|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 4 users and 55 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
Upcoming events
 Poster Calendar  Favorite Olympia Blogs Bread and Roses of Olympia The Canaanite's Call Clubside Breakfast Time decorabilia Dark Woods Casino Party E. Side Neighborhood Assoc. Flummel, Flummer, Flummo In the Course of Events John G Bell's Blog Jon's Random Acts of Geekery judimendoza Last Word Blog Nafblog No Talking Heads Olympia Dumpster Divers Olympia Time One Pissed-Off Veteran Papa November Peregrinate Pirate Papa Plan B Olympia The Raccoon Arts Collective The Rambling Taoist Trees and Water Word on the Street What This Town Needs Yelley's Photo Blog Oly Public Bloglines  |
Submitted by Sandy M on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 11:19am.
[Phan Nguyen's op-ed in today's Olympian:] For two weeks in November, the Port Militarization Resistance (PMR) confronted war operations in Olympia's backyard. Depending on one's perspective, it was either a show of the determination of concerned residents standing up to an illegal and immoral war and occupation, or it was simply all hell breaking loose. The perspective depends on what one chooses to focus on. If we want to discredit the demonstrations, we need only focus on the few broken windows and the rock thrown at the police — all of which happened on one night — while ignoring the entire two weeks of community actions. We need only focus on the 1 percent of the violence that was attributed to the demonstrations, and ignore the 99 percent of the violence committed by the police against the demonstrators. The Olympian editorial board says that the victims of police violence are "whiners" who had "asked for it." Tell that to Kris Krossman, who says he was skateboarding on Capitol Way, unaware of the demonstrations at the port, when police shot him three times with pepper ball rounds and then repeatedly struck his face with a baton. According to Krossman, the police left him on the ground, with his face bleeding, and walked away. The few isolated incidents of violence attributed to the demonstrators, and which countered PMR's principles of nonviolence, occurred only after days of police violence. Priorities are misplaced when a broken window is accorded more value than the beaten bodies of nonviolent residents. When someone spray-painted graffiti against port militarization at the Handy Pantry, it was members of PMR who repainted the wall. When Olympian photographer Tony Overman was doused in pepper spray, it was members of PMR who came to his aid. The Olympian editorial board chided activists for "tarnish(ing) the anti-war effort." It condemned demonstrators for putting their concerns into action and claimed that they had "clearly crossed the line." Yet in 2004, when the same activists had merely proposed a phone-in campaign to protest the militarization of the port, the editorial board also disapproved. We didn't ask for the battle to be brought to our home town. For years we urged our representatives to stop the militarization of our port, but the Port of Olympia insists on allowing our backyard to be used as a conduit for war operations in Iraq. We pledge to respond accordingly. As long as the road to Iraq goes through Olympia, we will be there to block it. The stakes are too high to wait for The Olympian to propose acceptable — and hence ineffective — methods of protest. The Olympian editorial board wants us to be held accountable for our actions, but it is precisely because we take accountability that we act. Those who fail to act should be held accountable for their complicity, and those who criticize us should exit the peanut gallery, take the stage and lead by example. The presence of military vehicles from Iraq reminds us that our small town has an effect on the rest of the world. We must decide what kind of effect it will be. Phan Nguyen is a longtime Olympia resident, an information technology specialist and a member of Olympia Port Militarization Resistance.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media. 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. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our Social Contract. You should also look at our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Olyblogger of the Month: Docents are fellow citizen journalists who volunteer to be at your service in order to help with any blog-related issues. They are: Rob RichardsInterests: community building; participatory art, democracy and economics; local politics; citizen journalism. emmettoconnell Interests: City Council, developing a local issues forum. enpen Interests: OlyBlog poster calendar, Olympia public art, local artist interviews, his family, poetry and stuff. Robert Whitlock Interests: peace, justice, nature, nonviolence, media, environment Rick Interests: citizen journalism, hyperlocal media, the knowledge commons. Docent email list Latest Classified Ads Books & Collections ›Blog Local Port of Olympia Action 
|
|
|
OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Awesome editorial, Phan!
Submitted by jlw on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 1:16pm.I'm pretty amused by the way the "peanut gallery" is going nuts with the puerile acronyms. I hope the teacher doesn't walk by and catch them at it.
Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo
Couple of Things
Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 2:28pm.99% to 1%? How did you figure this?
Has Krossman filed a complaint with the department?
Personally, I find the language describing a "few isolated incidents" to be intellectually dishonest even after following Phan's advice.
I suppose I don't have the same view as Phan.
Also, wouldn't a redirect to The Olympian's site have been more appropriate? Comments should have been disabled here and posted over there, in keeping with previous Olyblog cross-posts.
perhaps
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 2:40pm.I don't really see it as a matter of opinion. Violent acts by protesters were literally, isolated incidents. I don't know how one would prove otherwise unless you are going to argue that sitting in the street is violent, and a dictionary would disprove that quickly. If you ignore for a moment the argument of whether the violence was justified or not, the police did indeed use violence much more often than the protesters. 99 to 1 is likely an inaccurate ratio, but the point being made is that the police used more violence than the protesters did, and it is true.
