-Caveat Lector- >THE PROTEST BUSH AND THE COPS COULDN'T STOP > >By Gary Wilson > >Chicago Mayor Richard Daley famously said of the police riot >that disrupted the Democratic Convention in 1968 that the >police are there "to preserve disorder." > >Something similar might be said of police in Washington >preserving the disorder known as the unelected presidency of >George W. Bush. > >The Washington police have conspired with the incoming Bush >administration to use all their powers to try to stop >demonstrators from voicing their opposition along the >inaugural parade route Jan. 20. > >There is no doubt that tens of thousands will show up at the >inauguration parade to protest the incoming Bush >administration. They will come from Washington itself and >they will come from around the country on buses, trains, >planes and automobiles. > >Jan. 20 will see the biggest counter-inaugural demonstration >since the second criminal administration of Richard Nixon >took office in 1973. > >The overwhelming tide of demonstrators that is heading for >Washington forced the police to finally grant permits for >the mass protests. > >For months the police had worked in secret with the Bush >inauguration committee to defy the law and not grant permits >to the demonstrators. When it became clear that tens of >thousands were coming to demonstrate whether or not a permit >was issued, the police admitted that the legal permits for >several sites claimed by the Bush inauguration committee in >fact legally belonged to counter-inauguration protesters. > >However, police attempts to block the protest did not stop >after publicly issuing the permits to protesters. Rather, >the tactic changed. > >Police instead announced that for the first time in over 200 >years police checkpoints would be set up to approve people >and signs entering the mall area of Washington. > >Protest organizers are challenging this attempt to set up a >mini police state to prevent protesters from being seen and >heard along the inaugural parade route. > >Workers World talked with several top organizers of the >counter-inaugural protest at the International Action >Center. From these interviews it is possible to get an >inside picture of the events that led up to the Jan. 20 >protests and the biggest government effort in decades to >block political protests in Washington. > >Those who were interviewed include Teresa Gutierrez, co- >director of the IAC and a central figure in the progressive >coalition organizing the Jan. 20 demonstrations. Gutierrez >heads the U.S. Out of Colombia Committee, a nationwide >organization that opposes the U.S. military buildup, begun >by the Clinton administration, which threatens to open a new >Vietnam-type war in Colombia. > >One aspect of the protests that Gutierrez has been focusing >on is defending the rights of undocumented immigrant workers >who are being threatened if they join the protests. > >"The Bush administration thinks it's okay for undocumented >workers to come to Washington to cook their food and tend >their gardens, but not to protest," she said. > >WW also interviewed the two IAC representatives who met with >the police on Jan. 9 when the permits were finally issued: >Larry Holmes and Brian Becker. > >Holmes and Becker are also co-directors of the IAC, and both >are veterans of past political demonstrations in Washington. >Both, like Gutierrez, were arrested last April 15 in >Washington, when the police rounded up almost 700 anti-death- >penalty protesters the day before planned demonstrations >against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The >illegal arrests were an attempt to intimidate and prevent >the anti-IMF actions. > >The picture that emerges from the interviews, reports in the >Washington Post and public statements by the police is that >something similar is being attempted this time. > >Some of the protest organizers call this the post-Seattle >strategy. That is, ever since the new protest movement >against the oppression and destruction wrought by global >capitalism emerged in Seattle in December 1999, the police >have adopted a strategy toward demonstrations that is on the >borderline of constitutionality. > >This strategy was seen in Washington in April and over the >summer at the protests outside the Republican and Democratic >conventions. > >PROTEST PLANNED NO MATTER WHO WON > >The struggle for the counter-inaugural protest started three >months ago, on Oct. 6. That's when the IAC applied for >permits for three protest sites at the Jan. 20 inauguration. > >The focus of the protest was to show opposition to the death >penalty and support for a new trial for political prisoner >Mumia Abu-Jamal. Both George W. Bush and Al Gore support the >death penalty, so it did not matter which one won. > >According to the federal law that covers protest permits for >the District of Columbia, unless the permit is denied within >24 hours the permit is automatically granted. Apparently the >permit was granted at that time, but the police refused to >confirm it. > >In the meantime, a hard-right majority of the U.S. Supreme >Court handed the presidency to George W. Bush, who had half >a million fewer votes than Al Gore nationally. The high >court did this by upholding the disenfranchisement of >thousands of voters in Florida, particularly in the African >American