Latest Legal Update

Before I call the police and file a complaint, please tell me how these two were wrongfully accused. I would like some factual evidence before I call.

Before I call the police and file a complaint, please tell me how these two were wrongfully accused. I would like some factual evidence before I call.

... because they are fighting against international butchers. somehow scenes of gnarled bodies or radioactive fallout seems a little worse than whatever these folks could do.

I'm aware ot the need to educate people about how capitalism hurts the world and its people. I am also in agreement that the Chronicle is a mouthpiece for big government propaganda BUT ... would somebody explain how throwing newspaper boxes through big windows is going to get peopole to stop wasting their lives in the capitalist gerbil wheel of consumerism and/or influence the Bush administration to avoid war in Iraq?
How is this strategic?

A good overall description of the ideas that some of the black bloc might hold is in 'Pacifism as Pathology' by Ward Churchill. He doesn't say that pacifism or nonviolence is bad, but that it *can* be bad - he starts by describing jewish people in ghettos in Germany and Poland who largely remained nonviolent and kept trying to remain optimistic about their oppressors - yet the only people who survived were a few who actually did fight back rather than reporting to the cattle cars to take them to Auschwitz.
Then he discusses the two major cases of nonviolent movements that were big successes - Martin Luther King Jr in the US and Gandhi, and he shows how they were only successful due to people using force in the wings. After all - MLK Jr was successful a full century after the slaves were 'freed', yet black people in many states couldn't vote until 1964 with the voting rights act. Why were all the nonviolent protesters and leaders who came in the decades before the 50s and 60s not successful? There were lots of black people who nonviolently opposes the system during these decades, after all. It's because in the 60s, riots started breaking out, and there was Malcolm X etc. It gave the system a choice between MLK Jr and this other option.
Also, Churchill makes the case that insisting on 100% nonproperty damage in the US while we are theoretically moving on the behalf of people in 3rd world countries who are being *killed* and maimed by our government is racist. Basically, if we were successful, we would claim the glorious praise for nonviolently stopping our government, but would suffer no adverse consequences if we failed and the war went ahead. Meanwhile, people in dozens of countries where the US has interfered and killed thousands (Angola, Indonesia, Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, IRaq, the Congo etc.) have no choice but to engage in violent struggle.
A good example of this is the Vietnam war. Often, it is claimed that hippie peaceniks stopped this war, yet the war went on for 12 moldy years and only fizzled out. The war ended due to North Vietnamese soldiers fighting, and american bodybags - there are mounds of evidence that the US gov't wasn't bothered by the hundreds of thousands of kids who grew their hair long and adopted new lifestyle choices such as marijuana use, rocknroll or sexual freedom, as long as these people paid their taxes - and to say that the pacifists in the US ended the war and saved the rest of the Vietnamese and Cambodians and Laotians who *suffered* would be racist and arrogant. Read his book.
The problem with Pacifism as Pathology is that it doesn't answer the question "how much property destruction?" One shouldn't take a chain saw to cut butter rather than a butter knife, but what principle guides the appropriate choice?

"Regardless of your sentiments of the tactics of the breakaway march, all people against this war and against state repression should stand up for these folks!!!"

Actually, for specifically that reason I cannot stand up for these people. I will stand up for their right to protest, I will stand up for their right to a fair trial, but I will not stand up for their right to commit acts of violence. Using violence only serves to weaken a cause.

You can say that they were participating in civil disobedience, but what law were they disobeying? The law that doesn't let them destroy things that belong to other people? OK, so if they want to get rid of that law, there is then nothing that stops the police from doing the same to them.

Were they also participating in civil disobedience when they were resisting arrest and injuring an officer? The central tenet of civil disobedience is disobeying an unjust law and accepting the consequences, hopefully at the same time convincing everyone else that the law is wrong.

"... because they are fighting against international butchers. somehow scenes of gnarled bodies or radioactive fallout seems a little worse than whatever these folks could do. "

Ahh, I see, because they are doing something worse, we are allowed to do wrongs? All I can think of is my mother (who, coincidently participated in the peaceful protest in DC) telling me as a kid "If everyone else is jumping off the empire state building, it doesn't mean you can."

Destruction and violence will not lead to a meaningful end.

