Why has the WH not come out against OWS Violence???

Okay, i have to ask it...

The president was IN the BAY AREA yesterday, he had every chance to speak on the stuff brewing in Oakland.
But Oakland is just the police state raising the bar one more notch .
So by the time the next big crackdown happens or the next violent act by the police state occurs - we will be de-sensitized.
In fact, i bet that is part of the long term plan all along...if they let something drag out long enough and the violence becomes a daily happening, then we tune it out like so much background noise...

i hate to think of our POTUS as one of the cogs in the system when it comes to this. But his silence is beginning to disturb me.

and i also have to add that i am feeling like there's a racial element to the crackdowns in these cities like oakland and baltimore. but I could be wrong...

seriously, if anyone has heard a statement or has proof that our pres is NOT condoning this shit, please show me!
otherwise, if he is just letting the 'local' governments handle this on their own...it is the beginning of a disturbing pattern...

Why hasn't the Mayor of the city said anything?

I think the first thing would be to fire the police chief.

there will be no discipline on the police...


no, it is a precedent, and we are going to start seeing this in other cities as well

and the mayors/governors are really just watching this happen
it's under orders from the police state
it's coming from above

...and the silence is deafening. Obama can say he feels our pain all he wants, and say that the only way to get change is to demand it of our leaders...

but when we begin to recognize the leaders are part of the problem, and say as much, the bigger guns will come out, and our most progressive of leaders will turn their backs.

Would you have liked George Bush "weighing in" and pushing the decision-making process to his liking, on your governor, your mayor, your city council?

It's not his business.

The source document is our Constitution.

Remember those? Or was that another George W. Bush?

You may not like it, but it's the truth. We don't have prohibition anymore, but we do have DRY counties in the USA. Why? Because the people, the voters, in those counties VOTE for it.

If there are laws on the books in communities that limit how, when and where people may assemble, to include getting permits, staying on the sidewalk, what-have-you, the reason they are there is because the VOTERS PUT THEM THERE.

No God From On High came down and "decreed," these regulations came about as a result of democratically elected representatives voting to implement these laws--and they did it years ago. They aren't "New Rules."

If you are mad at NYC or any other municipality for "cracking down," the fault, if you want to call it that, is in the laws of the municipality. Some municipalities, like Boston, are, for now, choosing to decline to enforce the laws, but they are still there, on the books, if they choose to use them.

This isn't a "free speech zones" issue. That was a crowd control device invented by the Secret Service to facilitate presidential safety and security and make their lives easier.

The rules--like it or not, and damn you do NOT want to shoot the messenger, here--are on the books in the cities and municipalities in question, and they were put there by the legislative process, courtesy of the "We, The People" who live there.

the President can weigh in on the violence and disapprove of it and send a message to the communities and the protestors. He is being asked the wrong question. They ask him if he is in support of the Occupy protests and he answers - he feels for them and can empathize with them. He needs to be asked if he condones the actions of the police that are wrecking havoc on the protestors. I'm curious as to why he hasn't been asked that question nor why he hasn't weighed in on this violence by the local police. There is no excuse for this to be happening in America. I wonder how many of those Occupy protestors actually served their country and fought for the right to protest? Now they are getting gassed and getting their heads bashed in and their property destroyed. This is really sad.

then that's what he'll be expected to do on a continuous basis. Every kitten up a tree, it'll be "What does Obama say?"

We have mayors and governors for a reason. It's not the job of Obama to be King Daddy over every altercation that happens in this nation, or comment on how mayors or governors manage their areas of responsibility.

Also, the minute he pipes up, OWS becomes identified as a "Democratic" organization. Do you really want to alienate half the country from this cause? I sure as hell don't. That's the quickest way for the fat cats to kill it.

Leave the President OUT of this. This is a grassroots thing, that should bubble up from the people to the LEGISLATIVE process, resulting in new laws.

The only time the President needs to weigh in is when he signs the new legislation.

The kind another two presidents got involved in...and given OPD is under...federal control, this rises above just municipal dust off.

