A decade ago tomorrow, the "Battle in Seattle" touched off a series of protests against corporate globalization and neoliberal ideology which meet with intense levels of political repression, police violence and massive media dysinformation. The wave of protests would not subside until the terrorist attacks of 9/11 provided a pretext for the much more hardline repression of neoconservatism to take over from its neoliberal predecessors.
Now, just over a year after the election of Barack Obama put an end to the neoconservative dominance--at least for now--it's a particularly apt moment to look back 10 years and see just what the neoliberal style of repression was like, and how it responded to a diverse coalition of actors calling for global justice. The kind of repression seen back then may help people newly activated in political struggle to better make sense of the perplexing continuities between the Bush and Obama eras.
Protests against the IMF, the World Bank and other global institutions are nothing new. But since most such protests--many involving tens or hundreds of thousands--have taken place outside the US and are routinely ignored by the corporate media, the anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle late last year came as quite a surprise to most Americans.
The media and the police had no such excuse for their surprise. Unlike the American public at large, they had all the information beforehand and simply chose to ignore it. Demonstrations accompanied related events throughout the year, with scattered acts of violence at times despite organizers clear commitment to non-violence.
A New York Times article on October 13,1999 reported that, "[t]hree hundred groups are vowing to bring 50,000 people or more to downtown Seattle to picket, demonstrate, hold teach-ins and cause general disruption . . . that could turn the city's streets into a carnival of protest and, perhaps, a morass of gridlock." This was six weeks before the anti-WTO demonstrations took place. Both the Seattle police and the corporate media had plenty of warning, which they chose to ignore.
Protests against the IMF, the World Bank and other global institutions are nothing new. But since most such protests--many involving tens or hundreds of thousands--have taken place outside the US and are routinely ignored by the corporate media, the anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle late last year came as quite a surprise to most Americans.
The media and the police had no such excuse for their surprise. Unlike the American public at large, they had all the information beforehand and simply chose to ignore it. Demonstrations accompanied related events throughout the year, with scattered acts of violence at times despite organizers clear commitment to non-violence.
A New York Times article on October 13,1999 reported that, "[t]hree hundred groups are vowing to bring 50,000 people or more to downtown Seattle to picket, demonstrate, hold teach-ins and cause general disruption . . . that could turn the city's streets into a carnival of protest and, perhaps, a morass of gridlock." This was six weeks before the anti-WTO demonstrations took place. Both the Seattle police and the corporate media had plenty of warning, which they chose to ignore.
The ACLU report, "Out of Control: Seattle's Flawed Response to Protests Against the World Trade Organization" (pdf) contains a timeline which makes the sequence of events abundantly clear. On November 30, the first day of scheduled WTO talks, police first showed up at 7 AM, after protesters had begun to arrive. Blocking intersections began by 8 AM, and by 10 AM only a handful of delegates had been able to enter the building where the opening procedures were then scheduled to take place.
By Creating a "No Protest Zone," the City Violated Rights of Free Speech and Assembly
For several days, it was illegal publicly to express anti-WTO opinions in a large section of downtown Seattle.
With police unable to control the movement of protesters, and concerned over the conference's disruption and the imminent arrival of President Clinton, the Mayor declared a civil emergency and issued an order establishing a 25-square-block "limited curfew zone" or "no protest zone" in the heart of downtown. The area was essentially a militarized zone, with entry controlled by police and barred to people expressing views critical of the WTO. The suppression of free speech was not needed to protect security, nor could the "no protest zone" have accomplished that aim.
In responding as it did to the WTO protests, the City violated fundamentals of our free society which require that any governmental restriction on speech be as narrow as possible to accomplish its legitimate purpose and be "content-neutral" - that is, not favoring any particular view. The City ignored both these principles.
Though the Mayor and other officials have insisted that the City did not unduly restrict constitutional freedoms in downtown Seattle, this assurance does not square with people's actual experiences on the street. Scores of citizens reported being prevented by police from engaging in peaceful, lawful expression within the zone. Police ordered citizens to remove buttons or stickers from their clothing, confiscated signs and leaflets, and blocked citizen entry to the core of downtown
The City Council failed to take timely action to ratify or rescind the "no protest zone." Instead, the Council ratified all of the emergency orders the following week - after the WTO conference had adjourned and the orders expired.
The implementation and enforcement of the "no protest zone" violated rights of free speech and assembly, and did so without even the possibility of providing any real security.
At this time, police put on gas masks and ordered demonstrators to disperse. At 10:04 they began firing tear gas , pepper spray and rubber bullets at protesters who were blocking intersections at 6th & University and 6th & Union. This was the beginning of mass police violence. It was not until 11:20 AM that there was any sign of vandalism. At that time the ACLU recounts, "Approximately 30 individuals dressed in black are videotaped by a KIRO-TV crew walking around downtown. They break windows at retail businesses and overturn newspaper boxes for about an hour, undisturbed by police."
Nothing could be clearer. The police attacked non-violence protesters over an hour before there was any vandalism. Non-violent protesters were violently attacked by police. Property vandals were ignored by police. Only in corporate medialand can this sequence of events be twisted around to make thousands of non-violent protesters responsible for both the property damage of a small group of vandals, and the organized police violence unleashed against them.
This fundamental misrepresentation lies at the very heart of corporate media coverage from that day forward. The fact that the record has never been corrected is a good indication of how unreliable the corporate media really is when it comes to the most important issues. A great deal of effort may be expended to make sure that minor details are accurately reported, but all this is ultimately for naught when the most significant facts are gotten wrong and stay wrong indefinitely, despite every opportunity to correct them.
