New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Rallies

[Kagemusha]

Hadn't seen this posted. And I'm not sure this link (which I got from Atrios) is one that should be used for an LBN thread either (it's a "print version" one). So, tentatively...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?ei=5094&en=c298d636b33c8c10&hp=&ex=1135227600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print


Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.

In glimpses and in glaring detail, the videotape images reveal the robust presence of disguised officers or others working with them at seven public gatherings since August 2004.

The officers hoist protest signs. They hold flowers with mourners. They ride in bicycle events. At the vigil for the cyclist, an officer in biking gear wore a button that said, "I am a shameless agitator." She also carried a camera and videotaped the roughly 15 people present.

Beyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.

--

I think it's beyond doubt that the bicycle riders are Critical Mass. I think I even remember the "sham arrest" incident and the big mess it caused during the Republican National Convention... wondering if a lot of you people do, too.

[Kagemusha]

1. Blah!

And lo and behold I post basically simultaneously with another poster. :( Mods, do what you like, thanks!

[GrumpyGreg]

2. They're doing what cops do---keeping an eye on things while undercover.

[seabeyond]

3. sounds to me there is a bet of instigation also from the police

to start some trouble. how far are we suppose to trust these police to behave. because i tell you, i do not trust them a bit. so there is a protest. and they arrest a protester (cop, friend) when he has done nothing. and he starts yelling police brutality, i did nothing. and starts getting the crowd in a frenzy

and this is what my tax dollars are for

or they are in the crowd getting film on the protesters, and getting their name, then they can file it with nsa and unlawfully spy on them

do tell me why i should trust this even a little

no...... i am not going to go for they are protecting me. they stopped protecting me a while ago.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

5. yes, that is the crap that one could expect . . .

. . . from some tinhorn South American dictatorship. Instigation like that is NOT normal undercover work . . .

[Stephanie]

4. No, they are instigating incidents & infiltrating peaceful protests

"Until Sept. 11, the secret monitoring of events where people expressed their opinions was among the most tightly limited of police powers."

If you like living in a police state where you are constantly being watched, you must be a Republican.

[thebigidea]

6. and what stops them from keeping an eye on a protest in uniform?

to which a mental defective might say: "Oh, but then the radical protestors might not cause trouble because they know the cops are there!"

which would, er, seem to be the reason you'd want a visible police presence. unless of course, horror of horrors, the undercover guy aren't exactly there to deter crime.

[Catrina]

14. Keeping an eye on WHAT things?

If people are acting legally, exercising their Constitutional rights by protesting political policies, clearly a right of all US citizens, what business do the police have to attempt to instigate trouble, or to photograph people without their permission in this entirely democratic process? In a police state maybe your comment would be correct, but NOT in a so-called Democratic country. But then, we stopped being a democracy when George Bush 'hit the trifecta', so I suppose your comment does apply here now, sadly.

I agree about Bloomberg. He's a jerk, a rich, corporate Republican who cares nothing at all about the people he supposedly represents. He may not be as bad as Giuliani, but he certainly isn't a representative of the people.

I think this information should result in a civil lawsuit at least. And any photos or records on any peaceful protestor should be revealed and expunged. This is an outrage!!

What it says to me though is that protesting peacefully against a dictatorship really has little affect and mostly gives the police state reasons and opportunity to identify those who disagree with them (a real no-no in a police state. Therefore, imo, the best way to have an affect on these bullies is find a different way to protest. I am more in favor of not leaving home, but doing something that will really affect them, such as a mass cancelling of Cable TV until they stop working for the government.

Another way to affect them is boycotting. Cost them money, and also, way more people can participate in these kinds of programs while at the same time actually taking what they most care about, the financing of their propaganda machine. This way we can all stay home while having a real affect and for every person who attends a protest there must be 20 who can't, but who CAN participate in boycotts. How will they 'identify and photograph' people who simply stop financing them? Imo, it's time to change tactics and to cost them money. It's far less stressful also, and way more likely to get their attention.

[Stephanie]

7. Note the dates - this all began under BLOOMBERG THE BILLIONAIRE BITCH

How I loathe him.

[Stephanie]

9. they are using 9/11 and terrorism to stifle political dissent

Just what we knew would happen.


""A number of courts decided there should be some mechanism set up to make sure the police didn't overstep the boundary," said Mr. Travis, who is now the president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "It was complicated finding that boundary." The authority to determine the boundary would be handed back to the Police Department after the Sept. 11 attacks.

On Sept. 12, 2002, the deputy police commissioner for intelligence, David Cohen, wrote in an affidavit that the police should not be required to have a "specific indication" of a crime before investigating. "In the case of terrorism, to wait for an indication of crime before investigating is to wait far too long," he wrote.

Mr. Cohen also took strong exception to limits on police surveillance of public events.

In granting the city's request, Charles S. Haight, a federal judge in Manhattan, ruled that the dangers of terrorism were "perils sufficient to outweigh any First Amendment cost." "

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Wait, Am I Percieving This Wrong?

Is that saying the cops go undercover and at times actually have instigated civil unrest at these demonstrations?

Holy shit, how fucked up is that!

Excuse my ignorance on this. I hadn't heard this before.

[Kagemusha]

10. Instigation to make the instigator look more credible

so that he can infiltrate more deeply.

Or something like that.

I dunno what the point was. It's not like there'd be another convention in NYC the next week.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

11. I hadn't either, tho I don't doubt it for a minute . . .

. . . cuz these bastards are true fascists. Mussolini would be so proud.

:argh:

[Lars39]

12. Google COINTELPRO and have your horizons widened. :^)

[kath]

13. you beat me to it - I was just going to say that it sounds like COINTELPRO

all over again...

[SoCalDem]

15. Google Cointelpro

This is something they have always done..:(

For a minute there I was hoping this was about police who had finally had enough, and were really joining the protests :(