Somebody is asleep at the switch.


http://atlantapost.com/2011/06/07/obama-and-department-of-justice-cracks-down-on-police-brutality/

we have a winner! that's what I mean... i understand this is a 'local' issue on the ground...BUT...when it is happening in multiple cities and escalating, the PRES has a responsibility to say something, IMO

It's not the time for him to pipe up now. The GOP would use his comments to crush the movement to their advantage.

then it's not states rights anymore?

The President of the United State SHOULD speak out against it.

It is definitely his business. These are AMERICANS being attacked.

He can't do the Every Little Sparrow thing. He is not the mayor of every city or the governor of every state. He's not Jesus. Or Muhamad....or any deity of your choosing.

You should read his speech on the subject.

Eisenhower's action there doesn't support your position here.

In fact, just the opposite:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6335/

-----
Now, let me make it very clear that Federal troops are not being used to relieve local and state authorities of their primary duty to preserve the peace and order of the community. Nor are the troops there for the purpose of taking over the responsibility of the School Board and the other responsible local officials in running Central High School. The running of our school system and the maintenance of peace and order in each of our States are strictly local affairs and the Federal Government does not interfere except in a very few special cases and when requested by one of the several States. In the present case the troops are there, pursuant to law, solely for the purpose of preventing interference with the orders of the Court.

The proper use of the powers of the Executive Branch to enforce the orders of a Federal Court is limited to extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Manifestly, such an extreme situation has been created in Little Rock. This challenge must be met and with such measures as will preserve to the people as a whole their lawfully-protected rights in a climate permitting their free and fair exercise. The overwhelming majority of our people in every section of the country are united in their respect for observance of the law—even in those cases where they may disagree with that law.
------

that it's thrown out the window when the best or only way to get what they want is through federal action, like Bush v. Gore.

Likewise, their love of Laissez-faire goes out the window when they need them some Wall Street bailout, or want to suck on the taxpayer teat by privatizing some government function, and on and on.

I get kind of suspicious of people here that try to tell us what CAN'T be done--give some creative solutions of what CAN be done if you don't like what someone else proposes.

What is being criticized in this thread is a perception that President Obama - one guy with a defined government role - should be doing something about what is happening in Oakland.

At the end of the day, President Obama is one federal government official. He does not run the City of Oakland and he does not command its police force.

Democracy is a form of self-government by the people. This notion of "Obama should do this" or "Obama" should do that, is not democracy.

The point of a mass demonstration is a mass demonstration. Have you ever thought about why it is called a "demonstration" and just what is being "demonstrated"?

What is being demonstrated is the number and commitment of a large group of people to the expression of certain ideas, and their willingness to do so against intense opposition and hardship if necessary.

Obama can't do that.

public opinion more than government interceding in defense of the demonstrators--if the public sees it.

I know the Occupy movement is getting a fair amount of coverage on NPR. I don't know about commercial TV because I gave up on it between 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War.

Do you have something further to say about Little Rock and Eisenhower?

Or are you saying those kids were rich?

rights legislation that gave him room to slide in there--because the governor was disobeying federal law.

There's no framework to allow feds in there, there is no systemic issue or defiance of federal acts/laws (a single violation, even two, three, or more, don't cut it)--and if you really want federal interference in these demos, it will not be the kind you like, I don't think. It'll be more along the lines of the President calling the governors and letting the NG tip in there. Not a good idea.

And, from that perspective, what he was doing was putting down a bunch of protesters with military force.

Lawfully.

answerable to Obama, is very much involved in the repression of the Occupy movement.

All the domestic enforcement agencies "share."

It's still not appropriate for Obama to own this movement. That makes it partisan.

People need to stop fighting the police and get the focus back on JOBS, economic inequality, the greed of the wealthy, and corporate excess/inequal distribution of the burden. The rich get richer, the middle class is disappearing. That's where the focus needs to be, not on playing capture the flag in parks with tents.

The more fighting the cops that happens, the happier the GOP is.

Nixon, 68, all over again....

he has no moral duty to those who are shot, beaten or maced?

Come on, it's a federal - state thing.

He can't do it. Unless, of course, he's looking to be a one-termer.

