|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 5 users and 56 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by POLDF on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 12:17pm.
Nov 6 2006 - 9:00am Nov 6 2006 - 12:14pm If you would like to come to support these 17 cases, come Monday, 11/6/06 at 9am to District Court. Wear red to show your solidarity. Otherwise, be well-behaved, quiet and civil to not complicate the cases. Directions to the court are on the website: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/distcrt/ and the names of our protesters will be printed on the dockets for the court room number they are expected to be in. Look when you get there. Come witness the process. Some of our protesters are represented by attorneys, some are represented by Public Defenders and others are either not represented or are representing themselves. For background see articles in Works In Progress www.olywip.org |
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
What does...
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 6:03pm.Juries are funny, funny
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 7:53pm.Since the War is Illegal
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 8:48pm.The protesters responded to a higher law, laws higher than petty trespassing, or obstructing traffic. The protesters responded to a call to halt an ongoing illegal military action. The protesters attempted to dis-enable the war by halting transfer of illegal military cargoes.
George Bush misled the nation into a war of aggression by means of fraud. We have an obligation, both moral and legal, to disenable the continuation of the war. For the sake of the people of Iraq, and for the sake of our Uniformed Service People; let us put this tragic episode behind us, haven't we learned from history? Wars of aggression don't work! The American people don't support wars of conquest or imperialism.
Yeah, there are folks in
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 8:53pm.Yeah, there are folks in Olympia who hold the above statement to be true. Again once you get out of Olympia and into thurston county, the odds tip a bit. Thanks for the demonstration Rob.
Support for the war is dwindling nationwide
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 12:05am.No no, I think support for
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 12:14am.I'd Also Say
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 12:33am.The way I heard it...
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 12:45am.Hmmm
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 8:51am.Well, I was there. In support of military operations - and I was by far the minority. I think you heard some things from one side and not the other. Police have every right to protect themselves from perceived threats. If they had to wait for the moment of truth each and every time what would the end result look like?
To be fair, why were rocks and bottles and other items thrown over the fence? I witnessed these acts. Why did some at the protest arrive with bandanas on over their faces? I saw these people. It was clear from web blogs before the actual event that gas was a possibility. Why else would they take steps to inform others how to beat the gas?
I may sound like I don't care for protesting in general. That would be wrong. I, in fact, see it as a reasonable means for in line opposition. The Women in Black get much respect from me. I don't honk to support them when driving by nor do I get in their faces and belittle their cause. I let them do what is granted to them by our constitution. What you had at the port on those couple of tense nights was far out of line and purposefully confrontational.
Protesters have every right to protect themselves from.....
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:03am.I was at the protest, carrying an anti-war sign, and I didn't break any laws. I do have to say that I was "purposefully confrontational." I knew there would be people there in support of the war and protecting the war effort, and I oppose the war. But, quite frankly, I don't understand what the point of a protest would be if participants didn't have a confrontational purpose.
Protesters have every right
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:06am.Protesters have every right to protect themselves from perceived threats.
Just replace "protester" with "law enforcement" and we have ourselves a Vicious Cycle.
Because usually, these are the people showing up in bandanas. Hardly a woman and three kids putting a bandana on to "protect" themselves.
Funny, I've never seen palm trees in Olympia
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:44am.I apologize. You wanted an
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:48am.I apologize. You wanted an Olympia specific picture.
And if you'll look to your left and right, you'll see the same species...
It doesn't really contribute much to our understanding...
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 12:13pm.Style and Appearance
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 3:01pm.Would it make a difference in they were wearing suits and ties?
When one is dressing in
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 8:04pm.When one is dressing in attire very similar to the clothing of individuals linked to inciting violence during mass congregations and who fit the demographics and belief sets of individuals normally associated with worker and student revolutions, yes, people become nervous.
