Holy crap, right? This is America? No dancing allowed? Do we live in a police state? Did Reverend Shaw Moore get elected to Congress? What the hell? I thought Cheney and his jackbooted thugs had been disbanded.
That looks like a flash mob that hadn't really set up, getting shut down (and then thrown down) by Park Police. And did you catch that threat implied in the sergeant's statement, that "you might end up in jail for 48 hours"? And then the body slams, and... Oh my god!
But, you know, there's an old saying about every story having two sides. And that's a hell of an expensive camera that keeps showing up in frame: flash mobs don't tend to be using high-end professional video equipment. So I did a little research. First step: the video is branded "Adam vs the Man," and the title gives you the name "Adam Kokesh." So I looked him up.
Turns out that Kokesh is a kind of a media whore. He was a marine, and during his first tour in Iraq, brought back a war souvenir, which is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Now, Wikipedia quotes a story from the Newhouse News Service saying that because of that, he "was demoted to corporal and soon thereafter discharged honorably with a re-enlistment code that basically said, 'you can't re-enlist.'" He then joined the Individual Ready Reserve, which isn't a full-time active duty military slot, but is still in the military. Which means that he was still under the UCMJ.
So he wore his uniform to a rally protesting the Iraq War, which is also a violation of the UCMJ (he's allowed to attend political events, he just isn't allowed to be in uniform - the military doesn't want to appear to support either side of any debate). Got in trouble for that, but they went easy on him.
He started getting publicity for high-profile protests: a squad-sized "occupation patrol" of DC, to give Americans a taste of what it's like; holding up a large sign at the Alberto Gonzalez hearing, saying that Gonzalez had said "I don't know" 74 times; getting arrested for trespassing in Fort Benning; stuff like that. He rode his internet celebrity into a local libertarian radio show here in Albuquerque, which was picked up by the Russia Today television network.
(And, you know, really? Russia Today? I can understand making a living, and I, personally, don't have a problem with RT, but you can see where the image problem kicks in there, right?)
So, that's him.
Now, in 2008, a small libertarian flash mob gathered at the Jefferson Memorial to celebrate the birthday of Jefferson. In breaking them up, one woman was arrested. Her suit was tossed out, with the judge ruling in a 26 page report that:
"The purpose of the memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson's legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history. The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain 'an atmosphere of calm, tranquillity, and reverence.' Prohibiting demonstrations is a reasonable means of ensuring a tranquil and contemplative mood at the Jefferson Memorial.""Plus, an organized protest is required to get a permit," the judge did not add.
And two weeks ago, the US Court of Appeals affirmed that judgement.
(Remember that thing about permits, by the way. And the phrase "organized protests.")
And the five protesters were taken to the police station, charged with demonstrating without a permit, then released a short time later.
Is this a stupid law? I think so. Did the police overreact? Well, hell yes. They didn't need to body-slam anybody - that was over the top. But I've done crowd control: they needed to move fast and shut this down before it escalated: the longer it lasts, the more people join in. And everything can get much worse, very quickly.
And were the Park Police placed in an untenable position? Looks that way to me.
Many states have passed laws making it a crime to videotape or record police during the course of their work. This is a frightening trend and I worry that such may become a federal law.
ReplyDeleteSo far the people who have been charged with videotaping police have not wanted to pursue their cases whereby the constitutionality of those laws remain unchallenged.
Regardless of Kokesh's desire for media attention, there is a lot that is disturbing about this video including the refusal to inform the protesters as to what law was being violated when they were threatened with arrest. If they needed a permit, say so and tell them that was why they were in danger of being arrested. We have a rigth to know why we're being arrested. Then there's the blanket, "you can't film in here." The response was, "I'm with the press." The officer's response, "That doesn't matter." Dangerous precedent allowing police to shut down the press. Could the guy have been lying? Yep. The officer should have asked to see his press credentials but if he really was the press, what part of the 1st amendment didn't the officer understand? The situation escalated but the officers did more than their part to escalate it. They need better training in handling crowd control. Civil disobedience is often a part of protest. Think where the civil rights movement, the anti-war protests of the 1970s, the women's suffrage movement etc. would be if it weren't for those who defied the law. I don't know exactly what the point of this protest was but I'm far more disturbed by the behavior of the police than that of the protesters no matter the context of the protest. As for the sense that the videotaping was planned, so what? If you're going to protest, you want a record of that protest.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in what you say (um... type?) that's wrong. The officers were wrong from the beginning. As were the protesters.
ReplyDeleteThe sergeant should absolutely have told them what the charges would be. (To be honest, I don't think he had to - that's a police issue. Federal officers run under different rules - local authorities can hold you for 24 hours without charging you, but the feds can hold you for 72 - and that was before the Patriot Act was in place.) But how stupid would he have looked trying to say "We'll charge you with dancing in a memorial?" It's the second stupidest law ever put down. But, yeah, should've at least gone with "protesting without a permit.
Overreaction? Hell, yes. Nobody needed to get bodyslammed. That was ridiculous. One guy on each arm, slap on the cuffs, move him out. But they didn't do that. They felt they were pressured, they reacted badly.