Then, he'd screw himself, AND the movement. It would be marginalized and painted as a commie-librul-socialist load of horse-pucky faster than you could polish a bronzed turd!

government. I was laboring under the impression that they are part of the federal government and therefore the head of that agency is hired and fired by the president. Please get real. Let's review the bidding:

1. Post #0: I am disturbed that BO doesn't say anything about police state tactics, such as in Oakland.

2. Post #2: This is a local issue. BO shouldn't comment because of federalism.

3. Post #69: The feds, particularly HS, are involved in local suppressions and those thugs work for BO.

4. Post #80: Yes the feds are involved, but protesting so that the police can beat you up is bad politics.

5. Post #94: So although the feds are involved, BO has no moral duty to the occupiers?

6. Post # 95: The feds aren't really involved, they're just exchanging information. And it's bad politics.

So I'm ending this dialogue because you are either a fool, dishonest or both. The feds are *directly* involved. If you don't know what Naomi Wolf said about Homeland Security taking charge of her custody, you need to find out before you dispute the direct involvement of HS. That is just the tip of the iceberg, most of their involvement is surely covert.

Maybe it's bad politics to allow a veteran to be shot in the head and take no action against your secret police. Based on the last three years of WH ineptitude with Congress, I'd say BO wouldn't know bad politics if it bit him on his ass! Over and out.

They are wired into the HS information loop, but the local police are not a federal entity. They work for their respective municipalities.

Is that clear enough for you? Go study your Constitution...you know, the document that former Sailor was holding up in front of the barricades--it will talk to you about the relationship between state and federal government, and all will be clear to you. And if you don't like that relationship, you'd absolutely hate it if your Presidents decided to do the 'Every Little Sparrow' routine you seem to so desperately crave when they happened to be guys like Bush or Reagan.

Presidents don't interfere in state or local issues. Next thing, you'll want Barack commenting on the disappearance of Baby Lisa or Nancy Grace's nipple. His job is serving as the chief executive of the federal government. Running state and local police departments? That's what governors and mayors are for, and if you can't grasp that, you have some studying to do.

No one is "supporting" the missteps of the Oakland PD, so that's a complete load of horseshit you're shopping. Of course, when you don't have a real response that is either civil or cogent, it's best to pretend that people with whom you do not agree are supporting some heinous act to try to push them off--that's always a "winner" in a discussion. Not.

I suspect the real reason you are foot-stompingly, dramatically "ending this dialogue" is because you've run out of faux poutrage and you plainly do not know your subject. You're just mad because Barack Obama (or any other political figure) isn't your personal Lone Ranger, and you're taking it out on me.

And if anyone is--your words--"a fool, dishonest, or both"--it ain't me. Take a good hard look in the mirror. You have a lot of growing up to do, if this is how you approach people with whom you disagree.

The minute Obama "owns" OWS, that gives the GOP something to attack. You can be sure it'll be all about sex in sleeping bags and nothing about economic inequalities.

What happened in 1968 with a Democratic President in the WH and riots in the streets of Chicago? A Republican named Nixon got elected...on a Law and Order ticket.

Sympathy for people who are yelling about jobs and economic justice will fade real quick if they stop yelling about those things and all they are seen doing is tossing crap at cops and getting tear-gassed in return.

The focus of this thing is turning into a fight with the police in some places (not others). That's not good. It needs to get back to economic equality, corporate responsibility instead of thievery, and JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

n/t

Do you think the capitalists would have it any other way?

it's all good. :silly: :nopity:

please keep talking amongst yourselves... thanks!

and gassed in Oakland and I should have been cheering the President of the country doing it on some comedy show last night?

(Is that cleaned up enough?)

early this morn. Told the operator that I felt very discouraged that our first amendment rights were being trampled on. Added
that I expected to hear from our constitutional scholar president quite soon on this issue.

Exactly

and in response to the 'kitten up a tree' post above, it's shit like that that makes the possibility of escalation possible.

If the PRES has said he is in support of our movement, then he should also say he is upset by the actions of police who hurt peaceful citizens in pursuit of the 1st amendment rights!

dammitt, this is serious and we already have so much complacency...scary

some people need a new hobby.