Every night I was there ( 3
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:44am.Every night I was there ( 3 nights for those counting ) there was so much warning for people being sprayed it wasn't funny. The first night I was down there a couple and I were standing in the back laughing at 4 young people shouting at a deputy through a fence when he warned them, "If you don't get off the fence, I'm going to spray you." by God he did. Later that night OPD walked up, with a large can of spray in their hand, and asked everyone to disperse or they were gonna spray, guess what, they sprayed.
The rock throwing happend after the fence was removed, probably close to 7pm, because I was off work and down there taking pictures. This is what caused the police forces to move outside of the fence and had one particular protester taking a swing at a state trooper ( ask Drew ) he didn't last long after having paintballs full of peppers spray shot at his feet and getting thrown to the ground.
I have to disagree with you Janet. A good protest gets people onto your side, it does not have to lead to confrontation. I think people there were confronting because they were frustrated over their lack of power. I understand this but it does not make it right. Police were well within their use of force to use pepper spray to disperse a crowd that hugely outnumbered them.
Oh, and I'm not sure what the rock/bottle throwers looked like, but watched a handful of things being chucked over the fence. Completely out of line for protesters. It's too bad that 4 or 5 protesters had to take it to that level.
Thanks for the info about the alleged rock-throwing, Norm
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 1:14pm.Unfortunately that's the way
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 2:13pm.I Disagree
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:53am.Protestors can protect themselves by backing away or going home. Warnings were given - many times. Whether you chose to listen is on you.
So your agenda is more important than others. Sounds selfish to me. Many protests surrounding the war happen on daily basis in this country without incident. Supporters from both sides are present and can coexist.
But, quite frankly, I don't understand what the point of a protest would be if participants didn't have a confrontational purpose.
No disrespect, but then you shouldn't be protesting. A protest is a demonstration or expression of your dissapproval and/or opposition. Not physical confrontational.
You're wrong about the warnings
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 12:28pm.I Have Little
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 1:10pm.Sympathy for those who were sprayed. Not sure why you or others didn't hear the warnings as I heard every one of them and did not take in any gas at all - and, at times, I was as close as you could get, legally. You should encourage those that brought about the police response (very few from what I saw, but a justified response) to act responsibly next time so you don't have to absorb the fallout. A few individuals can spoil it for everyone. Why in the h*ll would anyone bring a child to such a potentially dangerous event? I did see a few children, but if memory serves me, they were quite a ways back and out of the area directly in front of the fence. Maybe next time less chant would allow you to listen more closely. Sorry, I'm not wrong about the warnings - you participated in selective hearing.
If the police response wasn't justified I'd expect some may have filed suit against WSP and Thurston County. Not so sure about OPD as they didn't seem to be the main enforcer. Do you know of anyone who plans to sue the county or state?
Who are you, anyway?
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 1:18pm.Try Clicking
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 1:32pm.On my name. I'm not hiding myself in any way. You can read about me. I've been reading for a while and have views the way of Norm, TFI, and OlyCop. So what, I'm new - are you exclusive here?
Born and raised here, went to Timberline, served in the US Navy, spent a few years on the East Coast in Philly, NY, Jacksonville and Charlotte. Moved back for a while then to LA for two and half years. Moved back again, got married, had 3 children and now I live on the Westside off of Cooper Point Road. Independent voter who thinks the party system is fatally flawed. Don't vote party, vote the person. Enough?
Not from Texas but they have a saying down there, "You mess with the bull, you'll get the horns." I liken this saying to the events at the port. I wonder why the Women in Black have never been gassed.
I'm new - are you exclusive
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 1:41pm.I'm new - are you exclusive here?
Not exclusive but I think it's fair to ask for an introduction from an individual who has just come onto the scene (or at least made it known).
With that said, welcome! Looking forward to seeing you on here, "Comrade" Ehver Green (great name, by the way).
Ehver Green
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 2:21pm.Our local garage band name! Wanted Ever Green, but it was taken and we play with a lot of Electro-Harmonix effects equipment, so it made sense.