I hesitate to criticize the violent protestors, but I am against
violence except in self-defense. I don't initiate but I will
punch back, depending on the circumstances.

So let's just say this about the "theory" of why it is a good
idea to break windows and spray-paint slogans:

If the ends justify the means, and what matters is the
end result, then Protestor #1 and Protestor #2 will
be useful to "The Movement" in prison. Think of the
many opportunities for protest rallies as the years go by
with them still in prison for breaking windows at the
INS building.

And isn't that the problem with participating in
"ends justify the means" movements. One day
you're used by one group of people and the next
day you're used by others. When pragmatics rule
then you're never safe from another person's
"need" to sacrifice you for the "greater good". And
then we're back where we started, dropping bombs
for the sake of the supposed benefit of America.

"Using violence only serves to weaken a cause."

1. property, not people = not 'violence'

2. wrong.

People are losing their lives every day that we stumble along down market street in marches and listen to speeches and drink espresso.

For my part, I was thinking of what it will now feel like for the workers at the INS - hopefully there'll be some corporate pictures of the damage before they can cover it up - to go in to work at a place where people at a peace march are willing to risk arrest to destroy . . . it might make you think twice about what it is you're a part of, and how people feel about you.

Also, I'll be interested to see the Chronicle's response. They had ZERO coverage of the march on Saturday's paper, despite coverage on Friday, so they deserved every slogan that they got.

Time for some constructive collation building.
Organize future actions independent of mass marches with
community service events that evolve into political awareness
programs and networking for talents and material.
Damage control and pr, as we have learned from the weasels.
But the message will not be televised.

First of all, I want to say the debate about tactics can be healthy but not when people who didn't support the breakaway march are not willing to stop and look at the specifics of what happened.

I witnessed part of the breakaway action and I just wanted to add my two sense to the mix:

The breakaway marchers showed a certain level of responsibility by waiting for the larger march to be over and then going to a separate area to do their action. In doing this they made sure that nobody was endangered who didn't choose to be there.

Anyone who actually watched the news last night would have seen that the media actually down played the property destruction and gave much more coverage to the main march and rally.

Contrary to assumption, many protesters from the main march (and even downtown shoppers) seemed to support the breakaway march even if they chose not to participate themselves. I saw people coming out of Old Navy to cheer the breakaway marchers. I also saw a broad range of people on their way home from the main rally who raised their fists in support or clapped.

I try to respect the opinion of those who don't support property destruction, but it becomes hard when those people are not willing to engage in *constructive* criticism. They act as if they have been personally injured.

One last thing about the folks who were arrested. Let's not fall into the trap of assuming that those arrested did what they are accused of. There were a lot of people in the march and not everyone broke windows, and there were a lot of bystanders. Do you trust the cops to accurately distinguish these different elements?

Remember me? I asked what was the point to throwing news boxes through the window and I really haven't found a satisfactory response. Maybe I'm just a hard-core non-violence gal, but I am still looking for common ground on this question. I am not interested in arguing about whether we should support our fellow protesters or not: I am asking for clarification that explains WHY it is a useful choice to destroy property as a symbolic statement against war.

I am not being sarcastic when I recap CP's "Theory" comments to clarify his three options:

Option 1: Anti-lemming Approach
So the violent action of newsbox throwing allows people to practice taking drastic action rather than waiting like optimistic Jews in the ghettos of Nazi Germany. So the breakaway group is trying to show us how not to be meek followers?
OR
Option 2: The Lesser of Two Evils Theory
Do the images of masked punkers breaking windows and spay painting give Joe Q. Public a "lesser of two evils" as in the cases of MLKJr and Ghandi who had rowdier compatriots kicking ass for them in the wings?
OR
Option 3: Concrete Robin Hood
Is it the romantic vision that breakaway protesters are getting revenge "on the behalf of people in 3rd world countries who are being *killed* and maimed by our government"?

I appreciate the three options to ponder, but I am not sure I buy any of them.
Here's my paradox--
On one hand, I get irritated when I remember how the few window smashers stole the thunder at N30 in Seattle. After all the work we did to invite people from all over the west coast and then Joe Blow in Idaho sees the photos of starbucks windows smashed and still thinks we are just a bunch of raging teenagers rather than educated citizens. Joe Q Public doesn't know about class war and the corporate takover of neighborhood commerce. He sees that it's too crazy out there to get his ass in the streets. There goes my message of "another world is possible" down the toilet. I am not personally hurt, just irritated.

