Publish to Newswire
Add an EventOakland Docks
The training excercise occured on A5 and A6....
Like the liberation of Berlin.
Hide your heads in shame, Indymedia lackeys.
18 USC Sec. 232
1) The term ''civil disorder'' means any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual.
18 USC Sec. 231
(3) Whoever commits or attempts to commit any act to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder which in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or adversely affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) Nothing contained in this section shall make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer which is performed in the lawful performance of his official duties.
18 USC Sec. 2101
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television,with intent -
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph
and most relevant to this particular case:
18 USC Section 2153
Destruction of war material, war premises, or war utilities
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, or in times of national emergency as declared by the President or by the Congress, with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the war or defense activities, or, with reason to believe that his act may injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the war or defense activities, willfully injures, destroys, contaminates or infects, or attempts to so injure, destroy, contaminate or infect any war material, war premises, or war utilities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than thirty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, how do these laws apply to the Oakland situation?
"Demonstrators said they targeted the port because at least one company there is handling war supplies. They said it was the first time they had been fired upon in Bay area protests since the Iraq war began last month." ."- From USA Today
That being true, many of these protesters are lucky that they got away with only a huge welt on the side of their face, because they are in violation of Chapter 105 USC, the laws governing sabotage of war materials. Violation of this law is punishable by 30 years in prison. They deliberately blocked this port because they became aware that war supplies were being shipped out of this port. Furthermore, Federal laws concerning conspiracy to commit federal crimes also apply in this case, because this was obviously planned by a group.
"Some people were blocking port property and the port authorities asked us to move them off," said Deputy Police Chief Patrick Haw. "Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers."- From USA Today
The police had warned them to cease and desist. Leading me to believe that they tried to be reasonable, and allow the protesters the chance to rethink the laws they were in violation of and avoid arrest. When they refused to move they were then in violation of 18 USC Sec. 231, interferring with law enforcement officials who are lawfully upholding their duties with respect to the civil disorder laws, especially dealing with the blocking of commercial interests.
Furthermore:
"Protests also took place Monday at the federal building in San Francisco and at the Concord Naval Weapons Station. And seven people were arrested when they temporarily blocked an exit ramp off Interstate 280 in San Francisco." - From USA Today
As you can see, by the laws that I have listed, protesters were also blocking a interstate highway. Clearly, this is an unlawful act, which goes far beyond the activity protected under the first amendment. I believe there was a conserted effort to defy law enforcement as they tried to enforce laws that protect interstate commerce, international commerce, and military supplies. One of the reasons for this behavior was to incite a riot, or a direct confrontation with the police. Since they organized using the interstate highway, cellphones, and the internet, they are in violation of 18 USC Sec. 2101.
Surely, the law grants the police the descretion to use necessary force when applicable. Nothing I have read or seen, would lead me to believe that they were out of bounds by using nonlethal weapons on the saboteurs. By breaking the laws, they are the ones who put themselves in the line of fire. By ignoring the warnings to move, and throwing bolts and rocks at the police, they are the ones who initiated the violence. It just so happens that the police were better equiped, and have the training needed to deal with such deliberate acts of aggression, on the part of the protesters. I can't say that I feel they were unjustly treated in any way. They got what they deserved, probably less.
18 USC Sec. 2101 (a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television,with intent - (1) to incite a riot; or (2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or (3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or (4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph
This wasn't a riot, by any stretch of the imagination. A real riot looks more like Watts (http://www.irn.pdx.edu/~strukn/Watts/riot.htm) or 1992 LA (http://www.fragmentsweb.org/stuff/rkchair.html). You're reaching here.
and most relevant to this particular case:
18 USC Section 2153 Destruction of war material, war premises, or war utilities (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, or in times of national emergency as declared by the President or by the Congress, with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the war or defense activities, or, with reason to believe that his act may injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the war or defense activities, willfully injures, destroys, contaminates or infects, or attempts to so injure, destroy, contaminate or infect any war material, war premises, or war utilities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than thirty years, or both. (b) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.
Now this is relevant. Since there weren't any activities that contaminated, infected, or destroyed any property, I'm going to assume you would go for injury to a war premise or war utility. I am not aware of cases where nonviolent blockading has been held to be an injury, but if you know of any, post them here. I am also not sure of what can be held to be a war premise or utility, but I doubt the law has caught up to the privatization of our military complex. The Port of Oakland is civilian property. Furthermore, the group did not organize to stop a specific shipment of military goods and indeed had no way of knowing what shipments were leaving the port that day. It would be difficult to show they conspired to sabotage.
As you can see, by the laws that I have listed, protesters were also blocking a interstate highway. Clearly, this is an unlawful act, which goes far beyond the activity protected under the first amendment. I believe there was a conserted effort to defy law enforcement as they tried to enforce laws that protect interstate commerce, international commerce, and military supplies. One of the reasons for this behavior was to incite a riot, or a direct confrontation with the police. Since they organized using the interstate highway, cellphones, and the internet, they are in violation of 18 USC Sec. 2101.
The people who blocked the freeway did not resist arrest or try to incite a riot according to coverage I have read. Post it here if you've read otherwise. Blocking an interstate highway is indeed unlawful and that group of protesters were arrested. Again you're stretching on the riot definition.
Surely, the law grants the police the descretion to use necessary force when applicable. Nothing I have read or seen, would lead me to believe that they were out of bounds by using nonlethal weapons on the saboteurs. By breaking the laws, they are the ones who put themselves in the line of fire.
