NYT Article: Police Surveillance of Cyclists as Political Dissidents

[Bob]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]> quotes:
>
> > "Ryan Kuonen, 32, who took part in a "ride of silence" in memory of a
> > dead cyclist, said that two undercover officers - one with a camera -
> > subverted the event. "They were just in your face," she said. "It made
> > what was a really solemn event into something that seemed wrong. It made
> > you feel like you were a criminal. It was grotesque.""
>
> Reminds me of back in the '60s and '70s, when the narcs would
> try to blend in with the crowd at rock concerts.
>
> Anyway, I think this "radical cyclists" bugaboo hails from well
> before 9/11. Maybe even before the Seattle WTO convention, which
> certainly instilled paranoid ideas about the Great Unwashed into
> the corporate mammon worshipers. Or maybe it just brought their
> latent paranoid notions to the surface.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom

I don't blame the "radical cyclist" image on paranoia. IMO blame for
that image rests squarely on the shoulders of those very few that in
their public statements intentionally politicize what is in no way a
political act, i.e., riding a bicycle. Those statements (and actions)
are simple minded throwbacks to the philosophy of the mid-60s radical
Left when everything was viewed through the lens of "The Movement".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:

> EFR
> Glad to be in Ile de France

It wasn't that long ago that you were wishing that the French police
were doing more to curb the so-called "student riots" in Paris and
writing posts about how you feared for your safety in your own
neighborhood. I guess that your opinion of what are
acceptable/unacceptable police actions in monitoring crowds depends to
a great extent on your proximity to those crowds. That's a fairly
common and very human trait. It's hypocritical but understandable.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
>
>> EFR
>> Glad to be in Ile de France
>
> It wasn't that long ago that you were wishing that the French police
> were doing more to curb the so-called "student riots" in Paris and
> writing posts about how you feared for your safety in your own
> neighborhood. I guess that your opinion of what are
> acceptable/unacceptable police actions in monitoring crowds depends to
> a great extent on your proximity to those crowds. That's a fairly
> common and very human trait. It's hypocritical but understandable.
>
We EXPECT the government to monitor and infiltrate "bad" groups.

If there were terrorists holding parades and the police were somehow NOT
videotaping, even the NYT would criticize, I would think.

The problem comes in defining "bad", and in avoiding over-surveillance where
it's inappropriate but easy.

In Michael Moore's 9/11 movie, there's a section about police infiltration
of a "peace" group composed mostly of grandparents, and he makes the
predictable criticisms. (Also, by cinematically focusing on the fact that
these people are white and innocent, he comes close to implying a racial
statement. People seem to have forgotten that the Oklahoma City bombings
were done by middle aged white people.) To me, the problem isn't that they
infiltrated this group but that the police kept after it so long, long
beyond when you would have thought they would have given up as an
unproductive use of resources. [And, before somebody pulls up old posts of
mine, I liked and recommended the movie. That doesn't mean I had to like
everything about it.]

It's also the case that there are usually a massive number of digital photos
of these events posted on the internet by people who were there. Nobody
seems concerned that I'm shown with "helmet hair" and a bad bald spot in
these photos.

The question in my mind isn't so much the raw material -- like videos taken
by embedded police -- it's whether it is used inappropriately or whether the
whole program is operated outside the oversight mechanisms that provide
checks and balances in democratic systems.

 

[Pinky]

Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to all cross posters on both sides
of the pond!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Elisa Francesca Roselli" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/n...8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
>
> Some extracts:
>
> "Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert
> surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war,
> bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street
> vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show."
>
>
> "Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department's chief
> spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers at
> work but said that disguised officers had always attended such
> gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order and
> protect free speech. Activists, however, say that police officers
> masquerading as protesters and bicycle riders distort their messages and
> provoke trouble."
>
>
> "After the 2001 terrorist attacks, officials at all levels of government
> considered major changes in various police powers. President Bush
> acknowledged last Saturday that he has secretly permitted the National
> Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant on international telephone
> calls and e-mail messages in terror investigations.
>
> In New York, the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg persuaded a
> federal judge in 2003 to enlarge the Police Department's authority to
> conduct investigations of political, social and religious groups. "We live
> in a more dangerous, constantly changing world," Police Commissioner
> Raymond W. Kelly said."
>
>
> "Ryan Kuonen, 32, who took part in a "ride of silence" in memory of a dead
> cyclist, said that two undercover officers - one with a camera - subverted
> the event. "They were just in your face," she said. "It made what was a
> really solemn event into something that seemed wrong. It made you feel
> like you were a criminal. It was grotesque.""
>
>
> EFR
> Glad to be in Ile de France
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Bill Sornson]

Pinky top-posted, cross-posted, AND didn't snip unneeded content:

> Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to all cross posters on
> both sides of the pond!

