Please contact the DNC about their convention in Boston!!

I was appalled when I learned that the Democrats hired John Timoney for secuirity for their upcoming convention in boston.John Timoney has a reputation of excessive violence against protesters.He over saw the carnage at the Republican Convention at Philly in 2000 and more recently the FTAA protests in Miami.I know you guys are probably thinkin whocares its just Freepers but no unions might pickett it, global justice movement activists are too and the American Friends Service Comittee is planning to hold teach ins.Flashbacks of miami came to me images of police firing on peacful protesters and a story i heaard of the union members who were harassed.John Timoney is a bully with a badge the freepers had a thread saying they wanted to make him the official cop of freeperville Please take some time to contact the DNC to let them know that John Timoney is a fascist pig.
Link to commentary on Timoneys Bully Behavior
http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/80112
Link to thread were freepers are gaga over him
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027640/posts
Links to show info on counter demos and picketting
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-convention-union-pickets,0,520174.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/02/23/8278335
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/nyregion/23boston.html?ex=1078808400&en=aa8551b10ed4e67c&ei=5070

Mailing Address:

Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Main Phone Number:

202-863-8000
Email
http://www.democrats.org/contact/

Is it true?

And why do I suspect this news makes you happy?

not the DNC. If the city puts him in charge of security, how is this the DNC's call?

I'm sure there are just as many people on the inside who are unhappy with Timmy as there are on the outside, but it doesn't seem to me that Kerry and the boys can be held responsible for this one.

I have to admit I may have missed something in the thread so if there is verification that the DNC is behind this hiring, forgive me my error. I just don't think it's a good idea to be unclear about stuff like this.

Timoney sucks.

Timony now has a full-time job as police chief for the city of Miami. Are you sure that he is still working for the DNC?

...
"We asked him to come up to Boston today to give us some information about what to expect," Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said.
...
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/democraticconvention/1797909/detail.html

IMHO, it appears that he will NOT be running security in Boston, but it also appears that whomever will be running security is taking advice from him.

:kick:

Demonstrations by permit.

It does not seem that there is a problem.

Granted the Security very near the meeting will not allow anything (the nearest venue is a block away) but what is the problem - what was planned that will have a problem?

To get destruction and violence on TV there will have to be marching without a parade permit and demonstrators breaking things - and I believe that they can handle 5000 into cells with no problem if that breaks out and cells are needed. Perhaps one can't do a Seatle, but one can demonstrate.

And this is Boston, the nightly news will be filed with protestor speeches. No need to scream when you are going to be heard.

There is no legitimate reason for protest of any sort, by anyone but a reactionary or a person hoping to assist reactionaries, at the Democratic Party convention. Protest efforts by left and progressive persons should be directed at the enemy, the Republicans at New York in September.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

:-)

I think if Kerry is seriously ahead of * in the polls, which I suspect he will be, there is a real risk of an assassination attempt on him by some crazed Puke. Why shouldn't we protect ourselves and our candidate to the hilt?

I believe it will be at the venue closest to the Fleet convention Center rather than the Common - but I understand via the Police Dept statement where they say "protesters have a right to be seen and heard" that the Dept is talking to various groups who want info before they take out the permits.

all that progressive and will be there in Boston in full force. I am on mailing lists and they are making plans just like they are for the GOP convention. Don't forget the massive protests in LA for the DEM convention for the last election. Contrary to popular belief DEM types are NEVER the ones running these protests, DEMS are usually the ones telling their friends please don't participate because they are run by "commies" and they make us look bad etc. I personally don't have any interest in protesting the DEM convention this year since I plan to vote for Kerry.

It is no secret there are left elements who consider the Democratic Party to be the enemy. The only difficulty with that is, at least to the limited degree these splinter elements have any effect on affairs at all, their efforts tend to assist the worst elements of reaction in our polity, grouped under the banner of the Republican Party. The inability of these splinterist wreckers to see and understand this raises grave questions concerning their level of political awareness, and the soundness of their judgement.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

generalizations are not becoming to your fair and rational manner.

