Well, perhaps it is. But it’s certainly no surprise.
Interesting report this evening in the San Francisco Bay Guardian suggesting that big city mayors have not been the only ones making conference calls in an effort to coordinate crackdowns on Occupy Movement encampments:
…a little-known but influential private membership based organization has placed itself at the center of advising and coordinating the crackdown on the encampments. The Police Executive Research Forum, an international non-governmental organization with ties to law enforcement and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has been coordinating conference calls with major metropolitan mayors and police chiefs to advise them on policing matters and discuss response to the Occupy movement. The group has distributed a recently published guide on policing political events….
The coordination of political crackdowns on the Occupy movement has been conducted behind closed doors, with city officials and PERF refusing to say how many cities participated in the conference calls and the exact nature of the discussions. Reports of at least a dozen cities and some indication of as many as 40 accepting PERF advice and/or strategic documents include San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Portland [Oregon], Oakland, Atlanta, and Washington DC….PERF coordinated a November 10 conference call with city police chiefs across the country – and many of these cities undertook crackdowns shortly afterward.
We can take an educated guess at “the exact nature of the discussions” by looking at the leadership of the Police Executive Research Forum:
PERF’s current and former directors read as a who’s who of police chiefs involved in crackdowns on anti-globalization and political convention protesters resulting in thousands of arrests, hundreds of injuries, and millions of dollars paid out in police brutality and wrongful arrest lawsuits.
These current and former U.S. police chiefs — along with top ranking police union officials and representatives from Canadian and British police — have been marketing to municipal police forces and politicians their joint experiences as specialists on policing mass demonstrations.
Chairing PERF’s board of directors is Philadelphia Police Commissioner and former Washington D.C. Metro Police Chief Charles Ramsey, who was responsible for coordinating the police response to protests against international banking institutions including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Those protests, and Ramsey’s response to massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC in the lead up the the Iraq War, often resulted in preemptive mass arrest of participants that were later deemed to be unconstitutional.
Ramsey’s predecessor as organization chair is former Philadelphia Police Commissioner and former Miami Police Chief John Timoney, who is responsible for the so called “Miami Model,” coined after the police crackdown on the 2003 Free Trade Agreement of the Americas protest. The police response to protesters in Miami lead to hundreds of injuries to protesters. The ACLU won multiple suits against the Miami P.D. over abuse to protesters and free speech concerns….Timoney arrived in Miami with plenty of baggage. At the 2000 Republican National Convention, Timoney coordinated a crackdown that resulted in more than 420 arrests with only 13 convictions, none of which resulted in jail time. As in Miami, there was well documented abuse of some of the people arrested.
Also among PERF’s directors is Minneapolis police chief Tim Dolan, who was responsible for the crackdown on protesters at the 2008 Republican National Convention. That event also resulted in lawsuits, protester injuries and an outcry from the national press about police brutality and the preemptive nature of the police action.
PERF has also been sharing its expertise other ways:
As the occupation movement grew, PERF began circulating a publication titled Managing Major Events: Best Practices from the Field. The manual…amounts to a how-to guide for policing political events, and gives special attention to policing “Anarchists” and “Eco Terrrorists” at political events.
The guide encourages the use of undercover officers and snatch squads to “grab the bad guys and remove them from the crowd.” It urges local law enforcement to use social media to map the Occupy movement.
An earlier PERF guide, Police Management of Mass Demonstrations, advocates the use of embedded media to control police messages, the use of undercover cops to infiltrate protest groups, the use and pitfalls of preemptive mass arrest, an examination of the use of less-than-lethal crowd control weapons, and general discussion weighing the use of force in crowd control.
Dollars to cop donuts this just scratches the surface of the sort of back-channel, hidden-from-public-view communications that have been triggered by the alarming – to some – emergence of the Occupy movement as a force with which much of the American public sympathizes. In addition to a political (mayors) and law enforcement (PERF) response, undoubtedly there is a communications strategy unfolding, too, and fine journalistic efforts such as those Booman cites are likely a product of it. Certainly they all sound oddly similar.
The ante in all of these arenas has been upped considerably in the last week, with camp evictions and police confrontations across the country. In general, thanks to images like this, those crackdowns have not played well with much of the public and likely have only redoubled the determination of protesters. Following on actions marking Thursday’s two-month anniversary of the original Zuccotti Park occupation, Saturday is planned as yet another day of widespread actions. It will be interesting to see whether cities and police pull back, fearing a PR backlash, or double down on the repression.
If history teaches us anything, it’s that the repression can get a lot worse. As Glenn Greenwald noted astutely today,
Law enforcement officials and policy-makers in America know full well that serious protests — and more — are inevitable given the economic tumult and suffering the U.S. has seen over the last three years (and will continue to see for the foreseeable future). A country cannot radically reduce quality-of-life expectations, devote itself to the interests of its super-rich, and all but eliminate its middle class without triggering sustained citizen fury.
The reason the U.S. has paramilitarized its police forces is precisely to control this type of domestic unrest, and it’s simply impossible to imagine its not being deployed in full against a growing protest movement aimed at grossly and corruptly unequal resource distribution.
Put another way: “Dancing With the Stars” can only keep so many people anesthetized for so long. Or, as Gandhi described it, in a situation where people knew they’d been colonized: “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they crack down…”
We know what happens after that.
And it’s why OWS can’t stay leaderless for too much longer. The 1% are starting to put on the full court press. We’ll all need to counter it, and smartly.
