> (2) Does ANSWER get permits for every weekend of the year or something?
> Or does September 24 have some great significance such that ANSWER got a
> permit months or years in advance? I really don't get it.
It's actually kind of devious. Much of my animosity towards ANSWER is based on my first hand familiarity with their underhanded tactics. The WWP organizers have been using the permit tactic since ANSWER's inception and have done similar stuff before 9/11. WWP's leaders discovered that they couldn't take control of the anti-globalization movement because it has built in safeguards against vanguardists. They tried to insert themselves into the organizing of major convergences, but the other groups were never interested in letting Brian Becker or the WWP be key players. There was animosity towards the WWP from peace activists who remembered dealing with ANSWER during Gulf War 1.
WWP/IAC and later ANSWER, decided for a strategy of exploiting the work done by other groups. For example, they knew that there would be a mass anti-globalization mobilization in the spring, because that's when the World Bank and IMC meetings are held. All they had to do was monitor the World Bank website for the actual meeting dates to be announced. They would then call for some kind of generic protest to be held the same weekend (and one year on the following weekend) at the WB/IMF protests. ANSWER would not work at all with the other groups, but they would quietly apply for protest permits for all of the standard venues (Dupont Circle, Freedom Plaza, Lafayette Park, etc.) This strategy outs WWP/ANSWER into a position to benefit from two things. Holding the permits put them in a position to broker those permits to other groups who were slower on securing permitted spaces. More importantly, ANSWER hoped that the police would deny or reneg on permits, which would allow ANSWER to stage a public legal battle. The legal wrangling over permits creates media publicity which then vaults ANSWER into the position of leadership of the protests on that weekend. ANSWER would also make sure to have a news conference 3-4 weeks in advance, which further created the illusion that they were the leaders and primary organizers of the weekend's events.
> In conclusion, I doubt that any of those marching polled would disagree
> that ANSWER bullied anybody or played unfair by getting a permit for the
> weekend of September 24. In fact, I doubt that 3% of those marching
> know or care who ANSWER is or what it stands for. Fuck all, at least
> they're doing something.
They aren't doing anything. Do you really want to support a group whose ONLY strategy is to organize symbolic protests in Washington, DC once or twice a year?
Let me put this the another way.
Would you be happy with your pro football team if they used the same play each game. Let's say that they kept handing the ball off to the same running back over and over. Then you get into the car with your buddies and tell them to their dejected faces that you support that strategy because "at least the Chiefs are doing something." Or imagine that you get on the Jim Rome Show and state that "I support the Chiefs handing the ball to Dante Hall on every play because they are at least doing something."
You'd be laughed off the show.
What bothers me here is that the people on this list will talk ad infinitum about certain topics, but are quick to attack people for expressing criticism of anti-war protests that many people see as being ineffective. If you really don't want to hear us talk about the protests, then tune out these threads. It's what I do with many of the threads on this list.
Chuck