Brilliant!

<eg>

 

[Peter Cole]

Bob wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>Bob wrote:
>
>>
>>I find it troubling that you, a law enforcement officer I believe, would
>>dismiss this so easily.

>
> Maybe he *did* shout that. I don't know but I tend to think he did
> because based on the sign incident I'm inclined to think he's not
> qualified to work in a UC capacity in that type of setting. That *one*
> cop screwed up or is not suited for that type of duty though doesn't
> change my opinion that there is nothing at all wrong with the police
> monitoring people at public events to safeguard the general welfare.
> The events are, after all, PUBLIC and safeguarding the public's lives
> and property is not only an acceptable police function in our society,
> it is the *primary* function of police.

Thanks for taking the time to express your position so thoroughly.

I think we have different ideas about what comprises necessary
undercover police work. That's OK in a free society. We'll have to agree
to disagree. Whatever one's position, I think it's a subject worthy of
constant scrutiny and debate. Power is too easily abused.

 

[Pinky]

It is done to illustrate your total idiocy in maintenance this stupid and
irrelevant cross posting -- and I am no troll you total w*nker

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pinky top-posted, cross-posted, AND didn't snip unneeded content:
>
>> Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to all cross posters on
>> both sides of the pond!
>
> Brilliant!
>
> <eg>
>

 

[Bill Sornson]

Pinky wrote:
>> Pinky top-posted, cross-posted, AND didn't snip unneeded content:
>>
>>> Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to all cross posters on
>>> both sides of the pond!
>>
>> Brilliant!
>>
>> <eg>

> It is done to illustrate your total idiocy in maintenance this stupid
> and irrelevant cross posting -- and I am no troll you total w*nker

Now THAT hurt.

BWAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA!

 

[Bob]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> >
> >> EFR
> >> Glad to be in Ile de France
> >
> > It wasn't that long ago that you were wishing that the French police
> > were doing more to curb the so-called "student riots" in Paris and
> > writing posts about how you feared for your safety in your own
> > neighborhood. I guess that your opinion of what are
> > acceptable/unacceptable police actions in monitoring crowds depends to
> > a great extent on your proximity to those crowds. That's a fairly
> > common and very human trait. It's hypocritical but understandable.
> >
> We EXPECT the government to monitor and infiltrate "bad" groups.
>
> If there were terrorists holding parades and the police were somehow NOT
> videotaping, even the NYT would criticize, I would think.
>
> The problem comes in defining "bad", and in avoiding over-surveillance where
> it's inappropriate but easy.
>
> In Michael Moore's 9/11 movie, there's a section about police infiltration
> of a "peace" group composed mostly of grandparents, and he makes the
> predictable criticisms. (Also, by cinematically focusing on the fact that
> these people are white and innocent, he comes close to implying a racial
> statement. People seem to have forgotten that the Oklahoma City bombings
> were done by middle aged white people.) To me, the problem isn't that they
> infiltrated this group but that the police kept after it so long, long
> beyond when you would have thought they would have given up as an
> unproductive use of resources. [And, before somebody pulls up old posts of
> mine, I liked and recommended the movie. That doesn't mean I had to like
> everything about it.]
>
> It's also the case that there are usually a massive number of digital photos
> of these events posted on the internet by people who were there. Nobody
> seems concerned that I'm shown with "helmet hair" and a bad bald spot in
> these photos.
>
> The question in my mind isn't so much the raw material -- like videos taken
> by embedded police -- it's whether it is used inappropriately or whether the
> whole program is operated outside the oversight mechanisms that provide
> checks and balances in democratic systems.