On one hand, I am annoyed by their passion,
and on the other hand I am also strangely excited by it.
I respect the warrior ferocity.
Wait, did I say "warrior"?
Oh yeah, this was an anti-war rally wasn't it?

Once you open the door of violence, who's to say which violent act is "justifiable" and which isn't? When is it violent enough? Is the nemy of my enemy always my friend?
Seriously though, I crave more conversation.

16 protestors -- non-violent protestors -- were arrested for
violating the "25 protestor maximum" in Lafayette Park.

Note that arrests make news, especially when the
protestors are non-violent and submit willingly to
arrest by police enforcing what are obviously arbitrary
and unjust laws.

It takes courage to get arrested for a cause. To stand
and not resist, perhaps even being beaten and abused
during the process wins sympathy.

Out of all of the possible laws, the most vulnerable to
activists seeking to be righteously arrested are those
laws requiring protestors to get a permit in order to be "allowed" to exercise their 1st Amendment rights:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."

Remember the Clint Eastwood movie, "Badges? We
don't need no stinking badges!"

So what's up with these stinking permits?

We need a "permit" to be allowed to march?

I don't know if I would willingly be arrested in order to
protest everything, but given the right set of circumstances
and sufficient preparation (rent paid ahead of time,
mentally prepared for shithole jail, long underwear,
plently of Traveller's checks, etc.), I might be up for it.

Mass arrests make news and gather sympathy from
the general populace, especially when the arrestees
are obviously peaceful, non-violent protestors taking
a moral stand.

Jail time is slow time. Be ready for the shittiest
experience of your life if you're thinking about going.
It would probably be more tolerable if you were morally
innocent -- and guilty only of exercising your
Constitutional Rights. Note: remain very polite
to the arresting officers and jailers, no matter what the provocation. Be a gandhi and take your beating like
a proud human.

"Note: remain very polite
to the arresting officers and jailers, no matter what the provocation. Be a gandhi and take your beating like
a proud human. "

I’m Jewish and had relatives who did this and look what happened to them :(

Intentionally getting arrested is only a logical idea when people care but in the case of some activists and illegal immigrants today, it is questionable whether the public does care. As in the case of Nazi Germany the first roundups always take place without complaint… The roundup of some minority populations has started here already and jail terms for many activists (like at the SOA protests) are way up for minor crimes.

CD is brave for those who can afford it but one shouldn’t be self righteous about how one can afford to get arrested. When a government is just and democratic CD makes sense but when it becomes a tyranny (to the whole population or even just a subset) self-righteous self-victimization becomes pointless. Mass action has worked in the past against dictatorships but neither the USSR, the Philippines, or South Africa really involved CD. Instead they involved what here one would consider illegal direct action… MLK and Ghandi did use direct action but the movements used many other tactics and it would be difficult to claim that intentionally getting arrested for illegal actions figured in larger than doing illegal things (in the case of Ghandi where there was not pretence of Freedom of Speech, the British would have classified many things he did as illegal and in most cases he didn’t turn himself in for those actions)

One should be careful about distancing ones self from those the government is choosing to attack. Most on the left have no commonalities of belief with Islamic Fundamentalists so when many of them got rounded up nobody complained loudly. Next they came after those from Islamic countries who have problems with immigration papers and while there has been some noise there has not been a loud outcry that has had any effect on the government’s policies. Next the will come after people doing illegal actions at demonstrations and people will still stay silent since the actions were by definition illegal. But once only those who remain passive are left, who will be left to defend the rest of the population?