I will be in Boston in July so have taken a special interest in the Groups/Orgs who'll be 'protesting' the day of the convention.

The Leftist fringe is hardly the term i'd use to describe an Org that represents the poor and homeless. Is it wrong of them to want to their plight to be recognized by the Party? Btw, the above mentioned Org will be attending the Republican convention as well, and on a much grander scale. There they will be erecting 'Bush' tent cities. No such action is planned for the Democratic convention.

The protests you describe as planned for the Republican convention sound striking and useful.

If the demontrations planned for Boston by the group you mention maintain a similar aim as well, they might be beneficial also. The fact is that the Republicans control all branches of the national government, and therefore bear the responsibility for anything that is amiss in the nation which governance can influence. There is no reason demonstrations at Boston cannot denounce Republicans.

The point is simple to me, Ma'am. Evicting the criminals of the '00 Coup from office is essential to our people and our country and the world. Every possible vote must be mobilized toward this end if success is to be achieved. Therefore all fire from the left must be directed at the criminals of the '00 Coup, and none at any other target. No possible target is quite so bad as that one; no progress can possibly be made before those reptiles are broken. Effective blows are struck with a closed fist, not spread fingers.

"There will be a holiday in our street soon!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Why are you so anxious to condemn the "criminals of the'00 Coup"? .. and NO ONE ELSE? What have they done that is so egregious to your fine sensibilities, my Lord?

Is one such atrocity the establishment of FREE SPEECH ZONES, which plays along with the stripping of a basic American FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

Dissent, my dear Sir, is non-Partisan. It is the voice of a free people. Either Party who proposes to stifle the voice of dissent from a FREE PEOPLE should bear the label, "Criminals of Freedom", not just your brand of "the "00 Coup".

Convention plan puts protesters blocks away
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 2/20/2004

Protesters at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Boston may be confined to a cozy triangle of land off Haymarket Square, blocked off from the FleetCenter and convention delegates by a maze of Central Artery service roads, MBTA train tracks, and a temporary parking lot holding scores of buses and media trucks.

Under a preliminary plan floated by convention organizers, the "free-speech zone" would be a small plot bounded by Green Line tracks and North Washington Street, in an area that until recently was given over to the elevated artery. The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July.

"The area looks a little silly, to be honest with you," said Urszula Masny-Latos, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild's Massachusetts chapter. "People will not be able to express their concerns with whatever will be happening, because no one will have access to delegates. No one will be heard, and the area is just too small."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/20/convention_plan_puts_protesters_blocks_away?mode=PF

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-02.htm

Oh, and John Kerry, the famous war protestor who demanded his comrades (not he) be allowed to sleep on the Mall in DC, will go along with this. Yes he will. (Ditto his Party.) The right to dissent died in 1974, didn't it?

that the protesters in Chicago in 1968 virtually handed that election to Nixon?

Maybe because The Magistrate read--as I did--the 2000 Outside magazine interview with far-leftie hero Ralph Nader, the interview in which he said that if he had to vote that day he'd vote for Bush, in which he admitted he was deliberately attempting to throw the election to Bush, and further stated that his next goal was to unseat Senators Wellstone and Feingold?

Maybe because The Magistrate believes--as I do--that too many of you are either (a) trying, as Nader is doing once again, to ensure *'s re-selection, or (b) are virtually tone deaf politically?



(edit for the inevitable typo)

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
- George Washington

... and don't care to be treated as sheep.

ps.. the "protesters" have less power than the media. If anyone is going to be handing off an election, blaming the "protesters" is very misguided. If protesters had that much power, we would live in a very different country.

the election was hijacked by Henry Kissinger. See "The Trials of Henry Kissinger". As usual, people feel a need to blame those "terrible protesters"
You might try looking at Mayor Daley's actions while you are at it. Chicago '68 was what is called a "police riot".
But no, gotta blame those hippie protesters. bla

but I demonstrated against Nixon and never against my fellow Dems. Nice stereotyping, though.

not stereotyping, just being sarcastic.

