Is the FBI performing espionage against Occupy UC Davis students? That is the question that the ACLU of Northern California wants answers to, as they have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI to find out whether and to what extent the feds have been spying on members of the Occupy movement.
One of the big questions is the extent to which the FBI might be involved in UC Davis, where last fall on November 18 local law enforcement engaged in the controversial crackdown of peaceful protesters, following an effort to clear the UC Davis Quad of tents. The resultant operation led to the arrest and pepper spraying of a number of students and subsequent local investigations.
“We are extremely curious to know [about UC Davis],” ACLU Staff Attorney Linda Lye told the Davis Vanguard this week. “That is one of the Occupy movements that our FOIA seeks information about.”
“The ACLU of Northern California is particularly interested in four of the local Occupy movements which have been subjected to particularly violent crackdowns,” she said. “Our request specifically seeks information about UC Davis and the local Occupy movements.”
The ACLU has concerns and questions about the role that the federal government is playing in terms of surveilling and monitoring the occupy movement. Some evidence has emerged of a coordinated crackdown last fall when mayors got together with a private law enforcement group to assist in that crackdown.
As the San Francisco Bay Guardian and other media outlets reported that month, a non-governmental law enforcement group called “PERF,” or the Police Executive Research Forum, coordinated conference calls with big city mayors and police chiefs to advise
them on policing matters and the response to Occupy.
There has also emerged evidence through another FOIA request of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) involvement in the crackdown. Documents obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund show that the Department of Homeland Security was engaged in nationwide monitoring and surveillance of the Occupy movement.
“The law enforcement response was swift and brutal, as police showered protesters with exploding projectiles, batons, and pepper spray,” the ACLU release said. “The ACLU-NC is currently suing UC Davis over its pepper spraying of peaceful student protesters, and is also partnering with the National Lawyers Guild in suing the City of Oakland over the violent crackdown on Occupy Oakland.”
“We also have reason to believe that the FBI has been involved,” the ACLU argued in their press release. “Just days before the inaugural Occupy Wall Street protest on September 17, 2011, the FBI issued this Intelligence Bulletin, labeling the now-iconic OWS image as a ‘propaganda poster.’ “
“The role of the federal government, in particular, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’) in investigating and surveilling Occupy movements goes to the heart of pressing and, unfortunately, constantly recurring questions of public interest, such as the federal government’s role in monitoring or chilling protected political activism,” the ACLU argues in its brief. “It is imperative that the public gain a full and complete understanding of the scope of FBI surveillance of Occupy movements in Northern California – where some of the country’s most brutal police crackdowns have occurred – and whether FBI activities in connection with Occupy comport with legal and ethical guidelines.”
“FBI abuses of spying on political activists has a long and sordid history,” ACLU Staff Attorney Linda Lye told the Davis Vanguard this week. “The ACLU has long been monitoring the FBI – we need to monitor the monitors.”
The ACLU has been vigilant in figuring out exactly what the FBI is doing.
Ms. Lye told the Vanguard that, under the Bush administration, the FBI is able to launch low-level operations even when there “is no factual predicate of illegal activity or any threat to national security.”
“What these guys want to do is basically authorize infiltration and surveillance of peaceful groups that are engaged in political protest and other protected activities,” Ms. Lye said.
The question for years has been to what extent these guidelines have been abused and now the question is whether this has been done with respect to Occupy.
The ACLU argues in its brief that they have concrete reasons to believe that the FBI has been surveilling on the Occupy Movement.
Ms. Lye cites the FBI’s Intelligence Bulletin on Occupy Wall Street as evidence of at least some FBI involvement.
“We want to know what exactly the scope and extent of that monitoring has been,” she said.
In response to their FOIA request for FBI records, “The agency acknowledged that ‘potentially responsive documents may exist.’ The agency similarly has acknowledged the existence of ‘potentially responsive documents’ to a FOIA request (Request No. 1176937-001) about Occupy Wall Street.”
On March 8, 2012, the ACLU of Northern California submitted a FOIA request seeking information about FBI surveillance of the Occupy movement. At that time, they requested expedited processing, however, as they allege, “The FBI has provided Plaintiffs with no records or any information regarding the status of its search.”
“Defendant FBI has wrongfully withheld agency records requested by Plaintiffs under FOIA and has failed to comply with the statutory time for the processing of FOIA requests,” the ACLU alleges in their suit.
The ACLU notes, “In recent years, the FBI’s surveillance of those engaged in First Amendment protected activity has extended to the surveillance of religious minorities, in particular, Muslims, who have gained a high profile in the wake of 9/11.”
