Jerry Brown's Cops Monitor Dissidents As Brown Mulls Run For California Attorney General

Excellent shots.

I already emailed the city council to complain about the costs, and to relay my experience.

A large problem is the control that the 'mayor' has over things, the unaccountability of the police, and the money in the elections.

What is being reported in the mainstream (and in some cases, by posters on this website) is not what I saw.

What is being reported is a cooperative and friendly police department. What I saw was armed hostage negotiators -- hostage negotiators! -- shaking hands with police liasons at the end of the picket, while more cops than I could count drove by videotaping protestors. Further, these protestors, in my opinion, were misled by people who had semi-secret negotiations with the OPD. This is not OK. You can't claim to be part of a democratic, consensus-based, anarchist movement -- and then turn around and negotiate with the cops! Meanwhile, people are harassed, kidnapped, tortured and killed by the OPD, the SFPD, the LAPD, the NYPD and cops all over the US. It's wrong. It's damn wrong, and SOME people should at least have the courage to admit that they just made a big mistake which could affect people's ability to safely protest in Oakland for some time to come. Nice spin job, guys: you just allowed the OPD to cover up the wooden bullets in ways that they could never had done on their own. Bravo. You make me ashamed to be part of this "movement".

anon

ps: if you're some right-wing troll gearing up to use this to your own advantage, fuck off. I'm onto you.

not all cops are for the war. in fact, i spoke to many who were opposed. anon is trying to categorize all cops as bad which is just as wrong as the cops blaming the entire protest movement as being out of control because of a few bottle throwers. lets grow up and be adults. there have been mistakes on both sides of this.

<not all cops are for the war. in fact, i spoke to many who were opposed.>

yea, and they have constituted themselves as a powerful and effective force within the OPD to demand an end to police brutality against anti-war demonstrators.

not.

> these protestors, in my opinion, were misled by people who had
> semi-secret negotiations with the OPD. This is not OK. You can't
> claim to be part of a democratic, consensus-based, anarchist
> movement -- and then turn around and negotiate with the cops!

I completely object the characterization that there were "negotiations" with the cops. I was at that meeting, and there was absolutely nothing that the DASW side committed to other than non-violence. If you didn't like the idea of having a meeting with the police, that's fine -- you could have blocked the motion at spokescouncil. But don't try to make the claim that people were acting on their own or doing it behind the backs of DASW. That's just insulting and factually wrong.

> It's damn wrong, and SOME people should at least have the
> courage to admit that they just made a big mistake which could
> affect people's ability to safely protest in Oakland for some time
> to come.

I can understand that you're upset that the police got this opportunity to make a public "kissy-kissy" with the protestors. However, the police are not stupid -- they weren't going to get suckered into another violent situation.

You seem to be grossly mistaken about the efforts and commitments that people are making w.r.t. the OPD. A lot of people, including myself, have been working really hard (w/ legal, organiz.) for the last month to make things happen as much as it _can_ happen. Nobody is intending let the OPD off from their April 7th fuck-up.

> You make me ashamed to be part of this "movement".

If the sight of police liaisons shaking hands with the police makes you ashamed of this "movement," maybe it would be best to rethink what you're trying to get out of this "movement." (Hint: police liaisons are SUPPOSED to shake hands with the police.)

I agree with anon that this played into the public relations hand of the OPD. The mainstream media coverage was so “feel-good” that one would almost forget the egregious violations of human rights on April 7th and the history of OPD human rights violations. The police have a long history of dividing people, protecting the status quo and manipulating the truth for their benefit. I find it very difficult to even get to some level of communication with the police. They should be working for the people, the public and their orders should be coming from the elected officials of the city not through negotiations. Of course, they prefer to be free of any control by the public whom they supposedly serve. When I look across this nation at what is happening, it seems the police are ready at almost every instance to violate and diminish our rights. They always say they are strong Americans, well, then why do they try so hard to destroy what makes the US somewhat free? I also find it very, very offensive to be under constant video surveillance by an agency of the government which is what the OPD did at this protest and at the march. If left up to some in the “movement, all protest would be staged events where the police would play their preassigned role and so would the protestors. That’s scary.

i thought the action was successful on both sides.

the ports shut down for a shift (albeit a light shift anyway), and unfortunately, the cops got their PR event to make them look good.

the fact is, the media is ALWAYS gonna make the cops look good, even when they're shooting people. so basically, any time we prevent innocent people from getting shot, i'd say the movement is doing something right.
shutting down the war machine, even if only symbolically or briefly, is always a good thing.


if you're really that hardcore, organize something more "revolutionary" and let the rest of us know so we can be there to videotape you getting shot.