If Kissinger hadn't torpedoed the peace talks (covertly working for Nixon) Humphrey most likely would have won
(one of the closest elections in history).

I can't understand why people can never look at the people with the real power and influence. They even tried to blame the "killing fields" on the war protests. Just another attack on the left.
I'm just so tired of it all. It seems to never end.

Would be a tedious recitation here, though seizing power in despite of the people's expressed will at the polls alone ought to suffice for the title. That is more than enough to offend my tender sensibilities, Sir, and to raise these reptiles to a league of infamy unparalleled in the history of our Democracy. It surprises me, Sir, to discover you do not find that an extraordinary degree of criminality, worthy of a singular focus, and with a prior call on all efforts those who love the country and the people can make at this juncture.

Your comment concerning "dissent" is stirring, but meaningless. As in Harlan County of the song, there are no neutrals here. Whether a partisan intent exists is immaterial to the calculation of whether or not an effect beneficial to one side or the other can be expected to flow from the action contemplated. Demonstrations in Boston aimed at the Democratic Party will have an effect that benefits the criminals of the '00 Coup, by exacerbating tensions between left elements, and center-left and center elements of the Party's coalition, and by presenting a spectacle of dis-unity that will discourage waverers in the undecided center and even center-right from joining the bloc of opposition to the criminals of the '00 Coup, for those people would find the aspect of a unified bloc much more enticing than the spectacle of a squabbling brawl.

Demonstrations in Boston, or for that matter, New York, aimed at the criminals of the '00 Coup would have a beneficial effect in this regard. Such demonstrations would allow to reach the news and public discourse charges against the criminals of the '00 Coup of a virulence that mainstream political figures cannot make, but that many people will agree with in their hearts on hearing them, and such demonstrations would reinforce the perception of a unified bloc in opposition, ranging from the wild ones in the streets to the suited elders in the hall, that would be enticing to those as yet undecided in their allegiance, and who will want to be on the side that wins. As not even the most radical seriously maintain there is no degree of difference at all, and recognize that even if both parties are soiled the one is more deeply stained than the other, it is not clear to me why there should be any difficulty in applying elementary fire discipline, and engaging the most dangerous of the targets first, with all energy available, and shifting to a less threatening target only after the first and most dangerous has been neutralized.

"One war at a time is about all we can comfortably handle."

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

don't think the Democrats should allow protests against themselves, while advancing said freedom of speech toward the "criminals" you cite. My question to you was, WHAT makes THEM the criminals and the Democrats who voted along WITH them not?

Your answer would make me think that you believe the one who comes up with the plan is more guilty than the one who actually carries out the plot. Is that what you believe?

As far as seizing power despite the people's will, Democrats have been instructed to quit crying about that one and move along. Continuing to deny the People's voice seems to be the solution to the original defective hearing.

My question remains unanswered.

Persons of left and progresive views with any degree of political awareness and common sense ought to see that no good purpose would be served by demonstrations against the Democratic Party, while some good purpose would be served by such against the Republican Party, and conduct themselves accordingly. The question of whether or not they ought to be permitted is a false one; they cannot be prevented, but ought not to be undertaken.

Responsibility for an act rests with those who conceive, press, and execute it, and no others. The invasion of Iraq is thus the sole responsibility of the criminals of the '00 Coup, and of no others. It would have occured regardless of any vote in the Legislature, as deployment of military forces is, as our system currently operates, completely under the control of the Executive. Why you would wish to make excuses for these reactionary reptiles, in effect coming to their defense and urging they should not bear responsibility and blame for their mis-deeds, is beyond me; it is hardly worthy conduct for a leftist to make excuses for the crimes of reactionaries. A thorough-going Leninist would have no qualms in asserting a person who does so is an agent in fascist pay, and no leftist at all.

Your forlorn little exercise in sound-bite distortion reveals again the apparent limits of your understanding in these matters. There is certainly a point where an accomplished fact must be recognized, and effort concentrated not on fruitless complaint, but on gathering strrength for action at an appropriate opportunity to reverse it. That opportunity has now come. You are simply complaining still, and proposing to act in a manner that will benefit the criminals of the '00 Coup, which rather undercuts your posture of complaint that some other is not sufficiently against them. People back themselves into such odd postures as that when their leading concern is demonstrating the purity of their commitment to ideal, rather than concrete effect in the political process.

