London police classify Occupy alongside Al-Qaida

15 posts in this topic

Apparently 'Squatting' is now known as 'Urban Exploration Activity': http://boingboing.net/2011/12/16/city-of-london-police-class-oc.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there's a similar memo regarding OWS protesters in the US. Especially since our own Congress just passed a law codifying that Americans arrested on suspicion of "terrorism" on American soil can be indefinitely detained without charges or trial, at the pleasure of the President. Or, if granted the privilege (it's now a privilege, not a right) to be charged and tried, they can be turned over to the military for "justice."

 

Classing peaceful protesters with AQ and other organizations that genuinely seek to harm civilians is not only dishonest, it's intimidating. I suppose that's why they do it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on here once said that 'human rights activists tend to make too much fuss, and there are occasions where you could possibly say that, but hearing about laws being repeatedly passed in the name of TWAT definitely makes me nervous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...hearing about laws being repeatedly passed in the name of TWAT definitely makes me nervous.

 

Yea, those equal opportunities bitches.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chocky - are you suggesting that Occupy poses no threat whatsoever to City of London?

 

I think that would insult the Occupiers.

 

Without some really meaningful reform or at least a few token bankers sent to jail with DSK style publicity, i tend to think that Occupy might become a bit more belligerent. Occupy is a much bigger threat to the City's business continuity than FARC or AQ. From a pragmatic standpoint, the animal rights activists protesting outside of department store selling fur coats and pro-life fanatics squatting in front of an abortion clinic are likewise a bigger threat to their respective targets than FARC or AQ.

 

IMHO, there is going to be a big upswing in markets in early 2012 which will temporarily dampen enthusiasm for the Occupiers, but i expect the movement to stage a big comeback sometime in 2013. The movement won't be leaner, but it will probably be a lot meaner.

 

How the farc is FARC a threat to the City's business continuity? Has it threatened to cut off the flow of its product to the City's bankers?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kropotkin's comparison is probably right.

 

After all, being both amateurs by comparison to his well-networked examples, and having insignificant revenues, the Occupiers (unlike AQ & FARC) have, as yet, no established convoluted paths securing a protective privileged stammkunden status at The City & Westminster International Laundry's facilitating facilities. Which leaves them, as the 'disorganised unclean hippy movement', in the traditional position of providing an attention-distracting horror-provoking soft target for the establishment.

 

2B

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OWS might be harmful to business interests, sure. Corporations, banks, and labor unions in America are now "people," by decision of the US Supreme Court.

 

So I guess it just makes sense, from that point of view, that OWS is a "terrorist" organization. It's just terrorizing those other people, the banks, attempting to hit them in their cash-flow lifeline, instead of terrorizing flesh-and-blood people.

 

Shit, let's lock 'em up indefinitely without trial.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder if there's a similar memo regarding OWS protesters in the US. Especially since our own Congress just passed a law codifying that Americans arrested on suspicion of "terrorism" on American soil can be indefinitely detained without charges or trial, at the pleasure of the President.

WRONG

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/200057-sen-feinstein-introduces-bill-prohibiting-military-detention-of-us-citizens

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of that link? Senator Feinstein has introduced a bill to counteract the language of the legislation that just passed the Congress (known as the NDAA 2012.) That legislation contains specific language allowing US citizens to be detained on suspicion of terrorism, without charges or trial. President Obama says he'll sign it.

 

Feinstein's bill, co-sponsored by a bunch of Democrats and a couple of Republicans, including Rand Paul, hasn't been brought up for a vote in even one chamber, and we don't know if it ever will. I don't think it has much of a chance, personally, because it was passed with the members knowing the NDAA language included American citizens arrested on US soil. There will be resistance to the notion of a vote on this single issue.

 

Unless it passes, the NDAA legislation stands.

