Hi Arthur.
What makes it unethical to you? Why do you think it is ineffective? What tactics do you think are effective? I ask these questions in seriousness and not in an accusatory manner, because I'd like to hear your opinion, as many people have given different feedback; that is, that they thought the tactic was great.

Shouldn't those responsible for vast destruction around the globe be forced to answer for their crimes? If they're really doing nothing wrong then they'd have nothing to hide, right?

On the contrary, in reference to Negroponte, I would say that helping to funnel money to CIA-trained death squads involved in thousands of politically motivated disappearances (anyone who had the gall to stand up for basic human rights) is unethical. This is merely one example. Do you agree?

Hi "Anonymous".
I think it’s unethical because public officials—even ones who I disagree with wildly—deserve being accorded the basic dignity of being able to have at least some privacy in their family and personal life. And yes, that’s true even of officials who seem to have real difficulties getting and respecting the values of privacy and civility in their own policy decisions—two wrongs don’t make a right.

It’s ineffective because:
1. It’s failing to generate significant media coverage that raises the issues you’re concerned with. At best this tactic just yields a brief blurb that protestors were arrested. If you can’t break the framing of the story just being about “did law and order get maintained?” then you’re not being effective.

2. My view about it being unethical—the notion that public figures, even those we disagree vehemently with, ought not be harassed at home and their neighborhoods put under siege—isn’t an unusual one.

Don’t take my word for it: do some of your own social research (which there’s much, MUCH to little of among activists these days). Find people who are on the fence about their feelings toward the official or issue you want to raise critical awareness about. In short, persuasion and political change 101: get to know the audience you’re trying to reach and affect. Give them some different scenarios of protest tactics you might use and ask them for their opinions about them—what would they find persuasive, what not, and why.

I do social research and community civil society work for a living, so I’m actually fairly confident that you’ll be surprised by how off the mark your protest tactic here is—but I think you’d find it much more persuasive to do the legwork yourself and find that result than to just ask you to trust some anonymous poster on Indymedia.

By the way: that research of “what tactics would you find most persuasive to raise x issues and concerns” is itself a form of activism and is much more likely to raise awareness and persuade than the “sack the homes of politicians we don’t like” strategy. (And yes, “sack the homes” is a *totally* unfair characterization of what you do, but that’s exactly what predictably plays out in whatever little coverage is given to this tactic.

3. Finally, you make the remark that “I would say that helping to funnel money to CIA-trained death squads involved in thousands of politically motivated disappearances (anyone who had the gall to stand up for basic human rights) is unethical.”

My answer: Duh. I despise the politics of the folks you’ve chosen to protest. They are wildly, wildly unethical. Much, much worse—really ludicrous to compare actually—than what your protest tactic. But (a) two wrongs, they don’t make a right. And, more importantly, it’s exactly because I find them so repugnant and wrong that I really have to speak up against protest tactics that actually manage to accomplish that nearly unthinkable: you’re making some individuals who are doing some staggeringly dreadful things in their public, political roles actually come across as sympathetic, victimized people. How warped is that? So really, cut it out. These people are doing terrible things, so terrible that protests tactics which make them sympathetic and which make their opponents seem like a fringe group of nuts, is just totally inexcusable.

Hi Arthur,
Thanks for responding. I'm glad we can have an open dialogue about this, albeit electronically and rather anonymously, but nonetheless important.

I have to say, however, that I disagree with the assertion that public officials (whether we agree with them or not) are somehow entitled to a certain degree of privacy in their personal/private lives. I say this, not because they are public officials, because I believe the problems in the world are clearly not due to just public officials, but because I don't think that murderers, torturers, rapists, etc, deserve the least bit of respite. Has Negroponte, just as an example, physically killed anyone himself personally? I don't know, but I know that he has ordered killings, and helped equip known killers with resources, knowing what their actions will be. To me, he might as well have pulled the trigger, or burned the village, as the case might be. What do you think? Do you think that the responsibility for government sanctioned 'crimes' falls on those carrying out the act, those who order the act, or some of both? I believe that the perpetrators of such injustice should be subject to the wills of the people and communities that they have wronged. But, I'm digressing, back to the issue of privacy. Negroponte, and many others, have ruined countless lives through their actions and policies, both directly and indirectly. They have taken away any "right to privacy" that existed from literally thousands of people, to speak only of Negroponte. To put it bluntly, it's very hard to have a sense of privacy when CIA trained death squads are killing, disappearing and torturing your friends and family. Now, I know, as you said, that you're not comparing the heinous wrongs of these murderers, to what you feel is an ineffective tactic, but a just cause, but I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from.

Regarding media coverage, we agree on some things. The corporate media does not, and will not cover significantly home demonstrations. There has been a significant amount of independent media coverage, which I think is great. Can you think of ways that independent media coverage could be expanded, with the goal of educating more people? If the goal of our actions was to generate corporate media coverage, you're right, we didn't do that well. This isn't to say that the media can't ever be used to one's advantage, but only that taking an action should be done for the purpose of exposing injustice, whether or not corporate media will cover it.

I think your suggestion for doing social research is a good one. In fact, some of this is already going on. In the case of Negroponte, at least two neighbors were supportive of protestors right to protest despite police harassment. That's not to say that everyone will be supportive, but just an anectdotal example.

I think you're also right that outreach and education are key to trying to stop and expose injustice and oppression, whatever form they might take. I would encourage you to come to a DAWN meeting (every Tuesday at 7 PM; 2211 14th Street NW). New ideas and opinions are always welcome. Maybe your input about outreach could be very helpful!

I know you suggested social research as one method of raising awareness. I absolutely agree that constantly reevaluating tactics and strategies are key to the effectiveness of, well, anything really. Are there other activities that you feel would be helpful to raise awareness? Would you want to take part in any of them? I'm always open to trying new things and not tied down to any particular tactic. This just happens to be a tactic that we think is effective. Does that mean we're necessarily right? No. But, it's what we see as effective, and one can only act based on what one believes to be right (based on feedback and personal opinions), right?

Regarding your last point; do you think that tactics "making" people sympathetic to people doing terrible things (if that is indeed the case, and I'm not certain about that) speaks about those carrying out the tactic, or those becoming sympathetic to murderers?

I think not acting on one's convictions is inexcusable.

Take a look at SHAC (stop Huntington animal cruelty) they have gone to peoples homes and businesses, all these people who work for HLS or have some good relationship with them, now they are running on pink slips and no body wants to do bussiness with them, and this is due in a big part to home demos. I really don't think it is ethical to support terrorism and genocide and torture, so I don't really see the problem with going to their home and giving them some annoyance, these people are tortures and murderers, who do not deserve to sleep at night, because they have made it so so many cannot sleep at night or are in eternal sleep (dead). We need to step up our tactics enough of this huge marches to empty buildings put on by neo liberal authoritarian "anti war" groups, we need to attack capitalism, it is what is keeping war going, people struggle to make more money than other people and doing whatever they can to get it even if it means killing them! Protests are nice but we need a revolution!!!!!!