When Did it Become the Norm for Police to Crush Americans' Rights?

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/when-did-it-become-norm-police-crush-americans-rights


A man is arrested after lying in the street while protesting on West Florissant Ave. in Ferguson, Missouri on August 19, 2014

The militarized police force unleashed in Ferguson, Missouri over the past two weeks has crushed the civil liberties of black residents angry over the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown. That law enforcement has shown utter disregard for the rights of protesters and the press is no surprise to many, especially black people, who have had to contend with pervasive surveillance and harassment in varied forms for much of American history. Yet what makes the situation in Ferguson look especially scary and dystopic are the militarized weapons being used to crush constitutional rights.

The first civil liberty to be trampled on by cops was the right to protest, or as the Constitution puts it, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Protests have occurred almost daily since August 9, the day Brown was killed by Ferguson officer Darren Wilson. When demonstrations broke out over the shooting, police fired tear gas and rubber bullets and used vehicles that produce piercing sounds to disperse the crowd.

In the wake of these scenes, groups like Human Rights Watch have charged that the methods law enforcement used have intimidated peaceful demonstrators. “Ferguson police are compounding problems with threats and the use of unnecessary force against people peacefully protesting the police killing of Michael Brown,” Human Rights Watch’s U.S. researcher Alba Morales said in a statement. “They should be upholding basic rights to peaceful assembly and free speech, not undermining them.”

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, and Daria Roithmayr, a law professor, argue that excessive tear gas and rubber bullets also violate the constitutional right to due process. “The due process clause bans the police from using excessive force even when they are within their rights to control a crowd or arrest a suspect,” they write.

[KG]

1. since always.

[Nay]

6. Well, exactly. The Vietnam War protests were crushed just as protests are

crushed today, and with the same dismissive and ragey attitude toward the protesters ("damn hippies&quot . Some were killed (Kent State).

[classykaren]

9. I just don't remember the "Free Speach Zones"

[annabanana]

10. I think those started during W's admin.

Don't remember them earlier..

[Piedras]

15. So called "Free speech zones" were imposed during Vietnam war protests

When I was in college during the late 1960's a so called "free speech zone" was imposed on my college, Cal Poly SLO. It was limited to a small area on the backside of a theater far away from the center of campus. It was an attempt to keep protests off a large lawn area more in the center of the campus adjacent to the library where people often hung out, or walked by, between classes.

I well remember on campus protests against secret bombing of Cambodia when then Governor Reagan closed down all California state colleges and universities. Reagan sent California Highway Patrol Officers to Cal Poly to enforce the shutdown. At the time Cal Poly SLO was generally a more conservative college by California standards.

It is just one reason the overly militaristic policing in Fergeson, MO troubles me.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. It's gotten real bad, real fast, and nobody in Gov't cares to reign it in even one little bit,

and I wonder ... WHY?!?!

[blkmusclmachine]

3. But then I remember #12 ... and the reason becomes apparent:

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism

http://rense.com/general37/char.htm

[HereSince1628]

7. Seems to me that police suppressing anti-police brutality protests is

a matter of an official element of society protecting it's authority rather than patriotic associations.

In my opinion (aka Whadooino?) the reaction of police in Ferguson, or what we saw against Occupy is less about fascism--an approach to government--than it is a reaction that follows from confusing fear/intimidation with respect for the law and law enforcement.

Police can't really impose respect for the law on the populace. However, they can and do intentionally project fear/intimidation thru appearance and behavior. An intimidated person behaves with deference to police and the law in a manner that looks pretty much like the behavior of a law respecting person.

Police recognize the outcome of intimidation as valuable to their work and personal safety. They cultivate it in not so subtle ways.

[eShirl]

4. I noticed it intensifying in the late 80s (late Reagan/Papa Bush)

especially around the time the ONDCP was established
Office of National Drug Control Propaganda, er, Policy (headed by the so-called Drug Czar)

[cantbeserious]

5. A Major Turn Since - Patriot Act One - Patriot Act Two - Americans Are Now The Enemy

eom

[pipoman]

8. ....

[LuvNewcastle]

11. Haymarket n/t

[The_Commonist]

12. When? 1791.

The Whiskey Rebellion.
There were no "good old days."

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. I know someone that said it was no longer "peaceful" when they blocked the street....

He said that was an assault on commerce.

As if streets are only there to make a buck.

[Damansarajaya]

14. It was quite common during GWBush's terms.

Protesters couldn't get anywhere close to him. A tee-shirt could get you banned from entering a GW event. Free speech zones, a Constitutional abomination, were accepted meekly by the very serious people in media and think tanks.

So, if you broke the arbitrary "rules," you were a disruptor and possible terrorist that deserved macing, tasing or shooting.

[Glassunion]

16. When America was born. Before that it was "Crush British Rights"...

[Rex]

17. After 9/11 and the invention of the DHS.

We all became either; enemy-combatants or enemy-non-combatants.