Police do have discretion to use force. They also have rules of engagement. If they didn't then they would be allowed to use lethal force to enforce parking regulations. The rules of engagement in this case would indeed have permitted the police to fire on the crowd if *the crowd* were violent. There has been no evidence of this. If one or two people started throwing bolts (and I am not convinced that this happened), then the police should have contained them as individuals. They would be justified in using the less-lethal techniques in that case, assuming they followed the manufacturer's instructions so as to minimize permanent injury (which they didn't; this is documented). Firing indiscriminately on a crowd and on dockworkers waiting to go to work is not a reasonable response. Firing on individuals as they were leaving is not a reasonable response.
By ignoring the warnings to move, and throwing bolts and rocks at the police, they are the ones who initiated the violence. It just so happens that the police were better equiped, and have the training needed to deal with such deliberate acts of aggression, on the part of the protesters. I can't say that I feel they were unjustly treated in any way. They got what they deserved, probably less.
Firing the less-lethal munitions directly at individuals, aiming above the waist and at close range, is quite likely to cause blindness, larynx collapse, kidney damage, or, if you're really unlucky, death. Regardless of whether use of these munitions was justified, use of them against their training and against the manufacturer's instructions cannot be justified.
Has the president declared a national emergency? No.
Has Congress declared a national emergency? No.
Is the US at war? Legally, this would be a no as well, because war has not been declared by Congress. You'd have a hell of time trying to get this charge to stick.
<p>I had a copy/paste snafu on my last post. Lest anyone think that the first two laws cited were somehow unanswerable:
<p><i>18 USC Sec. 232
1) The term ''civil disorder'' means any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual. </i>
<p>The assemblage in this case was larger than three persons, but as a group it was not committing acts of violence. Unless the group is violent, it is not committing civil disorder. A comparable situation would be a brawl breaking out at a baseball game. If four members of the audience (also legally an "assemblage") start fighting or throwing rocks or even tackling police officers, it's not civil disorder on the part of the audience; it's civil disorder on the part of the tacklers. If the spectators as a group begin throwing rocks or even cheering on the tacklers, then it's civil disorder. In the incident at the docks, the police have not stated or proven that the group as a whole was violent, and nobody among the protesters saw any rocks being thrown, so they probably weren't cheering for them.
<p><i>18 USC Sec. 231
(3) Whoever commits or attempts to commit any act to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties <b>incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder</b> which in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or adversely affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) Nothing contained in this section shall make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer which is performed in the lawful performance of his official duties. </i>
<p>No civil disorder, ergo no obstruction. Also the crowd was not trying to engage the police or obstruct them according to reports I've read; post here if you've heard otherwise.
<p>Sorry for the long-winded posts, but I hear the word "saboteur" being flung around an awful lot these days and a detailed argument against it might be useful for some of us. Good point in the "more quibbling" post too; can't throw around wartime laws when there's no official war. Guess that's the downside of unofficial war; you can say that people aren't POWs because there's no war (see Guantanamo), but you can't implement full martial law.
Yesterday, I went over to Yoshinoya for a simple meal. Yes, THAT beef bowl house, Yoshinoya.
But the whole restaurant was so crowded, I couldn't even find a seat for hours!
Then I saw a poster that said "Special offer! 150 yen discount".
I thought to myself... geez, that's so fucking amazing. You guys don't even normally visit Yoshinoya.
All you bastards came here just for that stupid-assed 150 yen discount.
Just for that 150 yen. ONE FREAKIN' FIFTY YEN!!
Then I saw some parents & children. A family of four eating out at Yoshinoya. Damn, so much for that bitch's home-cooked family feast.
Then one of the little brats said "Daddy's gonna order a large beef bowl".
I couldn't believe it! Uuuuuggh, are you out of your fucking mind!?
Shiiit, i'll pay you 150 yen just to move your stanky fat-ass out of a seat.
Dude, you just don't go to Yoshinoya for that lala-oh-i'm-so-happy dinner bullshit.
It's where you pick a fist-fight with the fucking guy sitting across 'yah in that U-shaped table.
Kill or be killed. Heh... now that's the kinda shit I like.
Ladies, kids, stand back... 'cuz everything's gonna get FUCKED UP NOW.
After waiting for ages, I finally found an empty seat. But then, the guy next to me ordered by saying "A large beef bowl with a LOTTA' gravy".
Dude, that just pissed me off even more. Shit, you just don't say "lotta' gravy" nowadays, ya' freaking bastard.
How the fuck can you say "lotta' gravy" with that "oh, i'm so fucking cool, hur-hur-hur..." look!?!?
Damn, I was THIS CLOSE to standing in front of his face and yelling "DO YOU EVEN LIKE EATING THAT MUCH FUCKIN' GRAVY!?"
For a freaking hour, I was THIS CLOSE to doing that.
Shit, I bet you just wanted to use the words "lotta' gravy" out loud. Wow, you're so clever.
Dude, you gotta be like ME. See, now I know what's "all that" in Yoshinoya.
What's cool right now to say is "Negi-daku". That's it!
You see now, a large beef bowl with a lotta onions & an egg is what the hardcore Yoshinoya freaks eat. Like ME.
Saying "Negi-daku" means that you get less meat, but they put a WHOLE MESS of onions.
Mmmmm... a large beef bowl with onions & an egg, now THAT'S what I call a meal.
But anywhoo... ordering that is kinda' like a double-edged sword. Cuz' then the waiters might notice you the next time you come by.
So yeah, I can't reccomend this to noobs.
For you, just go order a beef and salmon combo. That's as far as you can go, you know what i'm sayin'?
Donate
$225.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.