"In politics and war, only what is simple can succeed."

"Think of it always; speak of it never."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

take from your comments an unspoken inference that because these people would be "enemies" of the Democratic party that it would be OK to hire a Gestapo thug to "deal" with them.

How sad!

I certainly hope that most Democrats don't think this way. If they do, I should probably get my passport in order now.

You might begin with simply reading the plain text before you, and restraining yourself from indulging in fantasias of victimization. You cannot expect everyone to agree with you; you cannot expect those who do not to refrain from expressing their disagreement as forcefully and persuasively as they can manage; you cannot expect to silence those who express disagreement with you by hyperbolic language invoking Nazis.

It is also noted that you do not address the substance of the comments in any way. Persons who take the Democratic Party for the target of their attacks in an election year are indeed enemies, and not friends, of that Party. Their efforts can have no effect but to increase, however slightly, the chances of success for the Republican Party, and the criminals of the '00 Coup. That these attacks may be launched from a left position makes no difference; their effect is to aid the worst elements of reaction in our polity, which strikes me as a damned odd way to demonstrate the strength of one's attachment to left principles.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

trying to silence you or anyone, Magistrate. I am though, puzzled over why you felt the need discuss the demonstrators whoever they may be, in terms of their loyalty to "our cause". The original post clearly was addressing the possible involvement of a thug-like character with a history of perpetrating violence against demonstrators. It seems to me that by avoiding this and focusing on how the demonstrators have no legitimate reason to demonstrate and are "enemies" of the Democratic party, one could infer that you were legitimizing Timoney's involvement.
And yes, he can reasonably be compared to a Gestapo thug.

The man is simply abhorrent. Did you see the interview with him on NOW last week in which he accused the interviewer of "bias" by simply asking him about many of the reports of excessive force that came out of the FTAA protests in Miami?

What does matter to me is any effort made that will have the effect of damaging the Democratic Party at the polls in November. Persons who demonstrate at Boston to attack the Party will have that effect; persons who demonstrate at Boston to attack the Republicans from a more radical perspective than a Democratic nominee would be well advised to do would be of benefit at the polls in November.

As for your parting shot, Sir, you would be well advised to familiarize yourself in greater detail with the actual practices of that organization. Hyperbole is generally a very poor method of carrying a point; it runs a great risk of provoking mere derision, and a conviction the utterer of the trope is blinded by passion, which will prevent any chance of the hearer being moved to assent if that is not already present.

"Kill one, wan one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

on two different tracks. I haven't addressed your concerns over the effects on the Convention and the November election that demonstrations in Boston or NY might have. I could get into that discussion and it would probably be lively, for I don't think we would see it the same way. However, what I was addressing was the subject of the original post which I guess could be called a civil rights issue.
It is not unreasonable, I don't think, to feel a sense of alarm when the term "enemy" is used in the context of a discussion about crowd control. Certainly history demonstrates that this term is often used to justify repression or even violence. The "reptile" (a good description) has a legacy of violence.

But as I said, we are obviously talking about different issues. I have avoided actually expressing my opinion on whether there is a legitimate reason to protest in Boston and you have not said whether you believe Timoney's type of crowd control methods should be questioned.

P.S. I'll drop the Gestapo reference here and just refer to the man as a dangerous thug.

People ought to be able to march where they damned well please, although, pleasant as the sound of breaking glass may be, they ought to go easy on shop-windows, and dis-obeying police orders is a mug's game; you will come out on the worst end of that stick, and to expect anything else is foolish.

It is not, however, a matter of much concern to me if persons who mean to do something that will bring benefit to the worst elements of reaction in this election find difficulty in gaining publicity and support for their actions. The more limited the scope of such action, the better for all concerned. There is a great difference between the proposition that persons have a right to do something, and the proposition that that something is the right and beneficial thing to do.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

This is not one of those cases.