Some people need to study the Constitution as well as the laws of local municipalities like Oakland and Atlanta. They'll find their answers there.

All politics, of course, is local--if they don't care for the rules, they need to elect new legislators to change them, not blame the President for local laws.

It's become a nationwide problem now.

See you in Dewey Square soon?

I personally don't think that sleeping in a tent on the cold ground, and pissing into a juice jar, means shit, to be honest. I am too old for that, I have a home, and people who rely on me on a daily basis. If people want to do it, if they feel that's the best way they can voice their ire, as the cold descends, more power to them.

It was a cute premise at first, very attention-getting, but I think it's no longer novel, it's becoming a bit stale, there are too many troublemakers, drug addicts and mentally ill/unmedicated people, homeless people who really do not give a shit about the OWS process but like the food and relative safety of the group, joining the ranks and causing difficulty in many cases, and I believe there needs to be something MORE happening now beyond an extended urban camping experience. There is insufficient coverage of the ISSUES on the news, and way too much coverage of makeshift kitchens and libraries, drum circles, dancing, and sex in sleeping bags. That does not help the forward trajectory of the effort, though it may make the people who are already "true believers" feel a sense of community.

I think perhaps a shift to the CIVIL RIGHTS/VIETNAM WAR paradigm might be useful. It would appear that the SIT IN (outdoors) paradigm has about run its course, or will soon, at least in the colder climates. The problem there is that someone needs to step up and ADMINISTER (if not "lead") this effort if they change directions and start demonstrating creatively during the work day (which is also the peak of the news cycle). Someone needs to get permits. Someone needs to coordinate with public safety for routes, crowd control, etc. Not everything can happen organically...someone has to do a little work, unless the goal is a beat-down (and that's just not a good idea).

Permitted marches, free of the "United for Peace and Justice" horseshit of previous DC marches (that made them a complete waste of time because they had no real focus), with the single OWS theme of holding those one percenters accountable, might keep the heat on. It might also enable people who work for a living to participate. Anyone can call in sick for a day, but who can quit their job and their lives to camp out downtown in crowded, smelly conditions? Maybe the "campers" who aren't ready to fold their tents could start camping out in front of the homes of fatcats? Or do round-the-clock demonstrations in front of their houses, with people coming by for an hour or two at a time, like the unions do on the picket lines?

The OWS movement has gotten a ton of money donated to them--they need to do something effective with it. What that might be is for those on the front lines to decide....but it's time they sharpened the point.

I am simply asking where he is on this...
when shit went down in Egypt and Libya, there was a WH press conference ...


and now? when the PD are using the military sound thingy - nothing...

there was more happening last night than just oakland, but oakland was the worst by far, and it is not going to stop.
this is a national phenomenon, and it needs to be recognized as such, and treated with respect.

If not now... when?

I'm thankful that the majority of people think like you and I. This movement has clearly started something BIG. Those who demean it do so at there own peril.
A sleeping giant has been awakened. I've decided to participate in what will be a history changing movement. I will participate peacefully. If I end up pissing
in a jar then so be it. It's clear by above posts some people are just paralyzed by fear. But seriously what an exiting time to be alive. I wouldn't miss it for
the world!

The OP wanted to know why the president has been silent, other than "feeling our pain." You always know when one side has lost the argument when they have to morph the argument in order to make a defensable point. "Obama silent on OWS" turns into "you're saying the violence is all Obama's fault!"

When you want to keep the dirty money, you don't want the same kind of change the protesters are after....

not so much.

"and i also have to add that i am feeling like there's a racial element to the crackdowns in these cities like oakland and baltimore. but I could be wrong"

Yeah, I'd say you're really grasping at straws there.

You missed such highlights as a few protesters going back to help an injured person, only to have a pig fire a flash-bang right in the middle of them.

And you missed all the injury pics from the rubber bullets.

It's like this is some people's first protest movement or something.

The police train for committing acts of unprovoked violent assault, so that makes it A-OK...

interesting position.....


unless you're part of the 1%, they inhaled that gas and took those rubber bullets for you too.

"they inhaled that gas and took those rubber bullets for you too."