Leaving aside the issue of how to determine what groups are "bad",
i.e., pose a significant credible threat to the public good, without
any research/intelligence gathering, I'm curious- what "inappropriate
use" of videotapes of public events do you think possible? Again, the
videotaping we are discussing is being done at PUBLIC events that take
place on PUBLIC streets. If you or I choose to appear at a public event
we don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to our
physical appearance. The types of rallies and protests we're discussing
are designed as physical demonstrations of support for whatever
viewpoint the participants hold so if we attend a public rally in
support of a particular cause we not only give up that particular right
to privacy we INVITE publicity.
The question that remains then is what inappropriate use could such
images be put to by the police? Since we don't "disappear" political
dissidents in the US and US police actions are *all* subject to
oversight in the form of the courts, I'm at a loss to even imagine what
inappropriate use you envision.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:

>SB wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:52:11 +0000, Mike Kruger wrote:
>>
>>>In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
>> > transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
>> > academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even more
>> > than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.
>>
>> No, he's not. He's right on. He seems on the fringe because
>> the rest of the western world is disgustingly to the right. Peace, love
>> and understanding are only for songs and peoples' personal inner circles
>> in our current corporate dominated society where ignorance and selfishness
>> prevails.
>
>IOW, "I and that very small percentage of the population that agrees
>with me are centrists. Everyone else is on the fringe and they are all
>disgusting, hateful, ignorant, selfish people."
>
>Thank god the "true believers" on both the left and right think that
>this type of foaming at the mouth proselytizing is effective
>persuasion. That helps prevent their lunacies from spreading.

Beautiful. Couldn't have possibly said it better myownself.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > How do you define 'left-wing' and what makes you think
> > I am part of it?
>
> I mostly meant the mind-set you ascribe to Chomsky; however, your expressed
> views qualify pretty well, too (Read: more liberals think that "people
> are fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit in their own
> repression and ignorance" than do conservatives.)

The idea that the great unwashed masses need to
be governed is perhaps the original conservative
political idea, first articulated in writing in Plato's
Republic, I believe. Pure democracy, otoh, is the
embodiment of political liberalism.

Since then, the words 'liberal' and 'conservative'
have come to mean all kinds of crazy things to
all kinds of crazy people.

I didn't really mean that people are 'fundamentally
stupid,' although that is what I wrote. What I should
have said was people are fundamentally lazy, and
they tend toward ignorance because it's the easy
way out.

Robert

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob" <[email protected]> writes:

>> Anyway, I think this "radical cyclists" bugaboo hails from well
>> before 9/11. Maybe even before the Seattle WTO convention, which
>> certainly instilled paranoid ideas about the Great Unwashed into
>> the corporate mammon worshipers. Or maybe it just brought their
>> latent paranoid notions to the surface.

> I don't blame the "radical cyclist" image on paranoia.

I've noticed that when people (e.g: corporate multinationalists)
have a great deal of wealth or power to lose, they seem to react
very strongly to anything they perceive as a threat to what they
hold dear. Eventually they start seeing boogiemen in every corner,
like (the fictitious) Fred C. Dobbs in "Treasure of the Sierra Madre".

In short, I think having too much wealth or power makes people crazy.

> IMO blame for
> that image rests squarely on the shoulders of those very few that in
> their public statements intentionally politicize what is in no way a
> political act, i.e., riding a bicycle.

I think some of it might have something to do with destructive
vandals infiltrating peaceful protests under the guise of
political interest (calling themselves "Anarchists",) but are
really just looking for a melee to take advantage of. Then all
the peaceful participants end up being associated with those
few hooligans.

> Those statements (and actions)
> are simple minded throwbacks to the philosophy of the mid-60s radical
> Left when everything was viewed through the lens of "The Movement".

When I ride my bike partly because it lessens my impact on
others' quality of life, I guess /that's/ a political statement
on my part. But it's such a gentle and nonprovocative one.
OTOH, I guess it undermines the missions & goals of those
paranoia-driven corporate multinationalists, so they'd better
sic their goons & bully-boys on me.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:

> Since then, the words 'liberal' and 'conservative'
> have come to mean all kinds of crazy things to
> all kinds of crazy people.