(Plus, this is the Park Police. They get no respect to begin with. They're treated as a joke by most other Law Enforcement agencies, so maybe they get a little testy on the subject. It's like a guy in the Coast Guard (* cough * my brother-in-law) surrounded by a bunch of ex- and current military types trading stories...)
I'm just saying that:
a) dancing in the Jefferson Memorial is not necessarily equivalent to the civil rights movement, the anti-war protests of the 1970s, or the women's suffrage movement, and
b) this is just some media whore trying to jump his profile into public view, with a viral video that doesn't really tell the whole story.
Hey, I lived and worked in Chicago during the infamous 1968 Democratic Convention. This was nothing but a reminder that little has changed.
ReplyDeleteAs the late, but not nearly dead enough Mayor, Richard J. Daley said: "the police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder."
Holding people without charging them and refusing to tell them why they are being arrested are two separate issues. I also don't think that the protest was about dancing; perhaps the larger issue was personal liberty, Just because cops feel disrespected is no license for them to behave badly. If you're not tempermentally suited to deal with the public, then get out of the job. Btw, I heard that advice from my father, who was a police officer for 25 years. He retired from the local police department with the rank of captain. When he began as an officer, he was one of the first four black officers hired to the Wilson police department. He once went on a call where the lady of the house told him that she didn't allow his kind in the house except she was way more descriptive. Fortunately, he was a man of even temperment and no body slamming was done.
ReplyDeleteWe are all media whores to soem extent, if we truly want to draw attention to an issue. There's nothing in the 1st amendment that says that others have to approve ofour causes before we can exercise our first amendment rights. The police made much ado about nothing. It was a power trip. They could have defused the situation instead of escalating it if they had elected not to issue commands that were bound to elicit negative responses. They treated those people as if they were insignificant; when yhou do that to folks, they tend to respond with anger.
DC is one of those places ( like Indian reservations) where law and order are skewed by federal rules.
ReplyDeleteKokesh might be a poor little rich kid looking for kicks or he might be a passionate activist. Doesn't really matter to the issues here.
First the group should have gotten a permit and did their dancing outside the memorial if in fact there is a ruling in place that prohibits this sort of thing. We certainly would not want to see one of our national monuments damaged in any way.
The park police should have explained the rules and consequences in a nonconfrontational manner. Perhaps someone with more senority should have been called in.
They don't get much empathy from me; I'm a staunch supporter of nonviolent civil disobedience and peaceful protest.
The Captain brings up a good point - little has changed.
To be honest, I hope they get lawyered up and take this one all the way to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteHell, I wish there was some way that the Park Police could take the Court of Appeals to... um... court, for placing them in the situation where they are required, in order to do their jobs, to act as brownshirts.
There is no reason that any court should ever rule that (and I quote here) "expressive dancing falls within the spectrum of prohibited activities" and that "the Park Service has a substantial interest in promoting a tranquil environment at our national memorials."
But because of that ruling, they are required to enforce it. And in the current economic climate, they can't afford to just quit. They have a good job, with benefits and retirement, and they aren't guaranteed that they'll find another job. Not these days.
I've been on their end of this. My sympathies are [not] entirely with the Park Police. (Full stop. Going back about 5 words.)
(OK, please note that if this comment app allowed strikeouts, it would be much easier to show that I am entirely on the side of the Park Police, but I have no time for this specific bunch of thugs.)
This particular group of poorly-trained morons needs to be taken out and beaten. And then trained properly. (And then maybe beaten again, just to reinforce the lesson.)
Crowd control is not that difficult. Maybe if they didn't spend all their money on the Park Police SWAT team (really? You need to recapture the Liberty Bell that often?), and instead, hired a couple of trainers and bought a couple of Redman suits, maybe these people could be trained to react a little better.
Are we clear now that I'm somewhat conflicted on this issue?
You wanna know who I'm not on the side of? Self-absorbed media whores who want to take advantage of some poor bastards just trying to do their jobs, to increase their profile on the Big Media Stage.
I got no time for pampered trolls like Kokesh.
Hadn't watched the video until now. Hmmmm.... now, I know that Mr. Jefferson "liked a little rebellion from time to time," but I think such behavior trivializes protesting. What are they advocating? The right to go to a national monument and ruin a bunch of other people's visits there? What change does this stuff lead to?
ReplyDeleteOkay, I think I get what may be the underlying idea, glib as it is: people are sleep-walking into an Orwellian nightmare and need to be shocked out of their stupor, or something like that. Thus the outlandish tactics of some protestors. But if one has to act like a circus clown to make people understand something, it's probably too late already, so I'm not buying the philosophy there. Dignity can be overvalued and it shouldn't be, but it's not to be thrown away over nothing, either. A fair amount of civic life relies on our willingness not to make ridiculous asses our ourselves just for the hell of it or "because they won't let us."
The rule in question is a bit much and I thought the Park Police made things worse, but at the same time, breaking such a rule is sort of like acting up at a library and then getting obstreperous when others tell you to stop making a fool of yourself. How dare they! Fascists!
In sum, I find it hard to take what I saw on the video seriously as a demonstration in favor of anything so worthwhile as the principle of free speech, if that's what it was intended to be. The occasion seems to me too trivial to rise to that level, and in practical terms, I think the occasion or context matters.