Looks like Emmett and Mr.
Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 3:52pm.Looks like Emmett and Mr. Whitlock are already discussing it on the docent list. My opinion doesn't much matter but I'm with Emmett here.
I'm a firm believer in cause and effect. It's a compentecy that my kids know very, very well! I won't rehash what has already been said about the protests and PMR but I am interested in keeping those who have a differing view honest about it.
The police actions can be called into question if you engage them through the processes outlined by the department. I guess I'm just a bit tired of the public positioning and exoneration of protester violence by comparing the levels of violence used on both sides. It's OK, I'll get over it! Thanks for the banter.
I saw the op ed piece today
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 4:13pm.And figured someone would beat me to posting a link to it here. I'm pretty sure The O holds the copyright on it though. Is this fair use? I don't know, but it was fun to see another viewpoint expressed.
I'm gald the Olympian ran this
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 4:33pm.I agree it's a step in the right direction for the Zero
Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 5:00pm.I don't disagree with the spirit of your post
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 5:07pm.Oh, I see
Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 6:08pm.It feels so good to agree.
Let's think past the ends of our noses....
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 5:09pm.It was estimated that 300 people protested. Now if ALL of them were breaking windows, wouldn't there have been a whole lot more broken windows? How about half of them (150)? How about a quarter (75)? 10% (30)?
The only reports I heard of windows broken were on one building and I don't think that anyone actually said if there was more than one broken. If 30 people were breaking windows, I'd say there would have been one hell of a lot more damage than reported.
This always comes back to the same point - inflamatory rhetoric and anecdotes. The interesting part is that a story of abuse, even when documented on video, is questioned by those that would prefer that the war not be protested.
I thought the editorial was well written and I commend The Olympian for having the integrity to publish it.
As long as the road to Iraq
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 6:13pm.As long as the road to Iraq goes through Olympia, we will be there to block it. The stakes are too high to wait for The Olympian to propose acceptable — and hence ineffective — methods of protest.
And as long as you(Oly PMR) choose to take this route I'm sure the police will be there to meet you.
The Olympian editorial board wants us to be held accountable for our actions, but it is precisely because we take accountability that we act. Those who fail to act should be held accountable for their complicity, and those who criticize us should exit the peanut gallery, take the stage and lead by example.
Lead by example huh? I will make sure to call OPD during the next round of protests and ask if I can help out with one of the pepper-ball guns.
That's just great Norm
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 6:23pm.Who am I Jim?
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 6:43pm.Maybe the cops like mayhem
Submitted by Myrtle McFertile on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 9:26pm.Of course it was peaceful
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 10:46pm.Neighbor of mine
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 10:50pm.Who came back from Iraq says when his unit was shipping out and loading (not sure when) that they were given orders not to allow protesters to stop them. Says they were issued loaded weapons. I don't know if I believe this or not, it sounds far fetched but is interesting and plausible. I imagine there would have been rules of engagement if this were the case.
Now this is not a substantiated statement folks.
that was great: really tactful and respectful.
Submitted by Carmella on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 9:26pm.*Not starting arguments*
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 10:16pm.Look! I am so not starting arguments today. Nope, not me. Learned my lesson. Lalala.... well maybe some heated discussions, but...
It was brought here
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 10:15pm.I'm friggin' tired
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 10:19pm.And am really going to try and stay out of the fray on the port issue. I've avoided making at least a dozen posts today on it. Personally I think given some of the crap I've pulled of late I'm going to stay somewhat low key.
But... I may chime in if something really strikes me... (no pun intended)
I've tried to stay out lately as well
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 10:22pm.Of course
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 10:25pm."Most folks"
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 7:29pm.Obviously haven't looked at the same video footage that I did in The Olympian. There was no reason for some of the force that was used.
Now, before I become a "POOPSTER", someone please remember that I'm associated with several law enforcement officers.
My contention was, is and always will be - there are three sides to the story of the port protest and only one of them is the truth.
I'm too tired and bored with
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 8:44pm.Why haven't I heard of the Krossman claim until this moment? Why wasn't his story brought into play during the original discussions?
Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake
FWIW
Submitted by chaney on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 10:14am.Protesters breaking the law.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 11:04pm.Hague v CIO
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 11:10pm.This is interesting. I don't have time to fully read and study it tonight, but put it up for general consumption. This may warrant it's own thread.
Hague v CIO
I was at an event tonight
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 11:12pm.From what I see
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 11:14pm.It boils down to what "peaceful" means. I don't believe the issue of blocking vehicles has been addressed. From what I have read, merely marching in the streets would not be illegal. BUT, keep in mind vehicles were blocked. I'm not sure impeding the flow of traffic would be considered lawful.
