Amy Goodman Arrested at Republican Convention!

[AGBF]

I experienced a surreal moment after putting on the cable television to see if there was coverage of the Republican National Convention.

I saw that coverage was going back and forth between Hurricane Gustav and a phone line manned by someone who was taking questions from people in three separate groups: those supporting Barack Obama for president; those supporting John McCain for president; and those who supporting a third person for president.

Since I couldn''t use the computer, I listened to some of the phone calls. One of the callers told the person manning the phones that Amy Goodman had been illegally arrested at the Republican National Convention and that he had been on the telephone to the police department for hours trying to get information about her. The man manning the phones (who was on C-Span''s television station, mind you) seemed stunned and turned to his computer. After checking his computer, he said that the caller was right...that Amy Goodman had been pepper sprayed and that the news of her arrest was all over the Internet! The caller then went on to say that he was concerned about how Amy Goodman was being treated and he was disabled and he supported Barack Obama and that John McCain was trying to fool people that he cared about them, but he only cared about people who made over 5 million dollars.

I was just amazed that in this age of information that a phone caller could bring news from the Internet to a newsman on television!

Amy Goodman is a pacifist; I read on the Internet that she had been manhandled by the police. We shall see. She is a person of conscience.

Deborah

 

[iheartscience]

Wow, that is insane. I just watched the video on Washingtonpost.com. She did nothing at all and they did manhandle her.

It always seems like police officers get into a pack or mob mentality at events like this where they''re supposed to break up protesters. Once they put on riot gear they get a little out of control.

 

[strmrdr]

saw the vid she earned getting arrested.
She was clearly told to stay out of that area and she tried to do so and wasn''t arrested until she tried to force her way past the cop.
She clearly broke the law so why shouldn''t she have been arrested?
A media pass does not give anyone the right to break the law.

 

[Rank Amateur]

All kooks consider themselves people of conscience.

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - Protesters smashed windows, punctured car tires and threw bottles Monday during an anti-war march to the site of the Republican National Convention. Police used pepper spray in confrontations with demonstrators and arrested five.

Instead of the single coherent march that organizers had hoped for, fringe groups of anarchists and others wrought havoc along the streets between the state Capitol and the Xcel Energy Center where the convention was taking place.

Police estimates of the crowd shifted during the event before settling on 8,000 to 10,000. The crowd was clearly in the thousands, many of them marching peacefully.

The arrests occurred in confrontations several blocks from the convention arena. Five people were arrested for lighting a trash bin on fire and pushing it into a police car, St. Paul police spokesman Tom Walsh said.

About 20 anarchists who had started the trash bin fire later tried to block the intersection of St. Peter and Exchange streets. Police quickly dispersed the group, then shot two tear gas canisters at the fleeing anarchists.

Pictures taken by Associated Press photographers showed officers using pepper spray on protesters who appeared to be trying to block streets.
"There are people who are committing violations of law and they're being arrested," Walsh said.

About 200 people from a group called Funk the War noisily staged its own separate march. Wearing black clothes, bandanas and gas masks, some of their members smashed windows of cars and stores. They tipped over newspaper boxes, pulled a big trash bin into the street, bent the rear view mirrors on a bus and flipped heavy stone garbage bins on the sidewalks.

One man who seemed to be the leader of the group carried a yellow flag with the motto "Don't Tread on Me." The group chanted: "Whose streets? Our streets!"Meanwhile, a group of about 100 anarchists pushed a trash bin filled with trash and threw garbage in the streets and at cars. They also took down orange detour road signs. One of them used a screwdriver to puncture the back tire of a limousine waiting at an intersection and threw a wooden board at the vehicle, denting its side. Another hurled a glass bottle at a charter bus that had stopped at an intersection. The bottle smashed into pieces but didn't appear to damage the bus.

Closely following the anarchists were teams of riot officers carrying batons, rifles and guns that could be used to shoot tear gas.

The day's march was organized by a group called the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, whose leaders said they hoped for a peaceful, family-friendly march. But police were on high alert after months of preparations by a self-described anarchist group called the RNC Welcoming Committee, which wasn't among the organizers of the march.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/1/2008 11:40:56 PM

Author: Rank Amateur


All kooks consider themselves people of conscience.

Well, I would like to see you prove that, but it is irrelevant to what I posted, which was: "She is a person of conscience".



Deborah

 

[miraclesrule]

Violent anti-wars group do a lot of damage to undermine the peace movement. In fact, several of the "anarchists" are actual plants by the RNC in order to discredit the movement. I think it is interesting that these individuals are always in mask in order not to be identified. It does seem suspect and due to the extent of involvement I have witnessed in politics, more than a probibility that this behavior exists. I even know one person who has confessed that he had participated in the act of sabotage during an anti-war rally because he was paid a lot of money to do so and was not arrested.

