Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy
Naomi Wolf
Guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 November 2011 17.25 GMT

The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality

Comments (747)


Occupy Wall Street protester Brandon Watts lies injured on the ground after clashes with police over the eviction of OWS from Zuccotti Park. Photograph: Allison Joyce/Getty Images

US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.

But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."

In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.

To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.

I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.

Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the **** kicked out of them.

For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, "we are going after these scruffy hippies". Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women's wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time).

In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the "scandal" of presidential contender Newt Gingrich's having been paid $1.8m for a few hours' "consulting" to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies' profitsis less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail.

Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. If legislating away lobbyists' privileges to earn boundless fees once they are close to the legislative process, reforming the banks so they can't suck money out of fake derivatives products, and, most critically, opening the books on a system that allowed members of Congress to profit personally – and immensely – from their own legislation, are two beats away from the grasp of an electorally organised Occupy movement … well, you will call out the troops on stopping that advance.

So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.

Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us.

It looks like we're blurring the line between enforcement and punishment.

Police clear Occupy camps in Los Angeles, Philly
(By the CNN Wire Staff, November 30, 2011)

Police in Los Angeles and Philadelphia dismantled tents and arrested Occupy protesters who refused to leave city areas early Wednesday.

Los Angeles police moved in at 12:30 a.m. Wednesday (3:30 a.m. ET). About an hour later, the City Hall lawn was cleared and closed for cleanup. About 200 people were arrested in the operation, utilizing some 1,400 officers, said Police Chief Charlie Beck.

Police described the operation as fairly peaceful. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa early Wednesday praised officers' professionalism.

The Los Angeles encampment, which has been in place for some 60 days, had become the largest remaining one after police raided New York's Zuccotti Park on November 15 and dismantled the nearly two-month-old camp.

In Philadelphia, CNN affiliate WPVI reported about 40 protesters were arrested following a clash with police. Two officers sustained non-life-threatening injuries, WPVI said.

Authorities evicted members of the Occupy Philadelphia movement just after 1 a.m. ET from Dilworth Plaza, near City Hall. About six people were arrested there, according to WPVI. Other protesters continued marching around the city. Scuffles broke out about 4:40 a.m. after police told protesters to vacate the street, the station reported.

A group of protesters remained across from Dilworth Plaza late into the night, but mounted police cleared the scene, WPVI said.

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told WPVI that police will stay at Dilworth Plaza for as long as it takes. Several streets were closed until further notice, the station said.

In Los Angeles, officers in riot gear and armed with batons closed off streets around City Hall, using bullhorns to warn scores of agitated Occupy LA protesters to disperse.

"This has been declared to be an unlawful assembly. You have seven minutes to gather your belongings and decide to leave," one officer said.

During the raid, more than a dozen protesters sat in a tight circle in the middle of the park with their arms linked. Some cried. Some wore masks.

A white police truck drove through the center of the park, announcing orders to disperse in English and Spanish.

Some campers left willingly. One carried a skateboard under one arm and what looked like a rolled-up sleeping bag in the other.

Officers were met with profanity but no violence.

"This is what a police state looks like!" some of the protesters chanted.

Villaraigosa said the police action was "a measured approach to enforcing the park closure."

On Sunday, he gave the group a 12:01 a.m. Monday deadline to take down their camp, saying "an encampment on City Hall grounds is simply not sustainable indefinitely."

But the protesters held their ground. Four people were arrested, but police pulled back.

The demonstrators sought a federal court injunction to block their removal, claiming that enforcement of the city's "anti-camping" provision is left up to the whim of the police.

The City Council has "expressly affirmed" that the demonstrators are within their First Amendment rights, their complaint said, and Villaraigosa, in ordering them to leave, overstepped his authority.

In announcing the Wednesday police raid, the mayor said the park will be closed, and reopened to "all Angelenos to exercise their First Amendment rights."

The protesters are welcome back, but they cannot camp out.

The Occupy Wall Street movement that began in New York in September has spread across major cities worldwide as a call to action against the unequal distribution of wealth.

In recent weeks, cities have begun clearing encampments, citing economic, health and public safety concerns.

Occupy LA's legacy: Stench, trash, property damage
(By ROBERT JABLON, Associated Press, November 30, 2011)

LOS ANGELES—Trash, flattened tents and the stench of urine are now the legacy of Occupy Los Angeles protesters who were chased out of their City Hall park encampment early Wednesday.

City crews installed chain link fence and concrete barricades around the park at dawn, six hours after 1,400 police officers swarmed the Occupy bivouac.

The once-lush lawns are now patches of dirt strewn with tons of debris, including clothing, tents, bedding shoes, trash and two months of human flotsam. Under a tree is a guitar, a bullhorn, CDs and a black bandanna.

Plywood panels erected to protect statues were sprayed with graffiti, including the words, "It smells like change."

Early Wednesday, it smelled like pee.

Police officers in white hazardous materials suits prowled the park for personal belongs so they can be stored for retrieval by protesters. Skip loaders were to be used to scoop up the mess.

Cmdr. Andrew Smith said much of the debris is contaminated with urine and feces, and there are concerns about bacteria.

The commander said it will take weeks to rehabilitate the park.

sick on so many levels

Federal judge seeks balance in Minnesota Occupy ruling
(By Gene Policinski, FirstAmendmentCenter.org, November 29, 2011)

A federal judge in Minnesota has provided an interesting, common-sense decision that appears to balance fairly the First Amendment rights of the Occupy movement demonstrators, the responsibilities of public officials, and the larger interests of the public.

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle ruled Nov. 23 that protesters can post signs in a Hennepin County government plaza and that they can assemble there “during any hour of the day.” But he also said county officials may ban tents and forbid anyone from sleeping overnight in the area.

In words that may echo in similar legal battles now pending nationwide, Kyle also ordered both sides into settlement talks, saying, “Hence, the parties are going to have to ‘learn to live’ with one another.”

The First Amendment is intended to guarantee all citizens an unfettered voice on matters of public interest, the right to assemble with people of like minds, and the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Hasty decisions by public officials in response to various Occupy encampments have been found to have encroached on the First Amendment’s requirements that government action not be aimed at limiting or preventing a group or point of view from being heard.

But continued protests and encampments — some now entering a third month — seem to be providing public officials with legal ammunition to argue that they have to clear plazas, parks and even sidewalks of Occupiers because of safety, crime or sanitation issues, not because of political views.

Kyle’s ruling likely won’t satisfy either side: County officials initially wanted to ban any signs or even chalk drawings. And by banning overnight stays, the judge removes an effective element of street theater that helped the anti-Wall Street movement gain and sustain public attention.

But Kyle recognized — as did the nation’s Founders — that we all do have to live with one another. Balancing our individual rights with the rights of others has occupied the attention of citizens and jurists since the Bill of Rights was ratified 220 years ago, on Dec. 15, 1791.

Through the years, we have had to balance our right to privacy with the government’s role in fighting crime through wiretaps and searches, the rights of a free press with an individual’s right to a fair trial and an unbiased jury, freedom of expression with laws that punish child pornography and that allow the unfairly wounded to recover damages for defamation.

And we’re still struggling with the solutions to those balancing acts. Each of the Occupy movement encampments and push-backs from public officials pose a unique set of circumstances. No one court ruling or set of local rules will fit all. But Judge Kyle’s ruling sets a First Amendment-friendly tone and offers one approach to “living with each other” in a civil society.

What do you expect when you drive people out and don't let them take their belongings?