People ought to be able to march where they damned well please, although, pleasant as the sound of breaking glass may be, they ought to go easy on shop-windows, and dis-obeying police orders is a mug's game; you will come out on the worst end of that stick, and to expect anything else is foolish.

Often times, the attacks on private businesses are the work of a small group (I've seen them referred to as the "black bloc", because they dress from head to toe in black; not sure how accurate this is), and in a few instances, the work of agents provacateur.

As for "disobeying police orders," in at least some cases, it is physically impossible to not disobey police orders. Like when they order you to leave an area, but refuse to let you (see DC September / October 2002).

I should note that I am going to be at the Boston convention for the duration, so I do have a first-hand stake in this matter.

There may be provocateurs at work, though there are certainly some radicals enchanted by violence as well, but it is the business of the organizers and the body of a demonstration to keep such elements in check. Political awareness and self-discipline are essentials for success in all spheres of political action.

Police indeed are not always fair, and sometimes are looking to gas and crack heads. There really is not much that can be done about that, and people need to bear the possibility in mind when embarking on a demonstration. One must always make an informed calculation of risk against gain before acting. Put bluntly, it is my conviction nothing is to be gained by protesting against the Democratic Party at Boston, and therefore no risk whatever is worth bearing to do so. Some gain might flow from protests aimed directly at the criminals of the '00 Coup in that venue, however, and for that some risk may be worth while.

"Revolution is not a tea party."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

in all the posts of yours I've read I _believe_ that his is the first time I've ever seen a word mis-spelled!!!!!

Mr. Twain once said he had no respect for a man who could only spell a word one way, and it is far too late to edit....

Be well, Mr. Ray!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

they deserved it, right? People have no business peacefully protesting the Democrats, because after all they're the Good Guys and ipso facto can do no wrong.

I'd spend a little more time on that, were I you. (Or maybe I wouldn't)

glad I'm not the only one more than a bit unnerved by some this!
WTF?
:scared::scared::scared:

sir. :) And it would stand to reason that disruptive demonstrations will be orchestrated by the GOP fronting as or using Nader/Green/leftists.

American Friends Service Committee and other Peace Groups talked about how they were infiltrated by undercover terrorist police, one of whom wanted to get 'physical' during the protests. I hate to be paranoid but I'm sure as the election approaches the Repukes will hire as many agitators as possible to discredit both the Left and the Democrats.

http://www.pbs.org/now/

It's scary as hell...

The question is not who backs demonstrations, but who will benefit from the demonstration. In this situation, the only beneficiary of demonstrations against the Democratic Party will be the worst elements of reaction in our polity, grouped under the standard of the Republican Party. Disunity on the left will benefit only these reptiles, and no one else. Those who foment such disunity on the left, from whatever motive, are in fact simply operating as a left auxiliary of the reactionaries, and cooperating with their efforts to depress turn-out to the polls hostile to them. In a system so constructed as is ours, what harms one of the major parties must benefit the other. Persons who cannot see this are unsuited to political action; they have an insufficient grasp of political reality, and can only do harm, never good.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Funny how some qualify their statements by distinguishing between disruptive and non-disruptive protesters, while others ignore all qualifications in order to paint an ugly picture.

Maybe that's why their arguments can't even fill up the subject line of their post

in Miami, just ask the AFLCIO.

and that's who you were replying to and implying that NewYorkerfromMass called Quakers "disruptive"

peacfully and they would not get hurt tas they were peacfully leaving BAM BAM BAM BAM out come the rubber bullets and pepperspray.I was in Miami for the FTAA protests i saw several other examples of unproveked police brutality under timoneys leadership so enough of the crap

:eyes:

(but that does not surprise me)

Should we set up "Magistrate-Approved(tm)" first-amendment zones too?

After all, We Democrats have nothing to be ashamed of, or protested, since we are the good guys, right?

Sheesh, your post is disturbing...

