Many Occupiers and their supporters have been following the healthy debate between Naomi Wolf of the Guardian UK & Joshua Holland of Alternet regarding the following question: were the crack-downs of Occupy sites centrally coordinated by a federal agency? Or were they, rather, the product of local decisions colored by specific political histories and motives?
Because of my long experience with militant anti-capitalist groups and the police repression they catalyze, I read each of their pieces with fascination. Furthermore, as someone who now works as a professional-level government worker in a local San Francisco Bay Area county, I have had the opportunity to interact with law enforcement agencies, local business and community groups in such a way that has helped me better understand their thinking in regards to political dissent.
Wolf, in a UK Guardian article, very loosely (sans providing methodological examples) posits that the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Congress as a whole, did, indeed, participate, writing that "members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent." She also posted a piece in her blog which refers to a "municipal police...being pushed around by a shadowy private policing consultancy affiliated with DHS."
Holland's very thorough response to each of these posts in his blog reminds us that we should make conclusions with tangible evidence only, and that Wolf's pieces include none. He also states, "I don’t find it in the least bit surprising that law enforcement officials communicate with each other, and such communication is in no way an assault on local communities’ autonomy."
As a result, Holland immediately began receiving vitriolic responses in the comments area of his blog. Holland's Twitter followers were treated with half-cogent, often insulting, highlights from these, along with Holland's exclamations of disdain for their inane comments. Fun was had by all.
Wolf responded back to Holland, attempting to provide some evidence. Holland then retorted again, chiding Wolf for her lack of disciplined fieldwork. It gets very inside baseball. Holland concludes with the following:
So, what we're left with, after thousands of words back and forth, is what we began with:
* There are reports that federal law enforcement agencies are offering advice to local law enforcement agencies.
* Some police officials participated in two conference calls set up by PERF, a police think-tank.
Now back to my experiences.* The US Conference of Mayors set up two additional conference calls to discuss various issues surrounding the Occupations.
I am a Librarian working for a local SF Bay Area county library. In 2005, I worked at one of one of the smaller libraries in the county, one which served a clientele consisting mainly of working class folks and new immigrants. I am remaining anonymous for personal and professional reasons.
Because the county library for which I work serves dozens of independent municipalities, and, despite being a county agency, relies heavily upon supplemental local support for individual branch libraries, a large part of the work of library staff is developing professional relationships with local politicians and community groups in order both to promote library services and to develop possible additional local funding sources.
In my job as a library manager, I did so with vigor, performing a needs assessment by meeting with key informants at schools, cultural groups, nonprofits, municipal agencies, and so on, and developing programs and collections intended to match community needs. I also was encouraged by my supervisor to develop relationships with local business groups and community groups related to local entrepreneurship. In the city (lets call it Santa Carla), I contacted both the Santa Carla Chamber of Commerce and the Santa Carla Rotary Club and was invited to speak at a coming Rotary Club meeting, which I, uneventfully, did. It took place in the basement meeting room of a local Italian restaurant. Attendees mainly consisted of City Council members, city employees such as the Chief of Police & employees of the local community college and national businesses with branches in the area (including banks and real estate agencies). Perhaps a third of attendees were Santa Carla residents. Whereas the City's demographics are overwhelmingly Latino & Asian, attendees were overwhelmingly white.
A few weeks later, a member of the Rotary Club called me at the Library and asked if I would like to become a member of the Club, offering to sponsor me, and I said sure. We met and I was invited to attend the next Rotary meeting.
That meeting, also taking place in the same windowless basement room as the previous Rotary Club event, included a speaker from the county for which I worked, but from a different department: the County Sheriff. Intrigued, I sat myself close to the podium, up front.
After we ate an Italian buffet and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, the speaker, describing himself as representing the County Sheriff's Homeland Security Office (something I had never heard of), stepped to the podium. He carried, to his side, a large shield, riot helmets & masks, tear gas canisters and other impressive, frighteningly military-like anti-riot gear. He explained that the County Sheriff had received a sizable grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to purchase materials that would allow the Sheriff to protect county residents and businesses against terrorism.
One bit of important background: never, in the history of the County, has their been either a terrorist, threat or act or even a riot unrelated to terrorist threats. Protests are far and few between. The main target of protests in the county during the last decade has been an oil firm I will call "Giant Oil." Its corporate headquarters are located in a wealthy area of the County. Its large refinery is located at the opposite end of the county, in a very poor city with a high unemployment rate.
