NYC police spied on left-wing dissidents

[General Ludd]

This would probably fall under a "need for crowd control". Remember - the police are experts at creating, using, and exploiting loopholes.

[Ramo]

Of course not. With a loophole that large, the ruling is meaningless.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Seattle, for a political event. I said event, not convention. Was it lunacy to expect trouble at Bush's party?

Wasn't planned. Largely, violence on the demonstrators' party was a reaction to being assaulted by the police for engaging in civil disobedience. The only act of violence engaged in by the demonstrators prior to the police assault was the actions of six anarchists who trashed a Starbucks. It should also be noted that it was demonstrators who stopped them and tried to hold them until police came, except the police never came. In one especially egregious case, the police cordoned off a neighborhood where no demonstrations were occurring, Capital Hill. It is, however, where the freaks, and punks, and homeless kids, and gays congregate. Then the police attacked.

Since then, the only group that has planned violence at any events has been the group calling itself the Black Bloc. Note, that this is not the group that was infiltrated. Here in South Florida, the police infiltrated that well known hot bed of revolutionary violence, the American Friends Service Committee, also known as the Quakers. They weren't the only ones. Before the FTAA demonstrations, the police infiltrated and harassed the hippie anarchists who had a warehouse for building those fearsome terrorist devices, giant puppets. Now the police are in deep **** because the evidence of their unprovoked violence is overwhelming. They're facing disciplinary hearings and lawsuits.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ramo
Of course not. With a loophole that large, the ruling is meaningless.

Well then I would say the ruling is meaningless in your opinion if this guy is right:

“All our activities were legal and were subject in advance to Handschu review,” Mr. Browne said.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Honest question.

Would trying to know about plans to riot count under 'need for crowd control'?

Crowd control means that for large gatherings, the police need to be present, like they would be at a rock concert or football game. Not that the police can spy on organization meetings and workshops.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well then I would say the ruling is meaningless in your opinion if this guy is right:

“All our activities were legal and were subject in advance to Handschu review,” Mr. Browne said.

Of course the police are going to say they did everything legally. Do you really expect them to say, "Oh we totally broke that rule."?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Wasn't planned. Largely, violence on the demonstrators' party was a reaction to being assaulted by the police for engaging in civil disobedience. The only act of violence engaged in by the demonstrators prior to the police assault was the actions of six anarchists who trashed a Starbucks. It should also be noted that it was demonstrators who stopped them and tried to hold them until police came, except the police never came. In one especially egregious case, the police cordoned off a neighborhood where no demonstrations were occurring, Capital Hill. It is, however, where the freaks, and punks, and homeless kids, and gays congregate. Then the police attacked.

Since then, the only group that has planned violence at any events has been the group calling itself the Black Bloc. Note, that this is not the group that was infiltrated. Here in South Florida, the police infiltrated that well known hot bed of revolutionary violence, the American Friends Service Committee, also known as the Quakers. They weren't the only ones. Before the FTAA demonstrations, the police infiltrated and harassed the hippie anarchists who had a warehouse for building those fearsome terrorist devices, giant puppets. Now the police are in deep **** because the evidence of their unprovoked violence is overwhelming. They're facing disciplinary hearings and lawsuits.

Like I said, if they did it right. I am not saying American authorities or the NYPD have done it right. I am questioning the knee-jerk response to the idea that a local police force should look beyond it's jurisdiction when the situation warrants.

Incidently, you say unplanned. Others say otherwise. Who to believe? Big dilemma.

[chequita guevara]

As far as jurisdiction goes, in the U.S., the police are only allowed to act in the political entity that created them, unless they have agreements with other political entities. In the 1930s, it used to be enough for bank robbers to cross state lines to escape pursuing police. Now days, most states have treaties allowing cops to cross the border when they are in pursuit. However, unless they are working with another jurisdiction, they cannot conduct surveillance of suspected criminals. The NYPD can't wiretap mobsters in New Jersey, without the cooperation of the relevant Jersey police departments. Even then, the police can't simply tap every Italian family's phone simply because some Italians are in the Mob.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Of course the police are going to say they did everything legally. Do you really expect them to say, "Oh we totally broke that rule."?

Sure.

I also expect Ramo and others to say they are wrong, or broke the law.

Neither side is convincing on their own.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Of course the police are going to say they did everything legally. Do you really expect them to say, "Oh we totally broke that rule."?

Well, I don't think they did break a rule. The law is set up to allow them to do that. That doesn't make it right, obviously, but since when did legal = just?


If the police want to do something, they can almost always find a loophole that allows them to do it. I know that (here, atleast) there are a variety of loopholes set up that allow the police to legaly arrest anyone they want without any concrete reason.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As far as jurisdiction goes, in the U.S., the police are only allowed to act in the political entity that created them, unless they have agreements with other political entities. In the 1930s, it used to be enough for bank robbers to cross state lines to escape pursuing police. Now days, most states have treaties allowing cops to cross the border when they are in pursuit. However, unless they are working with another jurisdiction, they cannot conduct surveillance of suspected criminals. The NYPD can't wiretap mobsters in New Jersey, without the cooperation of the relevant Jersey police departments. Even then, the police can't simply tap every Italian family's phone simply because some Italians are in the Mob.

And if they asked the foreign authorities?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Incidently, you say unplanned. Others say otherwise. Who to believe? Big dilemma.

Cuz there's only one group that calls for political violence as part of these demonstrations, the Black Bloc. They don't organize openly. Even overt commies like me call for non-violence, if for no other reason than the cops will win almost any fight and people could get killed. We still defend demonstrators' right to self-defense, but starting a fight with a cop or touching a car is little more than political masturbation. It only alienates those with whom we are trying to communicate. It is counter-productive.

[Kuciwalker]

Regardless of the legality, this is stupid.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why the difference between the FBI and the NYPD? Was the FBI responsible for the security of the streets surrounding the convention and the city at large?

As for the hypothetical, I thought violence at major political events in the US, and some other places, stopped being a subject of conjecture some time ago.

Because there should be independent checks on such investigations to ensure they don't get out of hand. It's not so hard to keep an eye on a single organization like the FBI. Making sure that each city's police doesn't turn into the Stasi is massivly expensive and stupid given that you have national law-enforcement agencies specifically set up to deal with things that are beyond the purview of individual cities.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And if they asked the foreign authorities?

I don't think for a second they would have dared to operate in other jurisdictions without local permission. That's not my beef at all. In fact, this is pretty much a non-issue for me. I know the police spy on us. I don't advocate anything illegal aside from overthrowing the government, and advocating that isn't illegal, and if we succeed, it's not illegal either. I know some people are rather paranoid about it, but honestly, cops are frequently among the best workers we have. They try too hard to be one of us, so they do lots of extra work. And besides, I think the police have a right to attend a public meeting. Maybe they'll sympathize.

It's the provocateurs you have to worry about. The ones who come in and try to organize people to break the law, and then arrest them. That happened to those seven guys in Miami. You know the ones that supposedly were trying to get help from al-Qaeda to blow up the Sears Tower, but didn't even have enough money to by shoes. There was an FBI agent here who tried that, but no one bit. She got transfered out West, and talked three guys into doing something stupid, and now they're in prison doing hard time.