It’s starting: NATO Protesters Held Without Charge in Chicago, After Police Raid without arrest warrant

Friday, 18 May 2012 14:00 By Yana Kunichoff, Truthout | Report

Occupy Chicago(Photo: Zach D. Roberts / GregPalast.com)

A pre-emptive raid by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) on the home of two Occupy Chicago activists may have happened without a search warrant, said the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), and led to the disappearance of nine activists into police custody without charge for almost 24 hours.

“I’d like to stress that we have done nothing wrong,” said Zoe Sigman, an Occupy Chicago activist whose home was raided. “We have been planning to protest NATO and there is nothing illegal about expressing our feelings about a war machine. Now we’re being treated as mere criminals. As if we’re part of an organized crime that they’re trying to take down. Who knows what they’re going to pin on us. We’re terrified.”

Occupy ChicagoA protester, reportedly a street medic by the name of Henry, is arrested by Chicago Police during the National Nurses United rally with Tom Morello in Daley Plaza, Chicago. (Photo: Joe Macaré)The raid of an apartment on Chicago’s Southside Bridgeport neighborhood occurred on Wednesday evening around 11:30 PM. So far, none of the activists have been charged and four were released Friday morning. According to witnesses, the raid was conducted by the Organized Crime Division of the CPD and a warrant produced at the site didn’t have the signature of a judge.

The use of pre-emptive arrests is troublesome, said lawyers following the proceedings.

“It’s actually fairly common at national security events for the police to conduct preempetive actions, so this is distressing but not surprising,” said NLG legal worker Kris Hermes. “We will remain vigilant in trying to keep the city accountable, especially when they have not provided any idea of what they are holding people on.” Hermes continued, “We think the city should immediately dismiss all of the charges and we are urging them to do that,”

The CPD has released claims that the raid recovered Molotov cocktails, though activists said that the equipment is actually for home brewing of beer.

“Occupy Chicago demands the immediate release of the peaceful protesters terrorized by the Chicago Police Department in Wednesday nights raid,” said Rachael Perrotta of the Occupy Chicago Press Committee in a statement. “We are getting a taste here in Chicago of what it’s like to live in a militarized police state, with non-violent demonstrators targeted for expressing their First Amendment Rights and for standing up against the NATO war machine.”

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit to be held in Chicago was designated a National Special Security Event, which puts the Secret Service in charge of “event security”; the FBI in control of “intelligence, counter terrorism, hostage rescue and investigation of incidents of terrorism or other major criminal activities”; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in charge of “recovery management in the aftermath of terrorist or other major criminal incidents, natural disasters or other catastrophic events,” reported the Indypendent.

A week of action leading up to the summit and connecting local and national injustices to NATO militarization has seen an increased police presence, but this may only be the tip of the iceberg.

At an action against the Keystone XL pipeline Thursday, reported ABC News, “Dozens of uniformed Chicago police stood guard nearby, though they made no arrests. But around the corner a couple blocks away back-ups were apparently standing by. Inside 15 unmarked passenger vans they were dressed in black uniforms with riot gear.”

Police have said that rather than tear gassing entire crowds, they will used more targeted “snatch and grab” tactics.

But these kind of pre-emptive actions are ripe for illegality, said lawyers.

“Snatch and grab” can be used if a person is committing a crime, said John Stainthorp, an attorney with the People’s Law Office. “But, if they’re not actively involved in breaking the law at that time, you cannot extract people. Extracting is an arrest and it doesn’t matter whether you hold them for an hour or ten hours or ten days. If you start to take action against them, [and they're doing nothing wrong,] that’s illegal.”

Brian Bean, with Occupy Chicago, says that he is not fooled by the CPD “putting on a nice face.” “They will use the force that the state often uses to repress dissent and intimidate protesters,” said Bean, “as we saw in Wednesday’s raid.”

Chicago has one of the most advanced surveillance systems in the country, with cameras that have facial recognition and automatic tracking software.

A leaked document of what the CPD’s policy toward journalists reporting on the protest said:

“Those who follow protesters onto private property to document their actions also will be subject to arrest if laws are broken. Any member of the media who is arrested will have to go through the same booking process as anyone else. Release of equipment depends on what part the equipment played in the events that led to the arrest. There will not be any quick personal recognizance bond just for media members.”

Illinois also has an eavesdropping law which, in some situations, makes the filming of a police officer a crime, but the edict will be suspended for the NATO protests, the leaked document said.

Since the week of action against the NATO summits began, the NLG said that 20 people have been arrested and others have reported being stopped and searched.

But activists say this gives them even more reason to head into the streets.