I know, I know "illegal, immoral, etc..."
The Constitutional right is
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 8:19am.Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake
Oh but you're wrong
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 10:10am.This is all covered in Hague v. CIO. Security Six posted the link above.
Hague v. CIO
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 10:18am."Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the [307 U.S. 496, 516] streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied."
Blocking the streets for the
Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 10:31am.If you assemble in the
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 10:38am.I beleive the nature of the assemply matters
Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 10:52am.assembling to share views and discuss issues is not the same as simply blocking traffic for the sake of blocking traffic. One is protected and the other is not. The case you cite simply says local governments cannot enact laws or ordinances that abridge the right to assemble in public places. People are allowed to assemble in many places in Olympia even if it might block traffic. Enforcing pedestrian ordinances at the port gate or on freeway onramps isn't unconstitutional because there are many other public spaces in Olympia where people can assemble.
But using excessive force is unconstitutional.
hm
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 2:06pm.This is why I believe what happened in our port this fall is important. It's a tactic that hasn't been tried yet, it worked, and all people have to do is show up. It is easily transferable to other communities, is non-violent, and is effective.
The constitutional question isn't important though, in my opinion. What is important is that a new form of direct action is being used and is working, a network of port cities and town is being created and the tactics will be repeated in other places. We confuse things too much by focusing on the legalities, we should really just focus on throwing as much tea in the water as we possibly can.
Sure...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 2:32pm.Video Evidence
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 5:24pm.Would suggest the protesters positioned themselves in response to the truck with the military vehicles on it. You don't even have to look all that close to see it. They were out of the way, protesting peacefully and allowing non-military traffic through, when all of a sudden, they pushed their way into a gap between the two departing trucks. A human gate if you will where access was dictated by the load being carried.
I think a reason why the challenge will never make its way to a constitutional challenge is because lower courts would be so overwhelmingly against the action it's not been worth anybody's time to pursue it. My opinion here but I don't see any proof otherwise. Will Olympia's anti-military-port-use advocates attempt to be the first?
And just so I'm clear about the success of the short-term blockade - what was the success criteria? I think we all know where the vehicles are today.
Yes...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 5:34pm.Really Rob
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 10:00pm.The logic doesn't matter Norm.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 2:46am.These protests are going to cost somebody a lot of money. If it's more cost effective to stop using our port for military shipments then the shipments will stop at our port. Throwing tea in the water works, plain and simple.
Yeah, but it only works if
Submitted by smws on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 3:31pm.Honestly Rob
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 4:13pm.Part of me hopes you are right. It's the less spiteful part of me too :)
On a side note, did anyone see the video clip of the truck driving over protesters? They think he just got spooked and lost control, but it was incredibly disturbing. I can't find the clip now (I saw it on Friday) but I think it was out of the south pacific somewhere. I feel bad that I can't remember the area now.
It was some where in Taiwan.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 5:00pm.That somebody
Submitted by security_six on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 10:12pm.Is you and me. This is costing the taxpayers money.
I would hardly liken this to the Boston Tea Party. NOW, if you had tried other means, including legal action to stop this war, I would say yes. However, there are still options on the table. You will recall the colonists did every peaceable and legal thing they could before they started dumping tea.
I'm curious when this "illegal" war will be challenged in court. Surely this "cause" must have enough people behind it to do this?
So far I have not seen much organization on the antiwar front anywhere. It's easy to storm the streets for a few days and blog. Much harder to take other actions. It's stil a weak movement.
It's still a weak movement.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 10:51pm.It's still a weak movement.
Yes, it is. I've got some of the most vicious criticisms of the peace movement, having participated in it myself.
But we must also acknowledge the situation the peace movement is in. Weakness and strength are relative - the relation is determined by one's own strength as well as that of one's opponent.
The peace movement is, for the most part, a ragtag collection of about every kind of person you could meet in our country. Business people, college students, janitors, moms of soldiers, office workers, people of faith, radicals... a lot of people who don't have a lot in common.
AND they're trying to take on the Bush Administration. Imagine David and Goliath when David is actually twenty different people, each holding part of the sling.
The problem is that we have no leverage on Bush. It's taken years to leverage Congress into action, but they don't have any real leverage over Bush either. Any action they take against the war will lead to a veto. Recently, they've tried inaction: refusing to pass a war funding bill until Bush agrees to a timeline. But Bush has made it clear that he's willing to mortgage the Pentagon (figuratively speaking) to pay for the war.
What can you do?
Note: I for one am in favor of direct action. A General Strike could end the war in weeks. But the peace movement has got to build real credibility and real, rock-solid relationships across a whole lot of cultural lines before anything like a General Strike could be organized. I don't think that divisive actions like some of the activities at the Port help with this.
The Canaanite's Call
If you are bored...
Submitted by security_six on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 10:56pm.