> Klein's essay echoes the report of Democracy Now!'s
> Ana Nogueira and Jeremy Scahill who witnessed and were
> caught up in the same events.
>
> The critical point all emphasize is the new technique
> employed by the police which includes rapid and
> unprovoked escalation to violence, tactical and visual
> (i.e., the combat style clothing worn by police)
> militarization, various methods of surveilance,
> federal funding for counter-protest activities and
> tight control of media presentations.
There is absolutely nothing new about the escalation in police violence other than the fact that we haven't seen it in a long time. Talk to any protest veterans of the 1960s and they will tell you stories about police violence that will curdle your activist skin. The violence back then was more brutal. One of these veterans gave me some good advice years ago about things to avoid during protests.
And if you go back to police violence during the 1920s and 30s, or even back in the 18th century, you will see the same police tactics, minus all the new technology.
What's happening is that when those in power can't buy off dissenters, or get them to police themselves, they resort to revealing the true face of capitalism: naked force. The reason why we haven't seen this level of violence in many years is that Seattle broke down the facade of the post-60s police strategy towards protesters. The police bashed a lot of protester heads during the 60s and it gave the cops a bad image. When the street protests died down, the cops got together and implemented a strategy of engagement with moderate activists. The idea was that if you could get the protesters to police themselves, the policing of dissent could become invisible. We should also admit that the left during the period from 1971 through 1999 wasn't exactly pushing the envelope during street protests.
It could be argued that the militarization of the police is a new thing, which incidentally was helped along by the Clinton administration. But let's not forget that the cops during the 1960s were willing to use live ammunition against protesters.
The federal money for the police, the surveillance (COINTELPRO anybody), and other stuff isn't new.
> The thesis of Klein, Scahill and Nogueira is that all
> this is the model for future police action against
> lawful protestors. If correct, anyone planning to
> participate in high profile (or, perhaps any) marches
> anywhere in the country must prepare for abuse
> delivered with a greater ferocity than consistently
> seen before.
Last April there were two days of protests in Washington, DC. There was a black bloc during the anti-globalization protest, which didn't suffer from any police violence. On the other hand, the permitted ANSWER march the previous day was marked by numerous police attacks on protesters who were just walking. I found myself in the middle of three such incidents, two of which were started by motorcycle cops who were riding their bikes aggressively in the crowd.
I think that all of this just shows that we are gaining power right now and that those in power are very afraid.
<< Chuck0 >>
Homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Monumental Mistake (blog) -> http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Infoshop Portal -> http://portal.infoshop.org/ Infoshop Science -> http://science.infoshop.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
"The USA PATRIOT Act (a.k.a. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing the Appropriate Tools Required to Infiltrate and Obstruct Terrorism)
was originally named "Unarming and Stripping Americans of Freedom and Allowing Secret Cops to Intimidate Scapegoats and Minorities",
but they thought USA FASCISM didn't sound all that great."
-- Patrick Dempsey