After listening to him espouse progressive to radical policies and ideas on the radio for years, I helped Jerry Brown get elected mayor the first time. It was the biggest political mistake of my life by far. For some reason, immediately after being elected, Brown changed from being a progressive or radical to being a fascist.

One of his first significant actions was to invite the military to hold exercises in Oakland after the National Park Service deemed those exercises not appropriate in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Regardless of his sophistic comments to the contrary, inviting the fascist, imperialist U.S. military into Oakland was completely contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of people in that city. He then forced a military school down Oakland's throat by using the State Board of Eductation, after Oakland's board rejected the idea (reflecting the views of a large majority of Oakland's citizens).

People like Brown, who are upper class and arrogant, are the most dangerous of politicians, regardless of their party affiliations. It would be a disaster if Brown were elected to the Attorney General's office. Compared to him, Bill Lockeyer is a flaming radical!

I'd like to question the presumption that some folks are making that Monday's peaceful action was good public relations for the OPD. The TV news reports did sing their praises, saying that good communication was what kept things peaceful. (The reality was that the City Council and activists raised the level of communication, not OPD.) But if the activists that were there on 4/7 and those that were there on 5/12 were the same (and they were, pretty much), then the difference between violence and peaceful protest was all on the cops - making them 100% responsible for the violence and denial of First Amendment rights that occurred in April. By being "good" this time, they were begrudgingly acknowledging how "bad" they were last time.

I'd like to note to Anon that many of the folks who were out there are not anarchists and were people who are committed to both working within existing political structures and transforming those structures. An action that completely rejects the legitimacy of the OPD is certainly an option, but that's not what the May 12th demo was about. If you have a more transgressive action in mind, bring it to the DASW spokescouncil (or DIY!)

i think Jerry has realized that he will never get elected to the higher offices that he craves unless he throws meat to the right wing americana mentality.

Clinton was the same. He was probably more progressive as a person but to get elected in much of america you need to be a good executioner like Bush was in Texas.

the real truth is that jerry has never really worked in the real world so if he cannot survive in politics he really can't survive. I'm wondering if the new "Jerry" will push the death penalty like the other "progressive" democrat Bill Lockyer has as attorney general.

>if you're really that hardcore, organize something more "revolutionary" and let the rest of us know so we can be there to videotape you getting shot.<

more revolutionary than giving the police a photo op? breathing is more revolutionary than that.

you know, i'm really trying to show a point of view that isn't exactly yours, y'all -- and mostly what is happening is that I'm being called names and shit-talked. To some degree, I'm guilty of that as well -- but ya know, I'm willing to dialogue, and listen to points of view other than my own. Are you?

anon

>>anon is trying to categorize all cops as bad which is just as wrong as the cops blaming the entire protest movement as being out of control because of a few bottle throwers. lets grow up and be adults. there have been mistakes on both sides of this. <<

If growing up means letting an out of control police department off the hook, nah. I'd rather not grow up like that, thank you. But thanks for the patronizing response, it helps me know who I'm dealing with on the other side of the line.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth -- I never said all cops are bad; my own opinion about the police is that they are an institutional power, and as such, it doesn't really matter who are the "good" cops and who are the "bad" cops. Should murderous, riders-style cops be fired? Of course. Does the occasional cop mean to do well, and face a wall of silence that forces them into complicity? Sure (but so what). That still doesn't address the illegitimacy of the militizarizing of the police, nor their long-standing war on people of color and the poor.

Y'all don't realize just how much you've been played. But feel free to cheer on your victory -- it's so much easier than realizing you just made a huge tactical error and making steps to correct it. If you're looking for a suggestion as to what to do about that, I'd suggest looking at the assumptions that led to the vote to meet with the police in the first place. The truth hurts, but it beats living a lie.