“Our concern is that the fear of terrorism has fueled overzealous intelligence activity. This has been directed at ordinary Americans engaged in perfectly lawful and often protected activity,” Linda Lye told the Vanguard. “We’re very concerned about targeting political activists.”
In the brief, the ACLU argues, “There is great urgency in shedding light on the extent of the FBI’s role in surveilling Occupy activists, and in particular, on whether the FBI has complied with local and national norms in monitoring those engaged in First Amendment activity. Just last year, the agency made public a new edition of its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, re-igniting an on-going matter of public debate about whether the FBI’s standards for its investigations intrude unduly on civil liberties.”
“The public has a right to know what role the federal government is playing in monitoring, surveilling and cracking down on the vibrant, grassroots, political movements,” she said.
One of the ACLU’s big concerns is the extent to which there has been infiltration. Previously, she noted, the ACLU uncovered evidence of operations involving the infiltration of mosques, targeting the Muslim community.
“Has the FBI engaged in similar infiltration with respect to the Occupy Movement?” she asked. That is the key question driving this FOIA request.
Linda Lye hopes we will have the answer well before the end of the year.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
From Wounded Knee to Cointelpro to Redwood Summer its always good to assume the FBI is watching any political movements that threaten the status quo. Of course when engaging in any political activity you should be careful not to violate any laws unless you are willfully engaged in an act of civil disobedience.
UC Davis had an entire system of informants throughout the University including people who were guests at my wedding. Linda Katehi has been to FBI training for dealing with student unrest. The obvious answer is that information is being shared at all levels of law enforcement.
“The ACLU has been vigilant in figuring out exactly what the FBI is doing.
Ms. Lye told the Vanguard, that under the Bush administration, the FBI is able to launch low level operations even when there “is no factual predicate of illegal activity or any threat to national security.”
It’s Bush’s fault. Oh wait, Occupy has only been around since Obama has been president.
Rusty: She was giving the historical background of the powers not assessing blame.
A letter was distributed in 2009, if memory serves, and it was signed by someone who identified himself as a DHS liaison (or something similar) working in the UCBPD office, so we know for sure that DHS has been involved in some way with UC policing.
As for the FBI, I doubt that they were on the scene on Nov. 18, 2011.
Previously, during the rally at UCD on November 16, 2010 there were two men standing at the top of the stairs on the outside balcony level of the MU overlooking the scene. Griselda Castro was there on the patio and I asked her who the men were. She told me that they were UC people (can’t remember her exact words) and that there was some kind of system-wide alert status in effect that day. I never heard more about it.
I remember now that the Governor was attending the Global Climate Summit at Mondavi and might have been on campus, so maybe that had something to do with the two men being there.
’bout time we got something for our tax $.
This is a dangerous area and must always be “policed.” We as citizens have a right to expect our police will always have certain qualities with regard to handling protest and use of fair and reasonable force. To learn more about this, I invite you to take a look at my new book for both help and answers, “Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off About Protest, Racism, Corruption and the Seven Steps Necessary to Improve Our Nation’s Police.” My blog is at http://improvingpolice.wordpress.com/ where I discuss these and other current police improvement issues. Good luck and may we all experience great policing!
“The ACLU argues in its brief that they have concrete reasons to believe that the FBI has been surveilling on the Occupy Movement.”
lol, and your point is?
the FBI doesn’t answer to the aclu.
[quote]lol, and your point is? [/quote]
It’s is a statement of the ACLU’s position in their legal brief.
[quote]the FBI doesn’t answer to the aclu. [/quote]
That’s a strange comment. The FBI is accountable to the law and to the extent that they violate the law and the ACLU uses legal means to compel compliance, then they most certainly do answer to the ACLU as they would any other citizen. So perhaps it would be more helpful if you explained what you mean by this statement?
“So perhaps it would be more helpful if you explained what you mean by this statement?”
the FBI doesn’t answer to the ACLU.
Again, in what sense do you mean? They are not under direct authority, is that what you mean? Or do you mean they can ignore FOIA laws?
It seems to me there were complaints the FBI didn’t do enough in intelligence gathering and 9/11 was the result. Now there are complaints the FBI is doing too much in intelligence gathering. If the police and FBI and UCD sat back and did absolutely nothing (as in the bank blocking incident on the UCD campus), people would complain about that. The complainers cannot have it both ways…
” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” “
[quote]The complainers cannot have it both ways… [/quote]
That’s not what’s happening. First you are assuming that the same people were complaining both times, when I would argue that while there may be overlap, overall that’s probably a questionable assumption.