RL

..that they are no better than the Repukes. Free speech should be encouraged. Even if the 'Pukes want to picket outside the convention, they should be allowed, just as Democrats picketing their convention should be. We know that the Bush Fraudministration has all but destroyed freedom of speech with their Orwellian named "free speech zones". We damn sure don't have to allow our party to play the same shitty game.

their con last time

that Timoney was hired when it's already been pointed out that Timoney was NOT hired

Timoney wan't hired by the DNC. The guy the DNC hired had Timoney come in and give advice. It's not even certain that Timoney's advice will be followed.

IMO, Timoney shouldn't even be giving advice, but I think the critics willingness to exagerrate the situation is an indication of their integrity. If it's so bad to take advice from him, then they would make that case, and not exagerrate and say Timoney was hired

nobody has been able to find out more. I've been trying for months to find further information. This is the first story I've seen that mentions Timoney's involvement. He is a consultant, it remains to be seen if will be involved further. He says there will most likely be Federal agents involved. I would venture to say the "Miami Model" and Timoney's input will be an influence.
It goes beyond Timoney, these things are approved further up. There are new models of crowd control that are being tested across the country.

role Timoney will have.

But the mere fact that he was asked to advise is repulsive and a black mark against the DNC. He should be in the dock somewhere, being tried for felony assault and civil-rights violations.

the fact that he was consulted at all should send up a flag. What we really need to be watching is the new mindset for crowd control which appears to be being adopted to various degrees all over America. Timoney has been the major 'hatchet man' no doubt because he's a Wily thug with a lot of experience.
There is a lot more to this though and it seems we better pay close attention.
It would be great if the DNC, Kerry or somebody would take the extra steps to make sure 'crowd control' is exercised with restraint and with strict adherence to the Constitution and civil rights.

that Timoney's involvement, in ANY capacity, is unwanted and bears monitoring. However, unmentioned in either you of Mairead's post is the way this info is being twisted in order to make it seem more ominous than it really is.

Don't you think our ability to monitor and respond reasonably and effectivelt to events like this is undermined by distortions to the facts?

before taking decisions. Who would ever say otherwise?

who insist on repeating bogus info

Just a consultant? Oh, good, because fascists-once-removed are so much better in the long run.

:eyes:

thanks, I needed a good laugh.

:toast:

But try to exagerrate again. Practice makes perfect

I'd be interested to know.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/democraticconvention/1797909/detail.html

Timoney wasn't paid for his advice

-comment removed

People get paid for it.

Advice can be free.

.

try again

we're losing track here. I never said he was, my concern is his involvement. I realize the original post mentions the DNC and that was the story months ago. It's been next to impossible to find out anything more until this recent article. I am not here to make up stories, but to try to find out the facts.

As I said earlier, the DNC would be well advised to pay attention to how demonstrators are treated.

Has anyone who wrote to the DNC about this heard anything? I haven't. Inquiring minds want to know.

I share as well as having a concern about the Dems being blamed for everything that happens, and a few things that don't.

and some of the folks who I think are planning security. I will point out that the NY convention will have massive protests. If the Dems honor free speech, show a willingness for inclusiveness, allows dissent, then that will show a powerful contrast to what I think will happen in NY. If we use the same tactics as the GOP, then folks will now see any difference in the parties and will fear disruptors and change. It's critical that the protests are handled well. And that means allowing them to be heard like Clinton did when he was protested in Greece.

How are we supposed to suoport the idea that we are different from the GOp on vivil librties when we adopt the same practices as the otehr side?

By assertion, of course. I mean, the ethical purity of the Dems is self-evident, isn't it? Perceiving any resemblance between the GOP and the Dems is the sign of a counter-revolutionary fascist lackey who's either lying or having a psychotic break.

Furrfu!

My husband and I ( a former 1000+ poster,here) took some time off to wander about with our camcorder at the ready back then. Nada. Zilch.

Sorry. Top Cop Tim is OK with us.

You must not be from around PHILLY or come in to our town to dine or see shows, or enjoy the opera at the Kimmel Center all with late night exits where Philly PD does their job.