I’m not sure what I think of the breaking of windows at the INS, but I would never condemn those who did it. To do so would be like attacking the Jewish resistance for attacks on Nazi targets; even if the attacks may be tactically bad one should know what side one is on or freedom truly may be lost

In the case of the actions Saturday there is an even larger concern. The people arrested were NOT THOSE BREAKING WINDOWS. At least one of them was arrested since they assumed he was an organizer due to his use of the microphone at the last breakaway march (he was at the back of the crowd and was grabbed by undercover cops nowhere near the broken windows). Arresting someone and trying to discourage them from organizing is a lot scarier than an arrest of someone caught in the act. Who will they go after next? If provoking illegal antigovernment activities through ones politics is enough for the police to single one out, do we have any pretense of Freedom of Speech? And how can one speak the truth when merely speaking the truth could cause public unrest…

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1562069_comment.php#1562232

(snip)

Lick their boots, and grovel like a whipped cur.

(snip)

Hi, you're over here too. Okay, I wrote this long thing in the other long thread over there that is degenerating into insults a bit. sorry to double post:

Someone over there said that the breakaway protesters were comparing themselves to jews in Poland. No – please review what was really said. The appropriate comparison for US protesters could be privileged Germans in 1930. Yes, I know that it is ultimate cliché to constantly bring up Hitler Germany, but I happen to be a german dual citizen of american ethnicity, and I happen to think it is apt.

The ‘black bloc’ and a lot of modern anarchist culture/ideas came out of Germany and nearby european countries that experienced both fascism and the horrors of communism (60 million dead under Stalin?) in the 20th century. Europe doesn’t have a nonviolent tradition like the US – there’s lots of political violence, but I think that lots of europeans/germans really strive to live the ‘never again’ mantra that came from the holocaust, and they have worked through their issues of nationalism and are ultimately more pacifist than N americans.

Anarchists and democrats and democratic socialists in Germany and neighboring countries often look at the world with the perspective of ‘what would I have done if I had been around in 1932’ and there are all sorts of little tests and natural experiments that one can see in politics, and they try to prove to themselves that they are not a potential ‘good German’ or nazi. I could elaborate on the long list of countries that the US has intervened in, where millions have died or suffered as a result, yet where the National Geographic magazine recently showed that many can’t even locate the country on a map – and I can’t help but start to assign moral blame or start to think that many who are oblivious to these things done in their name have failed the ‘good German’ test. The US had full colonies in the Philippines (100,000 killed), and sort of in Cuba. Our CIA toppled democratic leaders and installed dictators in Iran, Indonesia/East Timor (1 million dead), Congo (millions starving and fighting now). Millions dead in Vietnam, 200,000 in Cambodia? From bombing before the khmer rouge. We funded death squads in central America (100,000s), and funded Savimbi in Angola during his 27 year war (death toll?). how many people in the US actually know anything about Angola or Savimbi and what was done with our money there?

What is the consequence if the peace movement fails now? Not that bombing/environmental devastation ever ended in Iraq, but when the US goes in there again, most of us will get up, eat a nice breakfast, stop somewhere for some coffee, go to a relatively unstrenuous job, pick up the kids in a nice car. I guess we can hold up the nugget fact to God at the gates of heaven that we walked down market Street with a sign so that it isn’t technically our fault that some others were killed with bullets from our taxes, and maybe we’ll still be judged as good people. Yeah.

But, US citizens will not face any violent consequences for a failure to stop the overseas war – and this is precisely what we are talking about with regards to the strong symbolic line that comes up when anyone decides to do political property destruction. Would we also judge a Vietnamese soldier, or american indian shooting back at the cavalry – Peaceful Protest! Peaceful Protest! No – it seems fundamentally different because those are other nations.

I hold the opinion that lots of Germans were in the same position that the majority in almost any nation are – basically politically powerless, and not an active member of any political party – they couldn’t have influenced power even if they mentally held the right political positions. I don’t think that ‘fascism’ or racism is naturally more ingrained in any particular culture (such as germans) than any other. Hitler wasn’t elected by a majority.

If you went around germany, most families would describe to you, like I would, that their family members had not been participants, had subtly resisted the dictatorship etc. However, you know what – the rest of the world doesn’t forgive them for this at all because what matters is the fact that these low-power slightly resisting germans failed to affect the regime and we all know about the millions who died in camps on the battlefield. To this day, people in other countries don’t care about the suffering and massively destroyed cities in Germany, and the starvation for years after the war, and we characterize all but a fraction as complicit ‘good germans’ who didn’t speak out. It doesn’t matter that not every individual wasn’t a full fledged party member or even did minor verbal acts of resistance.