“It’s important to continue protesting, because this tactic was obviously an attempt to intimidate,” said Bean. “We will fight against whatever tactics come out against us and continue to protest.”

Hermes agreed: “We don’t want people to be discouraged from coming out and protesting. We are hoping activists stand up to police intimidation and speak their mind, which they should be allowed to do under the constitution.”

How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian’s Nightmare

AlterNet / By Steven Rosenfeld

Obama has expanded and fortified many of the Bush administration’s worst policies.

April 18, 2012 |

When Barack Obama took office, he was the civil liberties communities’ great hope. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, pledged to shutter the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and run a transparent and open government. But he has become a civil libertarian’s nightmare: a supposedly liberal president who instead has expanded and fortified many of the Bush administration’s worst policies, lending bipartisan support for a more intrusive and authoritarian federal government.

It started with the 9/11 attacks. Within a week, Congress, including many liberals, gave the White House blanket authority to wage a war on the terrorists. A month after that, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, authorizing many anti-terrorism measure including expanded surveillance. By mid-November, the White House ordered creation of military tribunals to try terrorists who were not U.S. citizens.

Bush quickly expanded covert operations, creating a shadow arrest, interrogation and detention system based at Guantanamo that violated international law and evaded domestic oversight. While the Supreme Court eventually ruled that detainees have some rights, the precedent that the Constitution does not restrict how a president conducts an endless war against a stateless enemy was firmly planted. In response, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union proposed reforms the newly elected president could make. What few anticipated was how he would embrace, expand and institutionalize many of Bush’s war on terror excesses.

President Obama now has power that Bush never had. Foremost is he can (and has) order the killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are deemed terrorists. Like Bush, he has asked the Justice Department to draft secret memos authorizing his actions without going before a federal court or disclosing them. Obama has continued indefinite detentions at Gitmo, but also brought the policy ashore by signing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which authorizes the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of assisting terrorists, even citizens. That policy, codifying how the Bush treated Jose Padilla, a citizen who was arrested in a bomb plot after landing at a Chicago airport in 2002 and was transferred from civil to military custody, upends the 1878’s Posse Comitatus Act’s ban on domestic military deployment.

Meanwhile, more than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, Washington’s wartime posture has trickled down into many areas of domestic activity—even as some foreign policy experts say the world is a much safer place than it was 20 years ago, as measured by the growth in free-market economies and democratic governments. Domestic law enforcement has been militarized—as most visibly seen by the tactics used against the Occupy protests and also against suspected illegal immigrants, who are treated with brute force and have limited access to judicial review before being deported.

One of Bush’s biggest civil liberties breaches, spying on virtually all Americans via their telecommunications starting in 2003, also has been expanded. Congress authorized the effort in 2006. Two years later, it granted legal immunity to the telecom firms helping Bush—a bill Obama voted for. The National Security Agency is now building its largest data processing center ever, which Wired.com’s James Bamforth reports will go beyond the public Internet to grab data but also reach password-protected networks. The federal government continues to require that computer makers and big Web sites provide access for domestic surveillance purposes. More crucially, the NSA is increasingly relying on private firms to mine data, because, unlike the government, it does not need a search warrant. The Constitution only limits the government searches and seizures.

The government’s endless wartime footing is also seen in its war on whistleblowers. Obama has continued cases brought by Bush, such as going after the “leaker” in the warrantless wiretapping story broken by the New York Times in 2005, as well as the WikiLeaks case, prosecution of Bradley Manning, and others for allegedly mishandling classified materials related to the war on terrorism. Its suppression of war-related information given to journalists extends overseas, where the State Department this month has blocked a visa for a Pakistani critic from speaking in the U.S. The White House also recently pressured Yemen’s leader to jail the reporter who exposed U.S. drone strikes. Meanwhile, the administration has stonewalled Freedom of Information Act requests, particularly the Justice Department, which has issued the secret wartime memos.

How bad is it? Anthony Romero, the ACLU executive director, exclaimed in June 2010 that Obama “disgusted” him. Meanwhile, the most hawkish Bush administration officials have defended and praised Obama.

Last summer, liberal lawyer-journalist Glenn Greenwald tallied a list of Bush warrior endorsements. Jack Goldsmith, the former DOJ officials who approved the torture and domestic spying efforts, wrote in The New Republic in May 2009 that Obama actually was waging a more effective war on terror than Bush.

“The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expended some of it, and has narrowed only a bit,” Goldsmith wrote. “Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol and rhetoric.” Bush’s final CIA director, General Michael Hayden—whose confirmation Obama opposed as a senator—told CNN there was a “powerful continuity between the 43rd and 44th presidents.” And in early 2011 Vice-President Dick Cheney told NBC News, “He’s learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate.”