You Know You Live In A Police State When…

…the planning involved by the police in dismantling a nonviolent demonstration is almost identical to the Navy SEALs preparation for catching and killing a terrorist mastermind.

I really want to disclaim that I’m not talking about some conspiratorial Black Helicopter shit, except for the fact that in its most basic essence this was literally Black Helicopter shit.

Case in point:

The New York Times, “After an Earlier Misstep, a Minutely Planned Raid”:

Police officials planned the operation for weeks. They watched how the occupations in other cities played out. They held conference calls with colleagues in other cities. They increased so-called disorder training — counterterrorism measures that involve moving large numbers of police officers quickly — to focus on Lower Manhattan.

The last training session was on Monday night, on the Manhattan side of the East River. The orders to move into Zuccotti Park came down at the “last minute,” said someone familiar with the orders, which referred to the assignment only as “an exercise.”

“The few cops that I know that were called into this thing, they were not told it was for going into Zuccotti Park,” said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The only people who were aware of them going into Zuccotti Park were at the very highest levels of the department.”

Vs.

 

The New Yorker, “Getting Bin Ladden”:

Brian, James, and Mark selected a team of two dozen SEALs from Red Squadron and told them to report to a densely forested site in North Carolina for a training exercise on April 10th. (Red Squadron is one of four squadrons in DEVGRU, which has about three hundred operators in all.) None of the SEALs, besides James and Mark, were aware of the C.I.A. intelligence on bin Laden’s compound until a lieutenant commander walked into an office at the site. He found a two-star Army general from JSOC headquarters seated at a conference table with Brian, James, Mark, and several analysts from the C.I.A. This obviously wasn’t a training exercise. The lieutenant commander was promptly “read in.” A replica of the compound had been built at the site, with walls and chain-link fencing marking the layout of the compound. The team spent the next five days practicing maneuvers.

Comments

  1. JimC146 says:

    Seriously?

  2. nathan says:

    Seriously. I think it’s a big problem that the NYPD used tactics and exercises conceived for the purpose of “counter-terrorism” to push protesters out of Zuccotti Park. If this becomes a new norm for crowd control and responding to nonviolent demonstrations, than we’re headed down a slippery slope.

  3. JimC146 says:

    Non-violent? Are we still on that fantasy trip? Just for funnies, what would happen if the police would have told this crowd that they were in violation of the law and must vacate peacefully? Do you really think it would have gone down that way? Please. These people left non-violent lawful protesting long ago. They are now urban “terrorists” that destroy public property, destroy businesses, and have violated the law on many counts.

    I agree with the judge. First Amendment rights do not include setting up an encampment and being public menaces. Voice your opinion, stage your demonstration, go vote, and live and let live, and then vacate.

    If these people want to change this country, then vote, at the ballot, with you dollars…buy stocks, become a stakeholder, and vote out the board members of the evil corporations, etc. Draining public resources, disrupting private businesses, and festering and fostering violence is not protected under the First Amendment rights.

    Besides, the police moving in seems to strangely coincide with deteriorating public support for the OWS movement. Perhaps the early political champions want the public face of this movement to be quietly removed to avoid political embarrassment going into next year’s election cycle…

    At any rate, I would buy your police state hooey *if* these people weren’t patently wrong on so many levels.

  4. nathan says:

    Non-violent? Are we still on that fantasy trip? Just for funnies, what would happen if the police would have told this crowd that they were in violation of the law and must vacate peacefully? Do you really think it would have gone down that way? Please. These people left non-violent lawful protesting long ago. They are now urban “terrorists” that destroy public property, destroy businesses, and have violated the law on many counts.

    I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say that the protesters were in “violation of the law”. Mayor Bloomberg’s philosophy was to go in first, and then get it cleared up by the courts. Not the opposite.

    I agree with the judge. First Amendment rights do not include setting up an encampment and being public menaces.

    You’re an idiot. The judge was referring to Zuccotti Park specifically, as it is public space/private property. JimC, it’s called civil disobedience.

    Besides, the police moving in seems to strangely coincide with deteriorating public support for the OWS movement.

    If you’re referring to this poll in which OWS still has 42 percent support, than you must be smoking crack. That would be a statistical tie with Mitt Romney for popularity. Anyways, if you’re saying that the police should be able to infringe on people’s First Amendment rights because public opinion isn’t on their side, than you ought to take a 5th grade civics class…

  5. JimC146 says:

    >I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say that the
    >protesters were in “violation of the law”

    Not going to argue this point, this is obvious. If you can’t understand this, then we’re done talking.

    >You’re an idiot. The judge was referring to Zuccotti
    >Park specifically, as it is public space/private
    >property. JimC, it’s called civil disobedience.

    See point one. The judge upheld the action saying that the squatters didn’t have a right to camp in the park and that First Amendment rights didn’t cover trump the rights of the city to enforce its laws. Civil disobedience doesn’t give you the right to break laws and expect no reciprocity. In this case, eviction.

  6. nathan says:

    Look, Zuccotti Park’s original rules stated that the park was available 24 hours a day for “passive recreational use.” That was the fuzzy language that gave the OWS protesters the ability to stay there, and continue to do so even now. What the NYPD, under the direction of Mayor Bloomberg, did Tuesday morning was not done under the judge’s ruling. If that’s all it took – a judge’s ruling at a 2 hour hearing – to rule that no tents or large structures could remain in the park, why didn’t Bloomberg do that first?

  7. JimC146 says:

    Look…in what reality is passive recreational use equivalent to pitching a tent and taking up residence? Furthermore, I don’t know what definition of passive you’re using but OWS in Zuccotti Park was nowhere near passive. So getting past that pile of stink, on what planet can someone just decide to pitch a tent on public or private city property and reside there indefinitely without permission? This is why the homeless were upset because they were routinely routed when they tried it, so what makes the OWS special when they did the same thing?

    Mayor Bloomberg was acting upon the already granted authority to uphold city ordinances and law. The judge was involved because someone thought they were entitled to live in the Zuccotti Park.

    The no matter what, the mayor and the police acted within the law to enforce the laws and ordinances, to argue otherwise to suggest that OWS is somehow immune to those same laws and ordinances. Not in this reality.