I don't buy it. I know someone very well who was arrested and held in jail for the terrible crime of making puppets before the RNC. A stroll downtown does not substitute for being informed. Your "Tim" is a fascist thug.

www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2004/01/186.shtml

Timoney used preemptive raids of activist spaces (three in Philadelphia) to seize free speech material—signs, banners, leaflets, puppets, etc.—and to arrest people

Phila City Paper 8/15/02  http://www.r2klegal.org/media/cp-081502.html

Phila City Paper 9/21/00  http://citypaper.net/articles/092100/cs.covside.puppet.shtml

Phila Independent Media 7/21/00  http://www.phillyimc.org/articles/00/07/21/191205.shtml

· Timoney and his force used bail hearings to demonize activists which resulted in excessively high bails—averaging $30,000 but including some at $500,000 and $1 million

Phila Inquirer 8/4/00  http://www.r2klegal.org/media/pi-080400.html

· Timoney was the star witness in an RNC felony trial in which activist Matt Berghs was accused of tripping a police officer with a long stick. Despite Timoney's testimony, a jury acquitted Berghs of all charges. Additionally, the trial revealed that not only was Berghs unlawfully arrested, but he was beaten in the process

Phila City Paper 3/29/01  http://www.r2klegal.org/media/cp-032901.html
Phila Inquirer 3/16/01  http://www.r2klegal.org/media/pi-031601.html

· The city of Philadelphia acquired an insurance policy covering itself and Timoney's police department for liability of a host of civil rights violations including, "false arrest," "assault," and "malicious prosecution"
Insurance policy (pdf)  http://www.r2klegal.org/r2klegal/ins-1stpolicy01.html
Phila City Paper 9/27/01  http://www.r2klegal.org/media/cp-092701.html

· Timoney and his force avoided the use of tear gas and rubber bullets but was not afraid to violently assault activists
Village Voice 8/3/00  http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0031/dubya9.php

· Timoney used surveillance and infiltration to target known organizers and communications people for arrest regardless of their actions

Phila Inquirer 8/4/00  http://www.r2klegal.org/media/pi-080400.html

· Timoney used buzzwords like "anarchists," "violence," and "property destruction" to create a climate of public fear of activists in an attempt to justify excessive police force and mass arrests

Washington Post 8/4/00  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2000/whitehouse/conventions/gop/archive/A39824-2000Aug4.html

Excerpt from, "Police State Targets the Left" by Jim Redden  http://r2klegal.org/media/jr-022101.html
· The flagrant abuse of people's civil rights by Timoney and his police force prompted numerous civil suits

Phila City Paper 8/15/02  http://www.r2klegal.org/media/cp-081502.html

Phila Daily News 7/5/02  http://www.r2klegal.org/media/pdn-070502.html
..more..

I missed the "carnage," too, and I'm from the Philadelphia area. Timoney was not bad when he was here. This "fascist" bit is nonsense.

That said, the Republican convention was out of control when it comes to civil liberties, but it's the whole mood in the country that is at fault, not Timoney. That's what people WANT from law enforcement these days. Timoney is a hired hand.

Timoney has been hired about a year ago as the chief of police for the city of Miami. That is a full-time job, which likely doens't allow for outside consulting work.

All the candidates, All our Senators and Representative, All local Democratic organizations, Sen. Kerry's' election committed, EVERYONE.
If you had a chance to see Now w/ Bill Moyers last week you know that this man is a VERY DANGEROUS FASCIST.

all this effort will do is make us look like a bunch of uniformed boobs.

How about contacting the DNC in support of giving Dennis Kucinich the opportunity to speak at the convention.

Shutting out Dennis, silencing his message, and ignoring the fact that he represents the voices of countless Americans, is far more significant than some a bully security guy,

and far more damaging to dems in general.

What is your source of info for this?

They will be running the show.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

pretending to be lefty radicals. They will be there to create another 1968 Chicago situation.

Will their heads be bashed? Should they?

Maybe they should think about going a few hundred miles south...to the RNC

Helps us with twenty-percenters (swing voters) by affording us the chance to say, "If Kerry were a Massachussetts left wing nut, they wouldn't be protesting us."