 

It's you who's WRONG, at least for now. I hope Feinstein's "Due Process Guarantee Act" passes, though the very idea that such legislation should ever be necessary in the United States is ludicrous. The Senate hasn't had a chance to gather comments on the bill, since it was just introduced. I'm guessing some of the Senate resistance to it is going to involve that "it's not necessary, because the Constitution guarantees those rights that Congress just attempted to legislate away."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one reads the memo posted in Chocky's link, it does not identify Occupy as a terrorist organization. :rolleyes:

 

Considering that Occupy has successfully shut down major ports on the west coast of the US and it certainly has at least a few signs which are hostile, but not threatening to bankers, it would be irresponsible for security people in the financial district to ignore the potential threat of a business disruption due to Occupy activities.

 

On "American Dream" thread in the International affairs section, i posted the video of Carl Levin explaining to another Senator during public debate of the bill, that the White House explicitly asked for the language enabling indefinite detention of US citizens. I scraped the link off of an Occupy Twitter feed, which led me to the Occupy web site which linked me to the Infowars (that's right - Alex Jones) web site. Interesting. :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's you who's WRONG, at least for now.

Try reading the entire link...

 

 

During the Senate debate of the Defense bill, Feinstein passed an eleventh-hour amendment that amounted to a truce, stating that nothing in the bill changed current law when it comes to the detention of U.S. citizens.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If one reads the memo posted in Chocky's link, it does not identify Occupy as a terrorist organization.

 

:rolleyes: Back at you.

 

It does not declare them openly as a terrorist organisation, but you have to wonder what the motivation of the CLP in giving the protesters the document was. Occupy is a non violent activist group whose only crime so far has been to trespass on property deemed private by the state. Anyway, this is hardly surprising behaviour by Scotland Yard, a few months ago they were interrogating journalists covering the protests of the Plane Stupid group of activists, again another non violent group whose actions (trespassing on privately owned land) were deemed to be such a threat to national security that undercover police officers infiltrated the group and had sex by deception with several women who are now suing the police for trauma and psychological distress.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It does not declare them openly as a terrorist organisation, but you have to wonder what the motivation of the CLP in giving the protesters the document was.

 

Of course it doesn't because they aren't suggesting it to be the case (yet), but if you have to wonder about anything try wondering how you arrived at the conclusion that the CoLP gave it to the protestors. I very much doubt either AQ, FARC, the IRA or Occupy London are, or were, on the CoLP distro list. (The title defines the intended readership.)

 

"Terrorism/Extremism update for the City of London Business Community"

The threat to the UK from international terrorism is SUBSTANTIAL.

The threat to the Great Britain from Irish Republican Terrorism is SUBSTANTIAL.

Under the heading UK/International causes of presumed risk sources are summarised under Columbia, Al Quaida/Pakistan and Belarus.

Under the Domestic heading is a sub-heading Occupy London/ongoing

There's a brief summary of the observed activities of members of the Occupy London movement. The framed part following would appear to be a synopsis of several security or police reports available to CoLP highlighting what forms they expect or suspect the perceived risk to the City of London Business Community may take.

 

The questionable part of the document's layout is the fact that the (bolded in original) closing sentence*, which should apply equally to all Terrorist or Extremist threats, is included within that framed section. This not only seems equivalent to hinting that Occupy is a hostile force to be considered threatening, but also serves to diminish the value of that sentence with regard to the far more important risk posed by any real hostile terrorist forces.

 

*Suspected hostile reconnaisance should be reported to the City of London Police immediately.

 

This document, written in an unimaginative, uninformative and authoritarian style typical of mid-ranking civil servants, seems to be no more than a routine monthly synopsis aimed primarily at physical security managers of CoL buildings, video observation team supervisors and private security companies.

 

2B

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Try reading the entire link...

 

Try reading the bill (my bolds.)

 

 

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” [This is the Feinstein Amendment mentioned in the link from The Hill.] So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

 

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

 

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. . . .

 

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the telly on this morning...can´t remember which channel. Was in a holiday flat at the North Sea. Old footage of Cassius Clay, as he was known then. Refused to sign up as a soldier for Vietnam. Bad boy! Not sure what that has to do with this thread...except:

 

Leave me out of this shit. Humans are such fascist shits. War, killing each other. Cool, eh? AND that arsehole A can send a letter to young kid B forcing him to enlist to some God-forsaken war caused by politician C. And their hangers-on ie non-lovers of this Earth.

 

Piss off.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now