Second, I think most would suggest that the response has gone from one extreme to another and are therefore not trying to have it both ways so much as trying to find a middle based approach which is on the one hand protects but on the other hand does not infringe on lawful activities.
To take it a step further, it seems that you believe somehow that the FBI is going to find actual Islamic terrorists in the midst of Occupy Protesters and I have to question that. I think we can be safe within the framework of the constitution and the right to privacy.
David, you never followed up on the great Occupy computer heist where supposedly a perpetrator was able to steal many laptops in the dead of night that were all positioned close to the sleeping Occupiers. Did they all get shiny new laptops from the Occupy fund?
I was not able to follow up on it because the university knew nothing and many of the students ended up in the bank blocking action and therefore stopped talking to the press.
in other words they made it up.
[quote]in other words they made it up. [/quote]
They stopped talking to the press on all matters
[quote]That’s not what’s happening. First you are assuming that the same people were complaining both times, when I would argue that while there may be overlap, overall that’s probably a questionable assumption.
Second, I think most would suggest that the response has gone from one extreme to another and are therefore not trying to have it both ways so much as trying to find a middle based approach which is on the one hand protects but on the other hand does not infringe on lawful activities.
To take it a step further, it seems that you believe somehow that the FBI is going to find actual Islamic terrorists in the midst of Occupy Protesters and I have to question that. I think we can be safe within the framework of the constitution and the right to privacy.[/quote]
1) We don’t know who the complainers are, and I would suspect there is significant overlap.
2) The UCD campus is a perfect example where complainers are trying to have it both ways – if the police are baited into pepper spraying students, the police are overreacting; if the police step back and try and reason with protesters, the police are not doing enough. No matter what the police do, it is deemed wrong. Complainers cannot have it both ways.
3) I said no such thing in regard to “find…actual terrorists in the midst of Occupy Protesters”. Don’t put words in my mouth that I never said nor even implied.
4) So how do you think we can be safe? What is your plan that the police should follow in situations like the Occupy movement? Now remember, there was violence within the Occupy movement in many cities – shootings, arson, etc.
“1) We don’t know who the complainers are, and I would suspect there is significant overlap. “
So let’s take this concrete example. Did the ACLU complain that the FBI was not doing enough and if so, what did they suggest that the FBI do differently?
“2) The UCD campus is a perfect example where complainers are trying to have it both ways – if the police are baited into pepper spraying students, the police are overreacting; if the police step back and try and reason with protesters, the police are not doing enough. No matter what the police do, it is deemed wrong. Complainers cannot have it both ways. “
Again, You are conflating middle ground with having it both ways. The police overreacted on November 18 by using unauthorized pepper spray on seated protesters and underreacted during the bank protests by failing to allow US Bank to do business.
“3) I said no such thing in regard to “find…actual terrorists in the midst of Occupy Protesters”. Don’t put words in my mouth that I never said nor even implied. “
Then I completely fail to understand your point about 9/11 if it doesn’t relate to terrorists and occupy.
“4) So how do you think we can be safe? What is your plan that the police should follow in situations like the Occupy movement? Now remember, there was violence within the Occupy movement in many cities – shootings, arson, etc. “
There is violence in many cities absent the Occupy movement, shootings, arson, etc. We don’t generally call in the FBI to handle that.
vanguard: “There is violence in many cities absent the Occupy movement, shootings, arson, etc. We don’t generally call in the FBI to handle that.”
didn’t address the question. its easy to sit in the comfort of ones living room and snipe at those in the trenches.
“didn’t address the question”
You’re probably the last person that can reasonably complain about that.
“its easy to sit in the comfort of ones living room …”
I wouldn’t know.
“The police overreacted on November 18 by using unauthorized pepper spray on seated protesters and underreacted during the bank protests by failing to allow US Bank to do business.”
And how would they have allowed the bank to do business without confronting the protesters and having you and your posse on their case about it? I can hear it now, “they should’ve just let the protest run its course and it would’ve taken care of its self”.
rusty: what severely diminished the vanguard’s credibility to speak on this issue was in its giving the protestors an award for what they had done. It is one thing to blast pike for overreacting, but to treat the protestors as doing the right thing when they had done the wrong thing is over the top fanatacism. nuff said.
btw: “the vanguard award.” – lol thats cute – self-important delusions of grandeur. next thing you know, David is going to award himself the nobel peace prize.