Instrumental Rock the way of Mogwai, no lyrics, at all. We can be found here: Ehver Green Got a logo and everything!
Thanks for the info.
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 4:26pm.oh yes they can
Submitted by enpen on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 6:24pm.That is so true. It's just too bad we keep looking in the wrong directions for the spoilers.
“Freedom lies in being bold.”
The gate was lifted
Submitted by Sarah on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:29am.I sat for quite some time with a young man who had been jabbed hard and zapped in the ribs with a stun baton, while he was trying to back away with his hands up.
What Right
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:37am.Most Of What You Said
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 9:26pm.True Enough
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 8:06pm.well, don't quote me, but I
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 8:18pm.Update
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 9:13pm.*(Four beers plus legal documents equals fuzzy memories.)
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
Aha! Drew frequently comes
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 9:16pm.Found the Link
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 9:37pm.http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061004/NEWS/610040330
Dubuisson is allowing it as a "necessity" defense. Wow, I'm speechless. It goes to far and opens up the flood gates for future chaos at the port and ultimately questions the safety of port staff. Although, I'm pretty sure if there ever was a confrontation, the longshoremen would serve up an old-fashion whooping!
Are you kidding?
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 8:41pm.Really, it is being allowed? Ah, right, activist judges. Bad precedent. There will be future shipments through our port and it's a good time to let the community at large know what is acceptable when venting during a protest. So, if I'm understanding your comment, the judge has said the legality of the war in Iraq can be used in defense of somebody committing a crime at the Port of Olympia (two wrongs now make a right)? I'm new to this blog from a posting standpoint, but I've been reading it for several months now - so I know my position isn't a popular one and I'm OK with that. I'm all about perspective!
By the way, the people with court dates could use the Women in Black as their model for gaining respect. It's not always about who can be the loudest. In fact, rarely is it about attention getting unless you want public backlash. And, for the record, I spent two peaceful nights right at the fence and even had the pleasure of speaking with TJ and Laura about their views. It was quite a spectacle.
Nope, not kidding. If you've
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 8:55pm.If you look back over the history...
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 2:28pm....of the port protest on this blog, you notice that there were a number of us, including me and Phil (that I remember off the top of my head), who thought that the whole "tear it down" meme was counter-productive. I think that the protests could have been much more powerful and alienated fewer people if they had been handled differently. That being said, though, this stuff about how protests shouldn't be confrontational or break any laws -- give me a break! It's not called "civil disobedience" for nothing. It always gets me that those who claim to cherish the freedom to protest are the first ones to gripe when someone actually does protest. Where would this country be if everyone followed the rules in the 1770's (not a country at all, I'm afraid).
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow
Sure..
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 3:15pm....but own up to your "civil disobedience" without citing an external factor for your unlawfulness. Protest all you want without breaking laws and you'll be fine. Protest all you want while breaking laws and expect to be held accountable - no whiners.
Confrontation is one thing. Physical confrontation is quite another. The former is where the protest should end unless you can accept the variety of options the authorities have at their disposal. When these options become a reality it has gone too far. I saw a number of people who were at the fence look to one another and decided it wasn't worth what the police had to offer. The turned around and walked away. I'm sure they still believe in their cause and didn't sell-out in any way. They simply found the provoked reaction to be more than they were willing to accept.
And I do support peaceful protest. No doubt in my mind that I agree with signage, and chanting and the like. Not shopping at Ralph's is a perfect example. If the people boycotting Ralph's can make a big enough financial impact, the store brass may change their stance. This is a great example of protest working in the favor of opposition without being criminal.
And what about...
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 3:53pm....sitting at the whites only lunch counter, or at the front of the bus? Or blocking the path of a train carrying nuclear waste, or refusing to pay that portion of the tax on your phone that funds the defense department?
Please explain how justice equates with non-criminal behavior in these examples.