Wouldn't it be amusing if those concepts/labels were invented
and cultivated just to keep us peons at each others' throats,
so those with real influence could go about their merry ways
unimpeded, undetected and unchallenged?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Pinky]

STOP CROSS POSTING

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> Since then, the words 'liberal' and 'conservative'
>> have come to mean all kinds of crazy things to
>> all kinds of crazy people.
>
> Wouldn't it be amusing if those concepts/labels were invented
> and cultivated just to keep us peons at each others' throats,
> so those with real influence could go about their merry ways
> unimpeded, undetected and unchallenged?
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
> --
> -- Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Sorni]

Pinky wrote:

> STOP CROSS POSTING

He cross- AND top-posted.

Nice!

 

[Bob]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bob" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Anyway, I think this "radical cyclists" bugaboo hails from well
> >> before 9/11. Maybe even before the Seattle WTO convention, which
> >> certainly instilled paranoid ideas about the Great Unwashed into
> >> the corporate mammon worshipers. Or maybe it just brought their
> >> latent paranoid notions to the surface.
>
> > I don't blame the "radical cyclist" image on paranoia.
>
> I've noticed that when people (e.g: corporate multinationalists)
> have a great deal of wealth or power to lose, they seem to react
> very strongly to anything they perceive as a threat to what they
> hold dear. Eventually they start seeing boogiemen in every corner,
> like (the fictitious) Fred C. Dobbs in "Treasure of the Sierra Madre".
>
> In short, I think having too much wealth or power makes people crazy.
>
> > IMO blame for
> > that image rests squarely on the shoulders of those very few that in
> > their public statements intentionally politicize what is in no way a
> > political act, i.e., riding a bicycle.
>
> I think some of it might have something to do with destructive
> vandals infiltrating peaceful protests under the guise of
> political interest (calling themselves "Anarchists",) but are
> really just looking for a melee to take advantage of. Then all
> the peaceful participants end up being associated with those
> few hooligans.

This sounds an awfully lot like we *agree*, Tom, at least in part.
How's that for a scary thought? <g>

> > Those statements (and actions)
> > are simple minded throwbacks to the philosophy of the mid-60s radical
> > Left when everything was viewed through the lens of "The Movement".
>
> When I ride my bike partly because it lessens my impact on
> others' quality of life, I guess /that's/ a political statement
> on my part. But it's such a gentle and nonprovocative one.
> OTOH, I guess it undermines the missions & goals of those
> paranoia-driven corporate multinationalists, so they'd better
> sic their goons & bully-boys on me.

Would you ride if it made absolutely no difference in anyone else's
quality of life? If so, there's no political statement involved. If
not, why not? I thought you *liked* riding!

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob" <[email protected]> writes:

> This sounds an awfully lot like we *agree*, Tom, at least in part.
> How's that for a scary thought? <g>

Actually it's not scary at all. I often do find myself in
agreement with you, and I enjoy considering your insights
and opinions, even when they diverge with, or oppose my own.
There's nothing like a civil interchange of thought to
attain new realizations or revelations.

Too bad the WTO people and their ilk aren't so open-minded ;-)

>> > Those statements (and actions)
>> > are simple minded throwbacks to the philosophy of the mid-60s radical
>> > Left when everything was viewed through the lens of "The Movement".
>>
>> When I ride my bike partly because it lessens my impact on
>> others' quality of life, I guess /that's/ a political statement
>> on my part. But it's such a gentle and nonprovocative one.
>> OTOH, I guess it undermines the missions & goals of those
>> paranoia-driven corporate multinationalists, so they'd better
>> sic their goons & bully-boys on me.
>
> Would you ride if it made absolutely no difference in anyone else's
> quality of life?

I don't believe that's possible. My (or anybone's) bicycling
innately does affect people's quality of life. For one thing,
bicyclists are consumers -- we have to buy tires, tubes, patch
kits, chains, brake pads, etc. As consumers we have a ripple
effect on ... oh, gawd! Where's J.K. Galbraith when ya need him?

And a lot of that bike stuff comes from sweatshops in distant
lands, maybe with child labour to boot. Even if it's American/
Union Made, there's no telling where the imported ingredients or
raw resources or tooling or machinery came from, or under what
conditions or environmental impacts they were produced -- which
suits the corporate multinational folks just fine.

That's why I say "/lessens/ my impact on others' quality of
life", rather than entirely removes it. Owning & maintaining
a bicycle is not as entirely innocent as some would have it.