You’re probably the last person that can reasonably complain about that.
said the pot to the kettle.
Maybe you all could focus on the topic of the thread now, please.
Rusty: In the past I showed you multiple examples of protests where arrests occurred without incident and the Vanguard in fact praised the efforts of the police. I believe that that this is not only an ideal but possible.
“what severely diminished the vanguard’s credibility to speak on this issue was in its giving the protestors an award for what they had done. It is one thing to blast pike for overreacting, but to treat the protestors as doing the right thing [u]when they had done the wrong thing[/u] is over the top fanatacism. “
Really? What wrong thing did the protesters do? They exercised their first amendment right to speech, there was no legal authority to arrest them, and they were not only arrested but pepper sprayed in a way that was determined by a group of former polices officers to be objectively inappropriate. I fail to see that your assertion here has been substantiated.
Oh Don, David’s off topic again.
Really? What wrong thing did the protesters do?
intentionally picked a fight with the police.
We’ve debated the point to death, so I’ll just suggest I don’t agree that there is any evidence that the protesters in general did that, let alone those who were pepper sprayed.
are you saying the students did not put up the tents with any intention to cause any conflict? if so, why would they put them up? – also keep in mind the background from kroll which made it clear tents up to this point in time had been a source of confict in other areas. which in my book is evidence of their intentions.
I think you get to the fundamental question about civil disobedience. After all, those who sat down at the lunch counter in the south were intending to cause a conflict – does that mean we shouldn’t honor their efforts?
@91 Octane:
We put up tents the year before and there was not a peep of worry or objection from the administration:
http://occupyca.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/davis-2-day-tent-city
“btw: “the vanguard award.” – lol thats cute – self-important delusions of grandeur. next thing you know, David is going to award himself the nobel peace prize. “
Interesting point given then he’s not honoring himself. The fact that Cruz Reynoso is coming to hand out an award and the directors of the Northern California Innocence Project are coming to personally receive it seems to negate your point. In fact, I think you’re being obnoxious and insulting a lot of people who are putting in a lot of work. I suspect you’ll take any admonishment as a compliment, so I’ll spare you.
Octaine: You don’t have one of these do you?
[img]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/5006_92330612454_7693065_n.jpg[/img]
“That’s a strange comment. The FBI is accountable to the law and to the extent that they violate the law and the ACLU uses legal means to compel compliance, then they most certainly do answer to the ACLU as they would any other citizen. So perhaps it would be more helpful if you explained what you mean by this statement?”
Of course, the FBI must follow the law. What laws do you say the FBI has violated with respect to the Davis Occupy groups and demonstrations? It definitely would be more helpful if you specifically explained by what you mean by “to the extent that they violate the law.”
The ACLU is alleging that the FBI was non-responsive to the FOIA request
Seigel, though it might not matter with respect to your point, the award being presented by Cruz Reynoso is going to those who were pepper sprayed and arrested in the event that Justice Reynoso investigated, as I remember David’s reports.
Oh, gawd, how legally late are they in responding to the ACLU’s March 8, 2012? I presume they’ve confirmed that the FBI received the request? It’s interesting what a load of innuendo this story has come up with in an alleged law-breaking by delayed response to an FOIA request.
The Vanguard awarded Justice Reynoso last year for one of the awards.
[quote]erm: “2) The UCD campus is a perfect example where complainers are trying to have it both ways – if the police are baited into pepper spraying students, the police are overreacting; if the police step back and try and reason with protesters, the police are not doing enough. No matter what the police do, it is deemed wrong. Complainers cannot have it both ways. ”
dmg: Again, You are conflating middle ground with having it both ways. The police overreacted on November 18 by using unauthorized pepper spray on seated protesters and underreacted during the bank protests by failing to allow US Bank to do business. [/quote]
Okay, I’ll bite. So what is the middle ground? You play policeman, and tell us what you should have done…
[quote]erm: “4) So how do you think we can be safe? What is your plan that the police should follow in situations like the Occupy movement? Now remember, there was violence within the Occupy movement in many cities – shootings, arson, etc. ”
dmg: There is violence in many cities absent the Occupy movement, shootings, arson, etc. We don’t generally call in the FBI to handle that.[/quote]
You are dodging the question. What is your plan the police should follow in situations like the Occupy movement, which has had a particular history of shootings, arson, etc.? Flash forward to a few days ago, when a former med student open fired and injured/killed 70 people in a crowded movie theater in Colorado. He purchased a lot of his ammunition through the internet – 6000 rounds. Perhaps if the FBI had been paying more attention to Internet traffic, this tragedy could have been averted. Don’t know…
[quote]I think you get to the fundamental question about civil disobedience. After all, those who sat down at the lunch counter in the south were intending to cause a conflict – does that mean we shouldn’t honor their efforts?[/quote]
You are going to compare the UCD pepper sprayed students to those at the lunch counter in the south? If you can’t see the difference, it shows how deeply entrenched your view is about the sanctity of civil disobedience. Let me advise you that is a slippery slope. One man’s civil disobedience is another’s anarchy…
I’m comparing the tactics. You see to be implicitly arguing that the ends justify the means here – in other words if you support the cause and it’s righteous it is okay to be provocative towards the police. Once you acknowledge that the tactics are okay for one set of outcomes, they become okay for all sets – after all the worthiness of the outcome is a subjective value. I think this is what you are getting at with the “slippery slope” and “disobedience” – “anarchy” dichotomy. But you missed the point of my argument which was provoking the police does not negate the worthiness of the effort – the worthiness of the expert of independently derived and subjective. The law btw, has to be neutral of that, the law has to treat all acts as though they were unworthy. Where authorities fail is the point at which they overreact.