Waiting for someone to either ask why I'm so angry (again), or to question my priviledge (again),

anon

>>I'd like to note to Anon that many of the folks who were out there are not anarchists and were people who are committed to both working within existing political structures and transforming those structures. An action that completely rejects the legitimacy of the OPD is certainly an option, but that's not what the May 12th demo was about. If you have a more transgressive action in mind, bring it to the DASW spokescouncil (or DIY!)<<

Finally, someone who doesn't shit talk me for following party line! Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Oh, I'm well aware of non-anarchist viewpoints being at the table -- I'm not objecting to them, I'm objecting to DASW saying one thing and doing another. Anarchists don't negotiate with the police without damn good reason (if at all), and they sure as hell shouldn't be pulling strings behind the scenes and running things from a clique. I'm sure this will result in a small shit storm of backlash -- "how could you say that?" "it was consensed upon", and so forth -- but consider the dynamics within DASW, how proposals get made, and even more importantly, how things get run. DASW is not perfect. It's time for a re-evaluation, before big mistakes are made. this is quickly becoming life or death stuff. Y'all need to be careful, and watch out for power politicing. Seriously. If I didn't give a rat's ass about y'all and what y'all were doing, I wouldn't be here at 11 PM at night typing this.

In terms of more transgressive actions: oh, don't worry, it'll happen. If it's not me, it'll be someone else. We live in hard times; when the big squeeze happens, people will fight back.

anon

perhaps i'm way off-base here but here goes:

There's something strange about this whole dock action.

DAAW launched an action that is in fact truly radical, or at least latently radical, but did so unwittingly--or so it seems. In the various posts by DAAW'ers and in the texts i've read by DAAW, i get the sense that they don't see the dock action as any more powerful than blocking some corporate administrative building for a few hours.

Unlike black blocers who seriously want to strike a blow to the system, but instead just break some window panes, DAAW wants to gently push the system toward something nicer, but instead launched an action that embodies a real threat to capital. The Blac blockers want to destroy capitalism, but give window repairmen some business, while DAAW seems to be allergic to using the word capitalism to describe the system it seeks to change (don't wanna ever offend any liberals!) but organized a demo that attacked capital where it's the most vulnerable.

DAAW seemed sincerely surprised that the cops responded more violently to the dock action than they do when it blocks traffic. But such confusion is what occurs when actions are more radical than the politics fueling them.

I was involved in planning the April 7th dock picket, and I participated in the May 12th picket.

My political position is best described as anarchist. I share many of Anon's criticisms of police liaisons generally. I don't think the movement benefits from stage-managing protests with the police. In my opinion, we should have simply announced to the public (meaning the police would know, too) our intention of returning to the docks and asserting our legal right to picket APL and SSA, and to refuse to back down in the face of police brutality. We should not have agreed to delegate some people to serve as police liaisons, nor should we have met with cops in advance.

We do not benefit by talking with police, they do. If they had wanted to attack us on the 12th they would have, with or without liaisons. They knew they put themselves into some trouble by opening fire on us in April, so they were not going to attack us if we remained rigidly pacifist, as we did on both occasions. The reason they curtailed their violence was not because some of us met with them in advance or during the protest, it was to repair their image, as anon correctly points out.

However, they could have done this equally well without the liaisons. They would have done this without liaisons. Case in point: they attacked us in April despite the fact that we tried to communicate with them, to defuse their building aggression, before they opened fire on us. We did this when they sent in the troops armed to the teeth with riot gear. They attacked anyways. Liaisons are ineffective in curtailing police violence.

I do not think negotiations took place in secret or behind the backs of the protesters. I think it was a mistake that was made without subterfuge on the part of any movement participants. If we are going to meet with cops in advance at all, I think it was done in as decent a way as I can imagine – the people who met with OPD made clear to them that it would be nonviolent, and that we would picket. This was public knowledge.

Presenting an opportunity for the OPD is not the only thing that happened on the 12th at the Port of Oakland. We shut down the evening shift for APL and SSA, particularly egregious capitalist corporations who profit from war, right now. We could not have done this without the ILWU, which kept their workers away from the ports entirely, with totally legitimate safety concerns in relation to the police but also because they are reasonably militant and sympathetic to the cause.

This, I would suggest, is as revolutionary as breathing, not less.

There is nothing we could feasibly do to stop the cops from videotaping us, or from playing their decision not to attack us this time in their media to their advantage. It’s too bad, but any time we act the police are portrayed as heroes in the corporate media, even if they are shooting at fleeing sign carrying grannies (as happened on April 7th).

However, I would submit that we gained more than the police did, despite the use of liaisons, which I feel did not significantly detract from the action.

We established a situation in which no matter how the cops act, we win. If they attack us, they get more bad press and our action raises negative publicity for APL and SSA. In addition, they give us another round of lawsuits to win against them, winning more financial and political gains. If they do not attack us, we picket and shut down APL and SSA. The OPD make kissy faces, but we make it clear that we can and will take effective action despite their existence.