It’s leaderfull.
Why set up a few people as targets? Why fix something that’s working well? Going up against a huge rigid hierarchy with a small rigid hierarchy would be a major mistake.
I can see the points of remaining “leaderless.” I am not sure whether it is a good idea or not. I’m just wondering what the endpoint of it all is. I mean, is the point to elect more people like Bernie Sanders? To be such a nuisance that the Blue Dogs get their head out of their ass?
The point of Occupy Wall Street in all its local manifestations is to have a serious conversation outside the Great Republican Wurlitzer about the future of the the country, especially as it relates to the fact that the 1% have bought out all three branches of government. This is a systemic statement, not an indictment of particular politicians; if you want to be in office, you have to chase the corporate bucks. Period. There’s now no escape from it with Citizens United and the practice of swiftboating being SOP.
That is a long and complex conversation among adults, one that requires low information voters to get up to speed with what is happening. General assemblies have been talking about grievances thus far and compiling personal stories. Now, they are beginning to shift into intensive series of teach-ins with all sorts of resources from college faculty, advocacy groups, and folks who just know stuff. And that is why the encampment library is so important. (BTW, the catalog of the 5500 books from Zucotti Park is still online; it is a listing of what the NYPD under Mayor Bloomberg’s direction destroyed.
Developing solutions is going to take a while and its relationship to electoral politics is still a hotly debated topic within all of the local Occupy Wall Street general assemblies. And they have until November 2012 to figure it out. But expect a lot of mic-check disruptions of candidates of all parties during the primaries. Already Michele Bachmann, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Newt Gingrich have gotten the mic-check communication from the 99%.
The message is simple. The political conversation is a two-way conversation, sir or madam. One-way “messaging” no longer is acceptable. The people have freedom of speech too.
Expect President Obama to get the mic-check treatment as well–and Democratic Senators and Members of Congress. It is not a sign of disrespect. It is a call to an honest conversation outside of “talking points”. It is the 99%’s talking points.
You write:
If recent history teaches us anything, it is that Barack Obama’s administration has been encouraging, supporting and generally been foursquare behind such repressive police state/surveillance state movements.
You know…Barack Obama, the guy that you are supporting for a second term?
Please.
Wake the fuck up.
You been had.
Repeatedly.
AG
Hey AG – you wanna link to anything I’ve written anywhere that’s said I’m supporting Obama in 2012, or endorsed him in 2008? (I actually took quite a bit of shit in ’08 for refusing to endorse him, for reasons you’d presumably agree with.) I mean, maybe I will support him next year – the ballot alternatives look pretty damn dismal at this point – but please don’t put words in my mouth. Steven, Boo and I all have very different opinions.
Sorry, man…I’ve seen so much pussyfooting around about Obama on this site that I automatically assumed front pagers were pro-Obama.
But…
“…maybe I will support him next year – the ballot alternatives look pretty damn dismal at this point…” pretty much goes to my point.
Is a technofascist surveillance state that occasionally has to kick out the jams on a few unfortunate protestors in order to keep things on an even keel in the rest of the society an acceptable situation for you? Because that is precisely what you are going to get with another four years of Obama.
A kinder, gentler police state.
You say “the ballot alternatives look pretty damn dismal at this point,” right?
Do you really think that Ron Paul will not run as a third party candidate if he cannot get the Republican nomination? And do you really think that his policies in terms of human freedom are not the exact opposite of what is happening here today?
Them’s fightin’ words, Geov. Never in my lifetime has there been a national politician…and believe it, he is “national” because he has the organization and the money to be national…with the courage to stand up to the military/industrial/PermaGov complex in so bold a manner.
Never.
He is as radical as they come.
And yet…so far…very few on the left are paying him any serious attention.
But he just keeps on coming.
Watch.
As he said, “There’s a risk I could win.”
He could, y’know.
He’s going to come in big in Iowa and New Hampshire.
He is the anti-Obama.
The only anti-Obama.
The only one standing between us and The United States of Skynet.
For real.
Check it out.
AG
AG – I’m glad Paul’s in the race. But… (and you knew this was coming) 1) He’s not going to get the nomination. Not with every Republican officeholder (save perhaps his son) and every big-pocketed Republican donor (no exceptions there) lined up against him. And, 2) As valuable a truth-teller as he is on some issues (foreign policy, drugs) he’s catastrophically bad on others (the power of big corporations, for example). I admire his internal consistency, but by the same token I’m deeply skeptical of someone who applies the same ideological litmus test to every issue, regardless of how much the result would insult common sense.
As for Obama, yeah, I don’t disagree at all with what a second term would mean – especially if, as seems likely, both houses of Congress are in the hands of people who would be fascists if they were clever enough. But if the only alternative is all three branches of gov’t in those hands, I would probably bite the bullet. From a pragmatic standpoint, I might add, that’s Obama’s best chance of getting re-elected. “Lesser of two evils” sucks, but when one evil is this evil, and crazy besides, it’s still a powerful motivator.
One man cannot change the political culture and thirty years of bad policy. By himself and with one Senator on his side.
But he talks pretty. And you know where he stands.
Haven’t we seen this movie before? From bunches of good people over the past 50 years?
Ron Paul’s election in and of itself doesn’t change much of anything but the Wall Street Media narrative.
The CultureStrike is here and you are clinging to Ron Paul?
Be careful what you wish for, AG.