Again, what is the consequence if the peace movement fails? Will everyone else say people who mentally opposed the gov’t are okay – still good people.

In the 60s, young Germans, especially writers like Gunter Grass had an intense political/psychological rebellion against the previous generation who they considered to be complicit. Daniel Goldhagen’s book about how antisemitism is just uniquely ingrained in the german psyche and that most people were complicit and didn’t do enough, sold the most copies in Germany. I disagree with this a bit because I hold that one’s moral weight is proportional to the amount of power held in society. Most people haven’t had a chance to go to college, learn history, have no political power, have no free time in their day. However, anyone with any privilege such as wealth, college, talents etc. has a higher moral debt.

This doesn’t mean ‘any means necessary’. The question of level of tactics is a big messy, hard to answer question. The environmental movement has made a few gains via entirely nonviolent protest. I would say, that even though the peace movement still will fail to stop the war despite breaking out the INS building window, options such as hitting a police officer, or larger scale physical destruction like the radicals in the 60s sometimes did would have been wrong. There’s no equation for determining the right tactic.

" So what's up with these stinking permits?
We need a "permit" to be allowed to march?"

No, the First Amendment is our permit. Makes a fine chant.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I am reading and reflecting on this today: MLKJr Day. I won't rush into writing a response until I read it over a few more times. THANK YOU FOR THE FOOD FOR THOUGHT!

WHY DON'Y YOU GO MAKE LOVE? SOUNDS TO ME THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD STRAIGTENED OUT

(the following is from Jonah Zern, one of the people the cops arrested the other day at the breakaway march in San Francisco... for more info check out http://www.indybay.org, followed by update and comments from me, chuckE...)

------------------------message from Jonah Zern, Oakland Schoolteacher arrested Sat------

PLEASE CALL THE DA'S OFFICE AND ASK THEM TO
DROP THE CHARGES FOR ME AND JEREMY ROCHELLE, WE ARE
BOTH INNOCENT SCAPEGOATS!

SF District Attorney's Office

Public Information Officer -
Mark MacNamara: (415) 553-1596 mark_macnamara [at] ci.sf.ca.us

I am free!!!!! Thank you for everyone who helped!! Especially Ethan, Mary, David, Larry, Chris, Rachel, Nita, John, Midnight Special, O.R., cellmates, and others, I truly saw how terrible, racist, violent, and unneccessary our prison system is, and how easy it is for a cops lie to put someone in jail.


------chuckE's update on case, followed by email/commentary to Jonah---------

UPDATE: CALL THE DAMN INFO OFFICER FOR HALLINAN and check out their website for info on Jeremy and Jonah's cases. The guy is real fun to bug and charging these people for any crime seems ludicrous, especially considering the circumstances. Bottom line____both of them seem rather innocent, beyond a shadow of a doubt. And well the cops look shady as hell, and stupid too, and of course the INS deserved it anyway....and no I did not see who did it, but I am so sure that these folks are innocent that I am spending time writing this, sending it out and posting it on the web..

SF District Attorney addy http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/da_page.asp?id=273

--and finally that stupid email from me to Jonah---------------------------------

hey man i didn't even see you get nabbed, but would be willing to be a character witness if you get desperate...i'll tell them that i have known you as an adament peacenik...always hanging out with people who are against property destruction

as for jeremy...i swear he came up and talked to me a few moments before he got arrested...i was trying to pay attention, but did not figure out who the other person was who got arrested...then i saw jeremy's picture and realized that he had come up to me on market st right before he got arrested...and talked to me about how he wasn't used to these types of marches, or didn't know the organizers or something, he asked who organized the march and i said the usual suspects(shit i didn't know and didn't really want to think about it)

anyway would like to hear info about arraignment on friday and what all we can do besides calling the DA, which I will try and get my lawyer friends to begin to(NLG folks)...I am sure some of them are already helping out anyway

all this shit seems really strange and suspicious...ah, i think that it is just the dumb cops/system...lack of intelligence, etc...

hope you are well

in struggle - chuckE

PS - SMASH THE STATE

So,......your against violence....but your little motto is "smash the state".......God, why is it always folks like this who talk?