Be that as it may, and I put nothing out of the realm of possibility when it comes to abuse of power and in fact this behavior is not a surprise to those who have been in politics a long time and are aware of the degree of shenanagins that either party may stoop to to discredit the other if one is gaining momentum. All the president has to do now is to name anyone an enemy combatant and they will be held in a prison for up to three years without representation. It''s legal now, and some fo the people on the security list at airports are those who are the most outspoken against the current administration and are therefore tracked. It''s very scary in that it is one of the 10 keys steps that all closing societies have in common.

More troubling than the clip of Amy Goodman, whom I had not heard of until I searched the information after reading this thread...was that the St Paul/MN District Court issued search warrants for the residence in which the indie media were staying in order to cover the protests expected at the RNC. A clip of the search and the reasons for the search warrant are listed by the property owner who allowed the media to stay in an unoccupied duplex that he owns. Of course, all of the detainees were released and they did not find any terrorist plans, weapons and the myriad of other items listed in the search warrant. This all occurred the night before the RNC was to begin. Which only demonstrates to me, the degree that our current government will go in an attempt to silence those who don''t agree and to plant crazy kooks who will gladly discredit a movement by giving the peaceful protesters a bad name. (although by their very nature, most protests are not peaceful, especially with some of the angry anti-war individuals) The link to the video and documentation of the search warrants served on the independent media in the days before the RNC can be found here:

http://the-uptake.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/647/

I don''t have enough footage to make a judgment call with Amy Goodman as the clip I saw clearly shows that she was not being cooperative with the law enforcements directives to back off. I think it would have made a better case has she simply had the entire thing filmed. Together with the pre-RNC harassment it would have painted a better picture of the degree of paranoia and attempts to suppress the independent media from getting information that could be valuable on it''s own merit.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/2/2008 1:49:10 AM

Author: miraclesrule

All the president has to do now is to name anyone an enemy combatant and they will be held in a prison for up to three years without representation. It''s legal now, and some fo the people on the security list at airports are those who are the most outspoken against the current administration and are therefore tracked.

That and so much more is being done. Our liberties are being stripped from us. Our telephone conversations can be monitored and telecommunicatons companies cannot be held accountable. They are now immune from lawsuits thanks to our brave Congress! It was good to hear John Kerry, speaking at the Democratic National Convention, say that when the Democrats win the presidential election we will close Guantanamo; stop the torture; and take back the Constitution!

My only fear is that the Democrats may not win!

Thank you so much for the video, miraclesrule; I hadn''t seen it! The interview with the homeowner was just priceless!


Deborah

 

[tanuki]

4 years ago there was an ENORMOUS anti war demonstration in New York during the RNC convention which went off without any of this.

It was organized in advance and very highly publicized well in advance. People who I will call "legitimate anti war" individuals were discussing it ahead of the event the internet on sites that were far distant from ones populated by "wacko''s".

I was thinking Friday - ''I haven''t heard anything about any anti war demonstration being planned for the RNC - I wonder if there is going to be one". Then today we have a bunch of disorganized goons fighting with the police.

How could you have about a million protesters peacefully demonstrating 4 years ago and come back 4 years later and those same people with the same sentiment become ja few hooligans who immediately get into trouble on the first day of the convention? I smell a dirty trick.

 

[AGBF]

I just reviewed the video miraclesrule posted last night and my blood is boiling. The police appear to have had a "legitimate" search warrant, no matter how stupidly obtained, to search the residence in the video. They did not, however, have an arrest warrant for the homeowner or anyone else on the premises. Yet they handcuffed the homeowner on his own property as they did all the other people whom he had invited to his property as was his right as a homeowner in the United States. He was never charged with a crime. Had he resisted being handcuffed, however, he might have been subject to a charge of resisting arrest or interfering with the police or who knows what. It was smart of him to comply.

But what does this say about America? What does this say about us being secure in our own homes? Of course nothing was found by the police in their search. But anyone could have been set up that way. The man had no criminal record. He was shown the search warrant for his home as he was handcuffed and given it after the search was completed and nothing found.

If a judge did not issue an arrest warrant and he did nothing disorderly and did not interfere with the police during their search, why did the police have the right to handcuff him?

It seems that even if we are obeying the law, complying with a subpoena, not resisting the actions of the police, that we are no longer safe in our own homes.

I find this very frightening.

Deborah

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/2/2008 8:41:29 AM
Author: AGBF


I just reviewed the video miraclesrule posted last night and my blood is boiling. The police appear to have had a ''legitimate'' search warrant, no matter how stupidly obtained, to search the residence in the video. They did not, however, have an arrest warrant for the homeowner or anyone else on the premises. Yet they handcuffed the homeowner on his own property as they did all the other people whom he had invited to his property as was his right as a homeowner in the United States. He was never charged with a crime. Had he resisted being handcuffed, however, he might have been subject to a charge of resisting arrest or interfering with the police or who knows what. It was smart of him to comply.


But what does this say about America? What does this say about us being secure in our own homes? Of course nothing was found by the police in their search. But anyone could have been set up that way. The man had no criminal record. He was shown the search warrant for his home as he was handcuffed and given it after the search was completed and nothing found.


If a judge did not issue an arrest warrant and he did nothing disorderly and did not interfere with the police during their search, why did the police have the right to handcuff him?