What is needed now, as usual, is to extend our gains and minimize our losses due to mistakes. We should not begin to negotiate with police, we should continue to press our advantages, whether at the Oakland docks or elsewhere. The Direct Action to Stop the War spokescouncil, as with any structure of social organizing, deserves scrutiny and constant reevaluation. It is certainly time to rename it, possibly to just “Direct Action,” as we obviously didn’t stop the war (unless one wants to expand the rhetoric to the ongoing imperialist war for empire, the war at home, etc, which some are doing). However, is it so hopelessly bureaucratic and corrupted as to be as useless and inherently counter to the interests of the people as, say, the US Government, which should simply be destroyed outright? I don’t think so. It seems to retain some utility.

We need to understand that the docks are such a point of contention because they are a truly important target – as opposed to symbolic targets like the suburban offices of Chevron Texaco or Lockheed Martin. The more that we intervene with a revolutionary perspective in the industrial system of production and distribution (of which the docks are a critical link), especially in a fraternal and friendly way with the radical elements of organized labor (typically more rank and file than leadership), the more effective our actions will be. Blocking traffic in front of an office building is a nuisance to the powerful, at best. Shutting down a link in the web of production can cripple this system at best, and open an opportunity for the anarchist movement to create the world we would like to see – freedom, equality, social institutions run by and for their members, the abolition of government and capital ownership, equality for all genders and sexualities, the end of totalitarian controls in all aspects of life, and the achievement of ecological repair and survival.

Of course, this doesn’t follow automatically. We can cripple part of the economy, then be efficiently and violently contained by government repression. The questions of how to expand our openings at any given moment and defend our gains are critical and complex. Oversimplifications and idealized solutions, like “reform the system” or “a vanguard party” have all proven themselves time and again, under various circumstances, to be routes of abject and universal failure.

There is a lot more that needs to be said on how we should move forward than I have either time or sufficient knowledge to provide at this moment. However, I believe that it is both desirable and possible to press forward, learn from our plentiful mistakes and numerous successes, and turn these minor gains into a worldwide anarchist revolution – which I believe is the only hope humanity has to survive and thrive.

p.s. Jerry Brown, like all politicians, is a feel-good friend of the people, until it suits his political needs to become totalitarian. That is how government works, and that is why government cannot be reformed. It must be destroyed and replaced with fundamentally different social structures, answerable to and run by the individuals within them. No matter how radical a party or an individual starts out, when it gains political power it has to destroy anything in the way of its hold on power – which is to say, any move towards greater freedom and equality.

p.p.s. The police are not “bad people” or “good people,” they are the domestic violence arm of the state, as the military is its external projection of violence. As such, they routinely carry out atrocious acts. The police must be abolished, as an institution, and replaced with community capacity for organized self defense.

I think you’re sort of on to something, but mostly not.

Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW) has carried out radical actions, in some cases despite itself. Many of the individuals and groups involved are of a liberal, reformist, symbolic action-oriented type. There are, however, exceptions. One of the most active elements is the Anti-Capitalist Cluster, which has a very different point of view. One of the advantages of such a structure is that radicals can influence other people, rather than just talking to themselves. One of the drawbacks is that sometimes, the liberals and reformists involved refuse to draw obvious lessons – like the obvious fact that we were attacked at the port because it was the best strategic target DASW has gone after.

Not everyone in DASW wants to tear down the capitalist system. However, enough do that DASW is capable of consciously radical action, like the dock protests.

The black bloc, for one thing, is not an organization, it is a tactic. It is not a tactic that has been used by DASW yet, but there you have it. A fundamental difference.

One benefit of working through DASW is that a whole variety of folks can strike together in common action despite political differences. The best thing about DASW is that, by its nature, it is anti-electoral. So, even if liberals are to be involved, they must suggest direct actions, which can then be evaluated on their specific merits and faults, rather than crap like “vote for so-and-so.”

The problem with a black bloc within our present context is that the radical movement is very effectively marginalized in the Bay Area, in large part due to the widespread acceptance of ineffective, capitalist liberal ideology. Black bloc style breakaway marches before the war in SF led to mass arrests for walking on the sidewalk.

Something like DASW may open the door to future successes with black bloc tactics, or it may open the door to even greater things, like a regional general strike, a “San Francisco Commune,” or hitherto unimagined radical action. There may be some combination of tactics – with mixed success (the most likely, and what has occurred until now). It could also very well fail totally from this point forward.

