book laptop computer
city maps
propaganda books
quote for print job from St. Paul Legal Ledger
Dell computer
thumb drive
2 boxes literature propaganda
2 walkie talkies
cell phone
mass storage device
checkbook
several 5 gal buckets
2 Kryptonite bike locks
hacksaw
2 curtain rods
multiple bicycle inner tubes
13 cans paint
6 vehicle tires
37 caltrops
bolt cutter
hardware bolts, nails, screws
silver cable
pry bar
propaganda banner
can charcoal lighter
denatured alcohol
mineral spirits
Community Emergency Response Team bag containing vest/helmet, batteries, pry bar, caution tape.
Another report that the feds were involved. (Score:3, Informative)
Democracy Now! reports that federal agencies were involved [democracynow.org]:
This should hardly be surprising as federal Senator McCain, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney were all planned to appear for the RNC. It would be unusual if county and citywide police were doing this on their own without any input from any federal agency. As time passes I'm sure we'll learn more about the specific people involved at all levels.
Also, Amy Goodman, host of DN!, and two DN! producers, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, were illegally arrested and detained [democracynow.org]. Goodman was arrested while trying to free Kouddous and Salazar. From the article:
Today's DN! (video [archive.org], audio [archive.org]) has more on these preemptive arrests and detainments including footage of the police action in progress.
Re:MN governor (Score:3, Informative)
No.. Four of the people have been charged with conspiracy to commit crimes. Just because they didn't tell you their plans for fighting crime or doing anything else does not mean any infringements have occurred. Agents infiltrated the groups and had records of their plans. The MP3 players had recordings of how to disrupt the convention by causing flat tires on buses and limousines, blocking public streets and plastering delegates with feces, paint, and other things that would cause them to leave to get cleaned up. Now, just because that wasn't reported by the one article here or because it took three days to get out, doesn't mean there was no reason.
Your acting like these people were walking down the street minding their own business and all the sudden the cops picked them up and raided their homes for no other reason then to do it. This couldn't be further from the truth. Informants inside the make shift organizations ratted these people out and told of plans of illegal activities. They are not in any way some innocent person molested by the cops. Do you no understand the concept of informants told authorities? Or are you closing your eyes to everything that doesn't fit your world view?
Wow, you seem simply purposely clueless. Get your head out of the sand. These weren't randomly invaded homes, it wasn't singling people out for political creeds and conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime in and of itself. Otherwise they couldn't prosecute anyone until after the committed a crime regardless of how much the cops know. Imagine if the crime was your assassination, do you want the cops to ignore all reports of it until the time they actually try to kill you? Do you want the cops to ignore the person stalking your wife or daughter until the potential attacker tries to rape, kill, or otherwise harm either? Intent to commit a crime is a crime which is the only way laws like stalking and such can work. When you gather materials to commit the crime or actually stalk someone, you have shown intent.
No, by my explanation, you a moron who should be allowed to
Local MN newspaper has more info... (Score:2, Informative)
Some turn violent in GOP convention protests [postbulletin.com]
Antiwar protesters cross line and get arrested [postbulletin.com]
Re:Oblig. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I doubt the U.S. is the most corrupt country in the world, according to some sources [infoplease.com] The U.S. is still (barely) in the top 20 least corrupt countries in the world.
So while the U.S. is 20th, Bangladesh and Chad appear to be tied for last place at 158th.
It should be noted that most Dictators prefer to appear legitimate, so even Dictators tend to be lying politicians. They just tend to kill anyone who points out that they aren't wearing any pants.