So even riding a bicycle has some impact on some people's
quality of life. But at least there's less danger than from
driving a car, of killing or maiming someone. And less
poisoning of the air, less noise pollution, and especially in
urban areas -- less interference with other people's mobility.

> If so, there's no political statement involved. If
> not, why not? I thought you *liked* riding!

Politics is starting to make my brain hurt (again.)


cheers, & it would be nice if Shell did something good for Nigeria,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Bob]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bob" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > This sounds an awfully lot like we *agree*, Tom, at least in part.
> > How's that for a scary thought? <g>
>
> Actually it's not scary at all. I often do find myself in
> agreement with you, and I enjoy considering your insights
> and opinions, even when they diverge with, or oppose my own.
> There's nothing like a civil interchange of thought to
> attain new realizations or revelations.
>
> Too bad the WTO people and their ilk aren't so open-minded ;-)

Would that everyone were as open-minded as us. ;-)

Regards,
Bob

 

[[email protected]]

As I see the 'debate' here is still plodding along, I thought some
might like to read the following...

Shock, awe and Hobbes have backfired on America's neocons

Guardian
28 December 2005

....darker dreams surfaced in America's military universities. The
theorists of the "revolution in military affairs" predicted that
technology would lead to easy and perpetual US dominance of the world.

....Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance - a key strategic document
published in 1996 - aimed to understand how to destroy the "will to
resist before, during and after battle". For Harlan Ullman of the
National Defence University, its main author, the perfect example was
the atom bomb at Hiroshima. But with or without such a weapon, one
could create an illusion of unending strength and ruthlessness. Or one
could deprive an enemy of the ability to communicate, observe and
interact - a macro version of the sensory deprivation used on
individuals - so as to create a "feeling of impotence". And one must
always inflict brutal reprisals against those who resist. An
alternative was the "decay and default" model, whereby a nation's will
to resist collapsed through the "imposition of social breakdown".

All of this came to be applied in Iraq in 2003... It has been usual to
explain the chaos and looting in Baghdad, the destruction of
infrastructure, ministries, museums and the national library and
archives, as caused by a failure of Rumsfeld's planning. But the
evidence is this was at least in part a mask for the destruction of the
collective memory and modern state of a key Arab nation, and the
manufacture of disorder to create a hunger for the occupier's
supervision...American imperial strategists invested deeply in the
belief that through spreading terror they could take power...

The problem for the US today is that Leviathan has shot his
wad...People can't be terrorised into identification with America. The
US has proved able to destroy massively - but not create, or even
control. Afghanistan and Iraq lie in ruins, yet the occupiers cower
behind concrete mountains.

The spin machine is on full tilt to represent Iraq as a success.
Peters, in New Glory: Expanding America's Supremacy, asserts: "Our
country is a force for good without precedent"; and Barnett, in
Blueprint, says: "The US military is a force for global good that ...
has no equal." Both offer ambitious plans for how the US is going to
remake the third world in its image. There is a violent hysteria to the
boasts. The narcissism of a decade earlier has given way to an
extrovert rage at those who have resisted America's will since 2001.
Both urge utter ruthlessness in crushing resistance. In November 2004,
Peters told Fox News that in Falluja "the best outcome, frankly, is if
they're all killed".

But he directs his real fury at France and Germany: "A haggard Circe,
Europe dulled our senses and fooled us into believing in her
attractions. But the dugs are dry in Germany and France. They deluded
us into prolonging the affair long after our attentions should have
turned to ... India, South Africa, Brazil."

....only America can cure its post 9/11 mixture of paranoia and
megalomania...The US needs to discover, like a child that does not know
its limits, that there is a world outside its body and desires, beyond
even the reach of its toys, that suffers too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1674184,00.html

 

[[email protected]]

Also interesting is a US made propaganda film from 1946 entitled
'Despotism'. This

'Illustrates the thesis that all communities can be ranged on a scale
running from democracy to despotism. The two chief characteristics of
despotism -- restricted respect and concentrated power -- are defined
and illustrated. Two of the conditions which have historically promoted
the growth of despotism are explained and exemplified. These are a
slanted economic distribution and a strict control of the agencies of
communication.'

Going by the standards of the USA itself in the 1940' it does seem that
America today can be though of as being controlled by Despotism...

http://www.archive.org/details/Despotis1946