No matter what, the struggle will continue - unless we allow the capitalist system to push us over the brink of ecological collapse or total war, or a combination of the two, ending in the extinction of humanity.

thanks for the thoughtful response, 'anarchist'.

i case you think i do, i don't in any way think that DASW should disband or that it is a shitty organization that's holding back the movement. nor do i think that the democratic structure that holds DASW together is a weakness; on the contrary, it seems to allow a diverse group of people who might otherwise not work together to do so.

i'm aware that comparing DASW to the Black Bloc is somewhat crude because the former is an organization and the latter, at least ostensibly, is a tactic. but you yourself appear to concede that there is something to the comparison, in the sense that DASW is fomenting actions the implications of which many of its members don't seem to really understand.

with pleasure, i'll say that it's much better to unwittingly take actions that are more effective and powerful than intended than to take ones that are far less than powerful than intended. however, it's best to take actions that are powerful and be able to support those actions coherently when called to.

the problem comes in especially vividly in the pitch for the action itself. looking at the card publicizing the latest dock action there is no political statement that explains the strategic importance of the docks in exerting power against the capitalist system. this is important as an "educational" device, as well as for cueing prospective supporters and participants (and, in particular, self ID'd anti-capitalists) as to why it's especially important to take time to come out for this particular action. i now gather that DASW's failure to explain its intent as one of exerting power against capital as such is due to the fact that that's not its intent, or at least not the intent of many of its members.

Aaron,

There are several important distinctions between the Black Bloc (BB) and Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW). To be clear, I think both are valuable components of the movement, and both have made mistakes.

BB always carries black and red flags, and nearly always raises radical slogans, like “No War But Class War.” DASW often embraces more reformist slogans, like “Money For Schools Not War,” which has appeared at many liberal, totally non-confrontational rallies and implies that if we only ask or demand that capitalist politicians like the Democrats or Republicans change priorities, they will. Of course, they won’t, and no capitalist American government will spend more money on schools than war. Similarly, someone on May 12th at the second DASW dock picket was carrying an American flag, linking US nationalism to dissent, which is popular with liberals but quite an obvious danger to radicals.

However, neither manifestation has adequately raised consciousness about the nature of the system that we face, which creates war. At some of the BB breakaway marches, people handed out a pamphlet called “Peace is Patriotic, and That’s the Problem: an anarchist perspective” (available at http://www.linefeed.org/~cactus/pip.html and http://nefac.northernhacking.org/newswire/display/262/index.php). DASW has handed out infosheets explaining particular actions, giving specific information about the targets at times. I have seen no consistent attempt from either type of action to situate these actions in a larger context – certainly not a radical analysis. This isn’t because none exists, but because people involved put most of their energy into making the actions work, rather than explaining their worldview. This is a weakness, but much better than what most radicals have been doing – basically all talk, no action (or almost all talk, very little action).

I agree that DASW as a whole does not have a conscious, articulated analysis about shutting down capitalism. This, hopefully, can change. No BB action in the US that I’m aware of has advertised in advance the relation of a target to the capitalist system. When a BB January 18 in SF trashed the Immigration and Naturalization Service building (http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1562318.php), there were chants before it happened of “Fuck the Deportations, No Borders, No Nations.” There was, however, no written articulation of why the INS is an appropriate target, in what way trashing it might be expected to assist the victims of “War on Terror” INS roundups and disappearances, or anything else. Again, not because the analysis isn’t out there, but primarily because the people with the analysis spend more time trying to get shit done than to explain it. Both are necessary.

This raises another clear distinction: BB occasionally utilizes sabotage and property destruction, which is both a result of and reason for the tactic: affinity groups do not publicly organize meetings in advance to plan, which makes it harder for cops to infiltrate and crush. DASW has the weekly spokescouncil, which is an open, public organizing forum. It would be suicidal to plan sabotage through such a public medium. I’m surprised nobody has been brought up from the DASW spokescouncil on charges of conspiracy to block traffic. For that reason (and for ideologically pacifist reasons for some participants) DASW doesn’t do property destruction. Both approaches have limitations and opportunities.

Both organizing forms, BB and DASW, are far from ideal. Both are valuable, and can always use refinement and improvement. Both could desperately use more in the way of an explicit radical analysis being consistently written and presented at the actions. Anyone have spare time?

Solidarity

On the question of meetings with the police and related topics, there is another thread at
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1610519_comment
I have posted to that page, which doesn't have photos so it loads quicker. I suggest continuing there.