Siegel: “Interesting point given then he’s not honoring himself. The fact that Cruz Reynoso is coming to hand out an award and the directors of the Northern California Innocence Project are coming to personally receive it seems to negate your point. In fact, I think you’re being obnoxious and insulting a lot of people who are putting in a lot of work.”
a bunch of people sympathetic to a political cause handing award to other people sympathetic to the same cause does not make that cause or behavior just, nor right. Reynoso is a known political activist. Nuff said.
brian: “We put up tents the year before and there was not a peep of worry or objection from the administration”
so your argument is you couldn’t have been trying to cause trouble now because you tried to cause trouble a year before and got away with it.
vanguard: “I think you get to the fundamental question about civil disobedience. After all, those who sat down at the lunch counter in the south were intending to cause a conflict – does that mean we shouldn’t honor their efforts?”
nobody arrested protestors for sitting down at a lunch counter. Nobody turned fire-hoses on the protestors for exercising freedom of speech. No protestor was hanged for demonstrating. Nobody was arrested for sitting on the back of a bus. Ergo, The two aren’t comparable. For the vanguard to imply they are – is further evidence of vanguard fanatacism.
“so your argument is you couldn’t have been trying to cause trouble now because you tried to cause trouble a year before and got away with it.”
On the contrary, it appears that his is argument is that you can’t necessarily infer intent from actions.
btw: I wonder how sympathetic the vanguard would be if I got my posse together to stage sit ins and other forms of so called “civil disobedience” at the offices of the ACLU?
or maybe go inside their building and on their lawn and set up tents there. lol. or maybe do it to all the protestors’ homes?
“btw: I wonder how sympathetic the vanguard would be if I got my posse together to stage sit ins and other forms of so called “civil disobedience” at the offices of the ACLU?”
The question you posed is whether the tactics automatically invalidate the actions – and I argue they do not. I use the example that I did as a means to demonstrate that point, not provide equivalence of the actions. My objection to your fictitious sit-in would be directed at your goals not your tactics.
“or maybe do it to all the protestors’ homes?”
I do form a distinction between public and private property.
You and Elaine essentially fell on the same point – and it was a rhetorical trap. Both of you tacitly acknowledged that the tactics are valid under some conditions. At that point it becomes a subjective judgment to distinguish under which conditions that the tactics are valid. Reasonable obviously will disagree on this point. But my point was not to compare the two, rather establish the validity of the tactics under some conditions. You have now agreed on that point which negates your previous one.
I agree, David (with your 07:53 a.m. comment).
I’m not sure where the other commenters are coming from, but ultimately it becomes an issue of one’s worldview. Is reality a top-down thing created by a Supreme Being who then allows his will to be implemented in a top-down fashion by elite power structures? Or is reality a bottom-up thing composed of entities which exist on their own, including people who cooperate together politically to create laws and make agreements with one another in a bottom-up fashion?
Inevitably, as discussions get more involved and begin to focus on premises, the context shifts to these deeper issues and contexts.
In other words, context is everything, especially in the area of issues involving civil disobedience.
vanguard: “On the contrary, it appears that his is argument is that you can’t necessarily infer intent from actions.”
and so far, no alternate explanation as to why the protestors did what they did as to putting up the tents has been provided. in fact, the vanguard in its attempt to put the protestors cause on the same plane as the cause of civil rights has tacitly admitted their intent with the tents was to cause trouble – and the justification is according to the vanguard because other the civil rights movement in the 60’s did the same thing.
