worcester
western mass
vermont
urbana-champaign
tennessee
tampa bay
seattle
sarasota
santa cruz, ca
santa barbara
san francisco bay area
san francisco
san diego
saint louis
rogue valley
rochester
richmond
portland
pittsburgh
philadelphia
oklahoma
nyc
north texas
north carolina
new orleans
new mexico
new jersey
new hampshire
minneapolis/st. paul
milwaukee
michigan
miami
maine
madison
la
kansas city
hudson mohawk
houston
hawaii
dc
columbus
colorado
cleveland
chicago
charlottesville
buffalo
boston
binghamton
big muddy
baltimore
austin
atlanta
asheville
arkansas
arizona
valencia
united kingdom
ukraine
toulouse
toscana
torun
thessaloniki
switzerland
sverige
scotland
saint-petersburg
russia
romania
roma
portugal
poland
piemonte
patras
paris/ãŽle-de-france
oost-vlaanderen
norway
nice
netherlands
napoli
nantes
marseille
malta
madrid
lombardia
lille
liege
la plana
italy
istanbul
ireland
hungary
grenoble
germany
galiza
euskal herria
estrecho / madiaq
emilia-romagna
cyprus
croatia
calabria
bulgaria
bristol
belgrade
belgium
belarus
barcelona
austria
athens
armenia
antwerpen
andorra
alacant
abruzzoThis site made manifest by dadaIMC software
Re: Iraq-style Checkpoints put the "occupied" in Occupied DC
Date Edited: 13 Jun 2008 12:19:31 PM
But really, this is a silly little exercise -- one doesn't have to have personally experienced police-state actions to oppose them. But those who have endured such things generally DO oppose it. The notion that it's worth turning poor people's neighborhoods into giant police cordons, and that you can justify overt violations of civil rights and Constitutional protections in the name of law enforcement is ridiculous.
Consider that there's little rush to blockade and create police encampments in suburbs and richer neighborhoods, despite the fact that crimes occur there, too -- drug use, drunk driving, prostitution, white collar crime, etc. When you DO see a larger police presence in those areas, there's a big difference -- the police in poor neighborhoods are watching the people who LIVE there and visit there; the police in middle-class and rich neighborhoods are not policing the residents or their visitors, they are looking for people "invading" from the poor neighborhoods, by and large.
Police treat everyone living in or visiting poor communities as suspects and potential criminals; police treat everyone living in or visiting more affluent communities as potential victims of crimes. Meanwhile, again there is the overriding point that the only "attention" those poor communities get is from guys with guns and handcuffs, otherwise they are neglected and ignored and treated like unwanted, unimportant members of society. Law enforcement tends to be the only government agencies interested in them, and NOT for the benefit of the communities.
Further, as already noted, most of the crimes actually being "policed" are non-violent, personal-behavior activities. Talk all you want about murder and violence, but the majority of the crimes are in fact drug related non-violent types (possession, distribution by low-level street dealers), or crimes related directly to addiction (theft to support an addiction, prostitution to support an addiction or in exchange for drugs).
You don't see those thing happening to support buying beer and cigarettes. Our drug laws directly create most of the social "problems" associated with drug use -- problems you don't see in relation to alcohol and cigarettes, unless you go back to the years of alcohol prohibition. The comparison is striking, and anyone remotely familiar with the facts and stats and who is remotely honest about it can see the truth.
So for all the talk of the violence in those areas making it "worth" tolerating occupation by armed police forces who are violating civil liberties, the fact is that these checkpoints and the large police presence in fact is overwhelmingly targeting and "catching" low-level non-violent crimes mostly related directly or indirectly to the drug market.
And the residents know this. You can go to any poor community in any state across this nation, and talk to them about it, and the people living there have a very clear, informed viewpoint on the real reasons for the police presence and the real ramifications for their neighborhood and society as a whole.
But of course, most of you right-wingers and those who would say you are "all for" "occupation" don't care how the residents really feel, or about the true reasons or real outcomes. You see cops all over the place, and it inherently appeals to you, beyond any supposed justifications. You aren't out there calling for more schools, better roads, jobs, more education, less racially and financially skewed law enforcement, etc -- uniformed, armed patrols are the only time you raise your voice in supposed "support" for "helping" these communities.
It's transparent, and we know what you really are and really think. So why lie? You know we aren't buying it, and we know that you know we know. Just say, "We support armed patrols of poor people and non-whites, and other than that we don't care what happens to them." Say it, because it's what you really think and really mean and we know it. Stop wasting your time and energy making ridiculous, uninformed, obviously false claims and arguments pretending to have motives we know you don't really have. You just end up looking as foolish as you really are.
Comments
Re: Re: Iraq-style Checkpoints put the "occupied" in Occupied DC
Re: Re: Iraq-style Checkpoints put the "occupied" in Occupied DC
Your comment begs the question....Why did you leave these great neighborhoods?? Another question also looms, why were you in these neighborhoods to begin with....Gentrification??? If not, did you do nothing to better these communities??