It seems that even if we are obeying the law, complying with a subpoena, not resisting the actions of the police, that we are no longer safe in our own homes.


I find this very frightening.


Deborah

I agree. I''m actually quite shocked at how easily people accept the fact that our liberties are being taken away from us. The interesting thing is that it''s Republicans who are often the most accepting because they support Bush and everything he does in order to toe the party line. I was under the impression that most Republicans want less interference by the government in their daily lives, yet they accept the loss of civil liberties the easiest. The government can spy on its own citizens and I hear people say "It''s for our own protection." I don''t need that kind of protection.

 

[Anna0499]

Aren''t the police in the video STATE police? If so, then I don''t see where Bush is involved...I''ve seen many abuses of police discretion in my short 25 years and they existed no matter who was president. States should, in their police power, make changes to take away some of this "discretion" to avoid incidents like this IMHO.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:16:32 AM

Author: IndyGirl22

Aren't the police in the video STATE police?

I am not sure what you are talking about. Here in Connecticut the State Police only patrol the state highways.



Deborah

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:53:22 AM
Author: AGBF

I am not sure what you are talking about. Here in Connecticut the State Police only patrol the state highways.

Deborah

I guess I should''ve been clearer...I meant the police were not federal law enforcement personnel but were state/county/municipal/etc. employees, correct? I was just asking for clarification because I thought the article miraclesrule posted talked about MN Police but people were talking about Bush and the federal government so I was confused...not about the GOP Convention, but the house raid.

 

[AGBF]

I went and looked up the Connecticut State Police to see if what I was writing was correct...and it was not. Apparently the State Police do have some other functions in Connecticut although I (and everyone else I know) was unaware of them. This is from the official site of the Connecticut State Police:

"If you're accustomed to thinking of troopers as highway ticket machines, you might not realize that in Connecticut, there are large rural areas with many small towns that do not have regular police departments of their own. In many other states, county sheriffs provide law enforcement for rural areas. In Connecticut, the sheriff agencies do not have police responsibilities outside of the courts and prisoner transport, and the state police have the job of providing or supervising all law enforcement in these rural towns."


Deborah

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/2/2008 8:41:29 AM
Author: AGBF



If a judge did not issue an arrest warrant and he did nothing disorderly and did not interfere with the police during their search, why did the police have the right to handcuff him?

Because the federal courts say they can including the liberal 9th.
The supreme court hasn''t ruled on it(last time I checked) because there is no disagreement on the lower courts.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/2/2008 7:00:09 PM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/2/2008 8:41:29 AM
Author: AGBF



If a judge did not issue an arrest warrant and he did nothing disorderly and did not interfere with the police during their search, why did the police have the right to handcuff him?

Because the federal courts say they can including the liberal 9th.
The supreme court hasn't ruled on it(last time I checked) because there is no disagreement on the lower courts.

OK, Karl, you have the floor. Please expound. Unlike you, I am not well informed on how police got the right to handcuff citizens in what was supposed to be a free society. Please fill me in. Apparently, I need to learn. Thank you.


Deb

 

[HollyS]

Date: 9/1/2008 11:27:05 PM
Author: strmrdr
saw the vid she earned getting arrested.
She was clearly told to stay out of that area and she tried to do so and wasn''t arrested until she tried to force her way past the cop.
She clearly broke the law so why shouldn''t she have been arrested?
A media pass does not give anyone the right to break the law.

Exactly.

 

[HollyS]

miraclesrule:


The RNC planted ''phony anarchists'' to cause trouble . . . at the RNC. Is that what you said???

''Cause we all know, it would serve a constructive purpose to do so.

There really is know way to reason with anyone who believes this kind of nonsense. It''s just plain ridiculous.

 

[miraclesrule]

I personally know someone who was paid to do so at an Anti-War rally last year in D.C. It shocked me too. But now, nothing shocks me in politics. I don't make stuff up because it's fun to do so. I tell you this because it is a fact and I happen to be really found of facts. It really shouldn't have been such a surprise to me. But once I knew a few delegates, I was aware of the extent that each party goes to in an attempt to gain power.

Watergate? Are you kidding me? No way!!!......

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:29:51 PM
Author: AGBF



OK, Karl, you have the floor. Please expound. Unlike you, I am not well informed on how police got the right to handcuff citizens in what was supposed to be a free society. Please fill me in. Apparently, I need to learn. Thank you.



Deb

Actually I was wrong the supreme court did agree with the 9th on the issue since I last looked into it:
"Writing the lead opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist reasoned that the use of force in the form of handcuffs to detain Mena was reasonable because the governmental interest in minimizing the risk of harm to both officers and occupants outweighed the marginal intrusion."

http://otd.oyez.org/cases/2004/muehler-darin-v-mena-iris-03222005
Right or Wrong it is the law..... and wrong...

 

[miraclesrule]

Hey AGBF,

I didn''t know if you read this Amy Goodman article, so I thought I''d post it. I was researching indie press articles from the conventions and stumblied upon it.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/04