Protests have targeted Giant Oil from many points of view. Environmental Justice groups have organized poor community members who live near the refinery to demand that the corporation stop buying sympathetic city council members who have given Giant Oil a free ride and have not clamped down on its disregard for public safety in its refinery's regular release of toxic chemicals into the community. Immediately after the Iraq war began in 2003, militant pacifist groups protested at Giant Oil's corporate headquarters on the other side of the county, and did so via a variety of tactics, including a blockade and chaining of protesters to gates and each other.
Back to the speaker...after explaining each of the pieces of equipment, he asked the group if there were any questions. I immediately raised my hand.
Usually, when I am in a professional setting, I keep my politics close to my chest, particularly when I am representing the County Library to the community as a whole. The County pays me to try to promote and provide important services to residents, and I take that job extremely seriously. I try not to do anything which might compromise that responsibility.
Nevertheless, I felt, at that moment, that this was the right time and place to say no, to declare that it is not the role of county government to suppress dissent under the name of anti-terrorism. I justified it by thinking that the role of libraries is to promote intellectual freedom and, as a county employee, I am compelled to protect the Constitution of the United States, including the right to peacefully assemble and voice grievances. Furthermore, because I have been the target of police violence in numerous protests (with a broken finger from one incident, stitches and scars from another, a chronic bad back from another, and countless bruises which now show no scars), I am particularly sensitive to justifications for violence against protest.
The speaker pointed to me, and I said, "I understand that the Department of Homeland Security was developed as a response to some Saudis who hijacked planes & crashed them into the World Trade Center. I don't understand how this gear will protect us against that kind of attack. Under what anti-terrorist conditions will this equipment be used?"
The speaker immediately mentioned that Giant Oil had been subjected to a good number of militant protests over the years. This struck home. Was he explicitly connecting the County's Homeland Security grant request and anti-terrorism methods to the protection of local corporations against protest? Furthermore, because many of my closest friends were involved in those protests, was he implying that they were a threat to both local and national security from these peaceful protesters with whom I had shared many a hike, beer or protest?
I countered, "There is a long tradition of acts of peaceful civil disobedience in this country, from the civil rights movement through anti-war protests such as the recent protests at Giant Oil. They are unrelated to Al Qaeda or other violent groups. They use peaceful, often symbolic means to participate in politics."
An uproar ensued. I could hear a couple of loud voices behind me trying to shut me up. Looking behind me, I could see that it was the Santa Carla Chief of Police & one of his employees. The Chief said, "What if those protesters got into the Giant Oil offices and stole everyone's credit card numbers? That would definitely be a huge threat to public safety." Some members gave other reasons for the importance of having the riot gear on hand, but, by this time, my adrenaline had risen precipitously due to fear that I had seriously fucked up my relationship with the City, and I don't recall what others said. Most attendees appeared shocked and embarrassed that this kind of discussion was happening here, especially as the result of a probationary member's question, and so the Q&A period quickly ended short.
Both proud of myself for having dissented to both the conflation of protesters with terrorists plus the normalization of police violence against such people, but also ashamed that the context was a workplace one which might be construed as inappropriate, I simply felt dazed & displaced. A few Rotary members came to me afterwards and explained that they agreed with me, which both surprised me and felt good. Nevertheless, I never attended another rotary club meeting and no members contacted me again asking me to do so, and I felt bad about that.
I have been left, over the years, with numerous lingering questions, and these have been brought up by the current attack upon protesters using the kind of equipment made available by Homeland Security Grants to local law enforcement (notice the lack of detail regarding who received grants in 2004 & 2005 and what they paid for).
- What justification did requesting agencies provide when requesting the gear? The State of California has a Law called the California Public Records Act (here's a guide), which requires that local governments provide, upon request, such info. Because I work for the county in question, I do not feel comfortable doing so). Others should.
- Did, in those justifications, the local agency justify monies to protect corporate offices rather than protect against actual terrorism? Is that legal?
- Did the acceptance of such grants include an agreement to assess the efficacy of what those monies were spent upon? If so, would this not compel local agencies to actually use the anti-riot gear in order to satisfy that agreement?
- Did the acceptance of monies include or require an agreement to participate in any regional planning for the repression of otherwise constitutionally protected political activity?