Still, this is not an example of the police deliberately using the media to intimidate and suppress dissent. It simply reflects some of the built-in biases that increasingly make the corporate media unreliable sources of information. The ACLU report cited the police for "excessive use of chemical weapons and other force to control peaceful crowds"--a conclusion that was virtually self-evident if one simply watched the police in the hour before any windows were broken. But excessive force continued long after that, and spread considerably under the false justification of riot conditions that simply didn't exist--except in police ranks.
ACLU: June 2000
Police Officials Authorized Chemical Weapons and Other Inappropriate Force Against Peaceful Crowds
Policing theory recognizes that it is sometimes better to allow crowds to mill about in streets than to employ the level of force that would be needed to clear the streets. For example, if thousands of sports fans spilled into the streets to celebrate a Seattle Mariners World Series triumph, police commanders would not order the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets.
Despite police and media descriptions to the contrary, the protests during the WTO conference did not constitute a riot. They were noisy and disruptive, yet demonstrators were overwhelming peaceful. Not so the police.
Police commanders authorized the use of force at inappropriate times and levels, and directed it against inappropriate targets. They approved the use of tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and clubs against people who were demonstrating peaceably, against demonstrators who had not received or who were trying to obey police orders, against bystanders, and to quell disturbances the police themselves had provoked. The level of force simply was not proportionate to the threat.
The Seattle Police Department used massive amounts of tear gas against crowds even when such use was not necessary to protect public safety or the safety of officers. Tear gas was used in heavily populated areas where it inevitably affected large numbers of innocent bystanders.
The Seattle Police Department used pepper spray repeatedly against nonviolent protesters who posed no threat to public safety or to the safety of officers. Police department reliance on pepper spray was misplaced. Virtually no one has published scientific research about the effects of pepper spray on human health, and no agency regulates the manufacturing process.
Rubber bullets were used against people who posed no threat. They were also used against largely nonviolent crowds and against individuals who were engaged in passive resistance or fleeing.
The ACLU criticized the misuse of three principle police weapons. It found that tear gas was used in "massive amounts... against crowds even when such use was not necessary to protect public safety or the safety of officers" and "was used in heavily populated areas where it inevitably affected large numbers of innocent bystanders." It found that pepper spray was used "repeatedly against nonviolent protesters who posed no threat to public safety or to the safety of officers," and called the police reliance on pepper spray "misplaced," since there is no published scientific research on the effects of pepper spray and no regulation of pepper spray manufacturing. And it found that rubber bullets "were used against people who posed no threat," including "largely nonviolent crowds" and individuals "engaged in passive resistance or fleeing."
The ACLU report acknowledged that "Using tear gas, pepper spray, or rubber bullets may be justified as a last resort when there is a threat to public safety or the safety of officers," but went on to say that "such weapons should not be used against nonviolent crowds." In fact, the use of such weapons is likely to increase the threat to public safety as crowds of people flee in panic with limited vision.
Once the media misinformation was out, the Mayor and police took maximum advantage of it. Just after 5 PM the Mayor declared a state of emergency, ordering a curfew and creating a 25- square-block "no protest zone" in the heart of downtown. The ACLU notes that "The suppression of free speech was not needed to protect security, nor could the 'no protest zone' have accomplished that aim." The city violated two key principles governing any official restrictions on free speech--that they be as narrow as possible for the purpose at hand, and that they be "content-neutral," not favoring any viewpoint over any other. Both principles were violated by the Mayor's order and the police enforcement of the order.
The next day--Wednesday, December 1--while mass arrests were made outside the "no protest zone," the zone itself was a chilling miniature of just what it takes to make corporate globalization "work." Police ordered pedestrians to remove any expression of anti-WTO sentiments, including buttons, stickers, and signs. The ACLU timeline notes that "Signs, leaflets, and cell phones are confiscated, and bags searched without warrants." In order to violate the First Amendment, they violated the Fourth as well. It wasn't just a "no protest zone," it was a "no Constitution zone."
That evening, beginning around 8:00 p.m., demonstrators and residents of the Capitol Hill neighborhood marched for approximately an hour and half. Around 9:00 p.m. police began firing pepper spray, tear gas, and concussion grenades along part of the march route. A growing, peaceful crowd of residents and bystanders became increasingly disturbed by the police actions, and around 11:30 p.m. began moving toward the local police precinct, which was "blockaded by unmarked school buses and officers in riot gear." The standoff between police and residents continued till 12:45 a.m., when the crowd was ordered to disperse. Many left, but some stayed. At 1:40 a.m., "Officers move in on the crowd and fire tear gas and pepper spray as people mill in the street and sing songs." At 1:45 a.m., "Police fire a heavy volley of tear gas, rubber bullets and concussion grenades to disperse the crowd on Pine." This was how police responded to a spontaneous demonstration of concern by the residents of the neighborhood they were supposedly protecting.
ACLU: June 2000
Improper Arrests and Mistreatment of People in Custody
The police made hundreds of improper arrests, detaining for days people who would never stand trial. Then, after the demonstrations were over, charges were dropped. The City Attorney doggedly pursued other charges that either were dismissed or did not lead to convictions.
Individuals arrested during the anti-WTO demonstrations were mistreated and witnessed others being mistreated by jail officers. Some of the mistreatment was directed at protesters who made demands to see their lawyer. Some officers singled out, threatened and assaulted individuals for exercising or demanding their constitutional rights. Some officers used pepper spray against nonthreatening prisoners who posed no threat to officer safety.
This is hardly a complete picture (the full ACLU report is available online at http://www.acluwa. org/ISSUES/police/WTO-Report.htmlhttp://www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/WTO%20Report%20Web.pdf), but it captures most of the basics that the corporate media coverage obscured and distorted.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