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow
That's a whole nother
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 4:20pm.That's a whole nother ball-game Rick. Yes there were illegal things done during the civil rights movement that SHOULD have been legal. It was still illegal though, we are judged by our current system of law, not what it SHOULD be in our own minds, but what it is right now. The law was broken, it's up to the prosecutor to determine if charges should be filed. Charges were filed, now it's up to a jury to decide if they are guilty after evidence is given and the two sides duke it out. Justification for a crime ended with the prosecutor. If you choose to be active in civil disobedience you'd better expect to be arrested sometime and when you are you should damn well expect to be charged with a crime. Justified or not the law was broken, right?
If you decided not to pay taxes on your phone bill I'm sure the company would ding you, and blocking a train seems like a really bad idea. You may end up with something worse than jailtime.
The things I mentioned...
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 4:34pm....are all examples of acts of protest that folks have done (or are doing). First of all, I don't see anyone whining particularly about being prosecuted. The people who trespassed on port property expected to be arrested, and I'm sure they considered the consequences, so let's not play Papa and pretend that you can tell them that they should be sorry for what they've done. They're grown ups and can take care of themselves. (And will probably make out just fine given the incompetence of the prosecution, from what I've heard).
With respect to the criminal-behavior-does-not-equal-valid-protest aspect, it is more than a tad bit ironic that Bush and Cheney can commit political crimes of enormous scale and not suffer the consequences, while some college kids become the pariah of the community for knocking down a gate (did you see the surprised look on their faces when it actually came off its hinges? They were more surprised than anyone).
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow
I think I'm still arguing
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 5:15pm.I think I'm still arguing with the people a few posts up. I think the whining ( if we are gonna call it that ) is more in regards to how the police and community responded to this. You are right these are big boys and girls who aren't upset that they were arrested. Because they are so grown up they should also know that a part of the community is going to have no respect for their actions. Maybe that will change a few generations down the road but in the present they had folks in the community who frowned upon what they did. The police are also doing their job, they used force and people are upset that they were caught in the crossfire. Let me be very clear here, if you do not want to inhale peppers spray, or subject your children to it, DON'T go to protests. This is a common dispersal tactic and if you think that because you aren't breaking any laws that it won't affect you, you are wrong.
I disliked your analogy simply because civil rights for a people are different than stopping a shipment for the military. If this were a protest about homosexual rights I would feel more sympathetic, I still wouldn't condone the violence but at least they are looking to change something, and realistically have a chance. There was NO WAY IN HELL that the protesters at the port were going to stop shipments. It was not going to happen and anyone who thought they would make a difference in this manner has a serious disconnect from reality.
I've asked this before, I'll ask again, WHO is going to charge cheney/bush with anything? You might, just might, have the backing of the citizens of this country but nobody is going to touch them on a legal level so how are they going to suffer the consequences? I was pretty supportive of the group as a whole. I understood their cause and, to an extent, agreed with them. The handful who decided to climb fences, remove gates ( gently, I know, gently ) and square off with the cops just didn't receive much respect from me. Had it been a different cause maybe I would have held more.
In short I think criminal behavior can be valid protest, but it may not sit well with some in the community/country. Everyone has their own limitations and level of intensity that they think is appropriate.
Agreed.
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 6:15pm.Bush and Chaney commited political crimes, and thus, their fate will be decided poltically. But, I think Mike's point from the other thread is that they haven't become pariahs -- there are still many apologists who think that they were acting in good faith. Well, if you're wrong about something as important as a war, and you're acting in good faith, and you just can't get it right no matter how hard you try, don't you think you'd ask for help? But, we get nothing but arrogance and more doublespeak. That will get sorted out on Tuesday (at least a start, anyways).
Nobody thought they were going to stop a shipment. It wasn't the best symbolism, but it was a symbol.