I do form a distinction between public and private property.
US bank was a private business.
My objection to your fictitious sit-in would be directed at your goals not your tactics.
well, if the tactics are okay for your cause, why not for mine?
“US bank was a private business. “
We’re not talking about the US Bank block, only the events on November 18
“well, if the tactics are okay for your cause, why not for mine? “
I don’t object to the tactics, only the goals.
“no alternate explanation as to why the protestors did what they did as to putting up the tents has been provided”
@91 Octane: Please come out from behind our pseudonym if you want to engage in a serious debate on this. I’m not familiar with your history on this blog, but you seem to be taking potshots here. I can’t take your comments seriously, as is. Davis has to, because he’s the host of the blog.
[quote]You and Elaine essentially fell on the same point – and it was a rhetorical trap. Both of you tacitly acknowledged that the tactics are valid under some conditions. At that point it becomes a subjective judgment to distinguish under which conditions that the tactics are valid. Reasonable obviously will disagree on this point. But my point was not to compare the two, rather establish the validity of the tactics under some conditions. You have now agreed on that point which negates your previous one.[/quote]
Please don’t put words in my mouth I never said. Secondly, the above is meaningless to me and is gets completely away from the point I made, which you don’t seem to be able to answer.
My comment:
[quote]You are going to compare the UCD pepper sprayed students to those at the lunch counter in the south? If you can’t see the difference, it shows how deeply entrenched your view is about the sanctity of civil disobedience. Let me advise you that is a slippery slope. One man’s civil disobedience is another’s anarchy…[/quote]
Your nonresponse:
[quote]I’m comparing the tactics. You seem to be implicitly arguing that the ends justify the means here – in other words if you support the cause and it’s righteous it is okay to be provocative towards the police. Once you acknowledge that the tactics are okay for one set of outcomes, they become okay for all sets – after all the worthiness of the outcome is a subjective value. I think this is what you are getting at with the “slippery slope” and “disobedience” – “anarchy” continuum. But you missed the point of my argument which that the very fact that an action might be provocative to the police, does not negate the worthiness of the effort – the worthiness of the effort is independently derived and subjective. The law btw, has to be neutral of that, the law has to treat all acts as though they were unworthy. Where authorities fail is the point at which they overreact.[/quote]
I never argued the ends justify the means. Where did you get that idea from what I said? I’m at a complete loss…
Elaine: It’s simple. You wrote: “If you can’t see the difference, it shows how deeply entrenched your view is about the sanctity of civil disobedience.” Embedded in that statement is the notion that the civil rights movement is different than the student protesters. To me you are suggesting that due to the end goal in the CRM, their actions were justified. And because you disagree with the students, their actions were not justified. Hence, the ends justify the means.
I used the example because Octane suggested that provoking the police discredited the efforts, the civil rights movement at times attempted to provoke the police. I’m not equating the two movements on anything other than a tactical level and using the CRM as an example where most people support civil disobedience.
Once you accept that there are some situations where those tactics are acceptable, the argument becomes subjective and is up to each person’s personal morality to determine justified or not.
Elaine
“You are going to compare the UCD pepper sprayed students to those at the lunch counter in the south? If you can’t see the difference, it shows how deeply entrenched your view is about the sanctity of civil disobedience. Let me advise you that is a slippery slope. One man’s civil disobedience is another’s anarchy…”
I am sure that there were many in the south who considered the actions of those who sat at lunch counters and marched to be advocating anarchy as they were breaking the law. It is my view that breaking an unjust law is a justifiable act in promotion of justice as long as it is done in a peaceful manner. I personally do not see the recent student protests as of the same magnitude as the protests against racial segregation in the south. This does not stop me from having empathy for their situation, belief in their goals, and sharing their distaste for police over reaching.
[quote]Elaine: It’s simple. You wrote: “If you can’t see the difference, it shows how deeply entrenched your view is about the sanctity of civil disobedience.” Embedded in that statement is the notion that the civil rights movement is different than the student protesters. To me you are suggesting that due to the end goal in the CRM, their actions were justified. And because you disagree with the students, their actions were not justified. Hence, the ends justify the means. [/quote]
What convoluted “logic” that makes no sense!
I’ll attempt this one more time. I’ll break it apart. Do you believe that the civil rights workers acted appropriately in using civil disobedience even in situations where they might provoke the police to use violent means of repression?