community. > >These events changed the character of the demonstration. Not >only would the protests at the inauguration draw tens of >thousands, but there would be many more issues raised. > >Getting the permits became even more important. A broad >sector of the population could be expected to join the >protests: from the African American majority who live in >Washington to union members across the country and all the >rest who want to protest the illegitimate crowning of George >Bush II. > >Last April's events showed that the Washington police had >adopted a new strategy of non-cooperation with >demonstrations. Their refusal to acknowledge the permits >appeared to be aimed at intimidating anyone thinking of >going to the Jan. 20 protests. The TV images of police >gassing and beating demonstrators last April might be enough >to discourage a big turnout for the Jan. 20 protest. > >The police then started a campaign in the mass media to try >to criminalize the Jan. 20 demonstrators. Police officials >started talking about terrorist threats and violence. > >What they hadn't counted on was how deep and widespread the >anger is with the incoming Bush administration. In fact, >each passing day saw more groups and individuals joining the >IAC's call for a demonstration. Each day the estimates of >the protest's projected size rapidly increased. > >As it became clear that the police tactics weren't >intimidating protesters, the police moved to grant the >permits on Jan. 9. > >Many questions remained, however. What about the giant >bleachers the police have already erected in the areas where >protesters hold the permits? Also, with the announcement of >police checkpoints to enter the area, what good are the >permits if the protesters are not allowed access? > >Holding a permit is clearly not enough. The nearly 700 >protesters illegally arrested last April had a permit for >their peaceful demonstration. Though there was no legal >basis for the arrests and all the charges were later thrown >out by the courts, the legalities did not stop the police >from making mass arrests. > >The IAC began to publicize the many ways the police were >attempting to deny the rights of counter-inauguration >protesters. At a Jan. 9 news conference Holmes and Becker >laid out many of these facts, joined by the IAC's lawyers >from the Partnership for Civil Justice. The news conference >was attended by the major media and broadcast on CNN and C- >SPAN. > >WASHINGTON POST ACTS AS POLICE PRESS AGENT > >The IAC offices in Washington and New York were flooded with >thousands of calls of support. The next day, however, the >Washington Post carried a front-page story that was >practically a news release written by the Secret Service. > >Most of the story quoted the Secret Service on possible >threats from terrorists carrying shoulder-held missile >launchers. There were pictures of supposed Secret Service >training for just such a possibility at the parade. > >The absurdity of implying that the legal protests were >somehow a front for launching a missile attack on the White >House only angered more people. An outraged worker at the >Washington Post approached IAC organizers to let them know >that the original front-page story had been about how >protesters' rights were being denied. On orders from the >top, that story was replaced with the one the Secret Service >dictated. > >That story about protesters' rights has since been buried. >But the Washington Post reports continue to read like they >are dictated by top police officials. > >Then, on Jan. 16, the IAC went to court to try to protect >the rights of all demonstrators. Organizers sought an order >to have the bleachers and other obstructions removed so that >the protests can be held peacefully--that is, without >threats from the police. > >This includes removing the 16 checkpoints that will make >getting into the inaugural parade area like Robin Hood >having to get permission from the sheriff of Nottingham to >pass through the checkpoint at the bridge over the moat >surrounding the White House castle. > >Six of the checkpoints are reserved for an elite few who >have paid high fees to the Bush inauguration committee for >tickets. The other 10 checkpoints are supposed to handle the >other half-million people expected at the parade, including >demonstrators with permits. > >That means that each checkpoint will have to pass about >50,000 people through each gate. The police indicate they >may detain and search anyone carrying protest signs, banners >or literature. > >The legal basis for this, they say, is a new law passed two >years ago that gives the Secret Service emergency powers >over the inauguration. Under this law, the police contend, >they can do almost anything they want. > >The Secret Service has refused to meet with the IAC and has >refused to make public what rules and prohibitions it has >ordered under its emergency powers. > >There was no sign at the IAC offices of worry about the >police. Volunteers kept coming in. The phones rang nonstop. >The list of cities sending buses kept getting longer. > >There can be no doubt that the wide opposition to the >incoming Bush administration will be seen on the streets of >Washington Jan. 20. > >Jan. 25, 2001 >issue of Workers World newspaper <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