They took the gas and rubber bullets because they wouldn't disperse. Refusing to disperse did nothing for me, or anybody else.

I guess you're a tough law and order hombre though

All hail the police who never, ever, can do any wrong. So I guess in the 1960s you'd defend GA cops too.

Police have used flash bang grenades to disperse rowdy Red Sox fans. It's got nothing to do with the cause of the movement, but the fact that they're breaking the law and refusing to disperse.

"All hail the police who never, ever, can do any wrong."

Police do wrong all the time. Tell me what they've done wrong here, and why the President would need to address it.

"So I guess in the 1960s you'd defend GA cops too."

Isn't your conscience telling you that you're being at least a little bit silly?

The they refused to disperse, hence we brought the dogs out was also a popular excuse in Georgia.

This looks like a few civil rights violations from a police department under federal supervision, for guess what? Civil rights violations...who'd thunk that be possible!

"Silly" isn't really the best word for it.

Or realize that OPD is indeed under fed supervision for yes, civil rights violations. You think them are truly limited to GA in or around 1964 and then they just magically went awar?

"They are under supervision for civil rights violation, therefore last nights action was a civil rights violation"

Them red herrings are amusing.

Enjoy the tough hombre imitation though.

Only I was paraphrasing you, silly.

You threw in a very specific red herring...poisoning the well

Enjoy your stay however long or short it is.

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

of laws requiring permits on when and where people can protest. The KKK can march through Skokie, Illinois, but they still have to get a permit.

People have the right to protest and to assemble. But people who are not part of the march also have the right to use public grounds. That's why protests need permits.

Again, it's as if for some people here it's their first protest.

if you think their refusal to disburse did something for you, you are right.


enjoy your unique perspective on the movement.................. you're in the minority.

Peace and love brother

An injured girl laying in the street and when people ran to help her the...police...threw a flashbang grenade right up against her prostrate body and it exploded! A wheelchair bound protester gassed and left to rot in the street by the Oakland stormtroopers. Oh and the uniformed Navy guy holding a copy of the US Constitution. Yeah, he got gassed too.

But hey its all good in Amerika, eh?

why not come out against

Brussel sprouts
Deep fat fried twinkies
stilleto heels
lap bands
circumsicision etc etc etc

it's a never ending list of pet peeves that are not his to take on.

or is that more than we should ask of a President?

:shrug:

that there are so many on this that jump on the bandwagon. "study the law" "he's not in charge of municipalities" "why not come out against brussel sprouts"

AYFKM?

I mean it when i say this is a national movement, and silent consent of actions in one instance will only pave the way for more and worse actions.

Occupy everywhere, stand strong, stay peaceful...we have to not let the intimidators win...and i daresay our POTUS is definitely looking more like one of them every day, and it saddens me

If and when OWS ever responds to violence with violence or can remotely be accused of such.

I asked a serious question, do you see the ramifications of the violence in our own cities unfolding... first, we though the Brooklyn Bridge arrests were bad, now the PTB have just raised the bar... this is not a joke, this is the evidence that we live in a true police state and the POTUS is probably not in any position to say a word...or he's just 'one of the 1%' either way it ain't pretty.
They are trying to stop us, in multiple cities, and with more force than necessary.

he may not have much of a country left by next november if this keeps escalating...

Obama isn't about to speak out against the police violence because he is part of the establishment that the protests are aimed at.

pointless

'Occupy' has such negative connotations. Right?


Then again, our side is always, paradoxically, been behind the
curve in marketing and creatively selling our worldview and positions.

Look at sh***y ol' Freepers Wiki article.
Then look at DUs. ---> Sad.

But hey, what does public perceptions matter, right?
'Anyone that doesn't already understand our position is a teabagger idiot.'

And anyone who criticizes someone for criticizing Obama is one too!

They are having DOJ look at it. The last time a POTUS got involved things had gone on for a while. They had a solid DOJ case though.

That was easy!

x(

Where are the Governor and President now?

Mark my words, this police violence sets a dangerous precedent...which city is next?

Who sent FBI?

Would Holder do that w/o Obama's permission -- ?