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow
Me? Of course I'd ask for
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 6:22pm.Me? Of course I'd ask for help. I'm that kind of person though. If it's a snap decision I have no problem making it and if I'm wrong I have no problem admitting it. With something like a war though I feel, with my personality, I would surround myself with people I trusted, and with people who had a better knowledge of what circumstances and consequnces may arise. Of course if I were president things would be pretty different.
Tuesday will certainly be interesting. If I had to place my bets I'd say there are going to be some pissed off republicans.
I have attended a great number of peace demonstrations
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 7:43pm.At times action must be
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 8:09pm.At times action must be taken that is deemed illegal.
If you really believe illegal activity is necessary, go for it. You cannot, however, expect to carry out illegal actions and for society to not punish you.
Basically, protesting requires sacrifice. If you believe it in enough, jail and/or prison shouldn't be a problem. I would argue a great deal of important writings have come about because the author was incarcerated.
Basically, protesting
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 9:29pm.AMEN, TFI!
That's why I left the ( this
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 8:43pm.Sorry I Wasn't
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 4:58pm.Able to respond until now. I was out last night with lots to do today. Collateral damage at the port, which was far from peaceful, should have been expected. It's far too late for a more reasonable approach to the protest.
Don't forget, this cost the city money in the end. And, as a result of a few people's actions, via police presence (more than should be necessary) and overtime, the force of authority will be larger when the next shipment comes to town. These resources are not free - and they *ARE* required - given the events at the end of May this year. So, rather than your normal patrol to control the scene, we're going to have many, many officers onsite and even more on call, if needed. And again, the city will have to cough up the money to pay for it. Doesn't seem at all right that the residents of this city have to pay for protestor actions. If you asked me, anyone convicted on trespassing charges or any other charge related to the May protests, should be banned from Port of Olympia property, barred from attending protests on port property, and arrested without question if found to be in disagreement with the above.
While the police patrol is on salary or hourly wages, military pay is set and not very flexible. I think it's time to bring down a small infantry division, full gear (including M-16's) and all, to setup a nice perimeter! The protest can take place outside of the perimeter. They gently removed a fence - lets see if they want to get rough with a well-trained soldier.
Just one little hitch...
Submitted by Rick on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 8:24pm....with that suggestion: posse comitatus.
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow
Probably Good For
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 8:54pm.The protesting crowd anyway! ;-)
So, we'll just keep paying our cops overtime and shank our local budget. It perils in comparision to the billions spent on the war, though.
If the city and the port say
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 1:05pm.Wouldn't they be losing
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 1:59pm.Wouldn't they be losing money since the Port would be sitting empty?
Trial Update
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 8:09pm.An update -- Olympian style
Submitted by POLDF on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 11:55am.christian hill
A prosecutor has challenged a judge's ruling that aids the defense of the 17 people who were scheduled to go on trial Monday for trespassing on Port of Olympia property during the May 30 protest against the Iraq war.
Eurich has petitioned Thurston County Superior Court to stay Dubuisson's ruling and schedule a hearing to consider her argument. Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee will consider the stay Thursday. If granted, the trial would be postponed until next year.
Dubuisson's Oct. 3 ruling was a key victory for the codefendants, giving them a legal tool to seek acquittal. The ruling allows the defense to justify a conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm.
To use it, the defendants must prove they "reasonably" believed the trespass was necessary to avoid or minimize harm, that their conduct resulted in no greater harm than they were attempting to prevent, and that they had no legal alternative.
The co-defendants said their actions were necessary to stop the killing of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. The May 30 event was the most charged of several days of protests over use of the port to ship the equipment of a Fort Lewis-based brigade to the Middle East.
They also claimed they had exhausted legal alternatives to stop the shipment, including participating in vigils, writing elected leaders and testifying before port commissioners.
If McPhee denies the stay, opening statements will begin Monday.
Christian Hill can be reached at 360-754-5427 or at chill@theolympian.com.
Thanks for the tip
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 11/10/2006 - 9:33pm.