August 16, 2004F.B.I. Goes Knocking for Political TroublemakersBy ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been questioning political demonstrators across the country, and in rare cases even subpoenaing them, in an aggressive effort to forestall what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests at the Republican National Convention in New York.
F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence. They say the inquiries, which began last month before the Democratic convention in Boston, are focused solely on possible crimes, not on dissent, at major political events.
But some people contacted by the F.B.I. say they are mystified by the bureau's interest and felt harassed by questions about their political plans.
"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''
The unusual initiative comes after the Justice Department, in a previously undisclosed legal opinion, gave its blessing to controversial tactics used last year by the F.B.I in urging local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and antiwar demonstrations to counterterrorism squads. The F.B.I. bulletins that relayed the request for help detailed tactics used by demonstrators - everything from violent resistance to Internet fund-raising and recruitment.
In an internal complaint, an F.B.I. employee charged that the bulletins improperly blurred the line between lawfully protected speech and illegal activity. But the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, in a five-page internal analysis obtained by The New York Times, disagreed.
The office, which also made headlines in June in an opinion - since disavowed - that authorized the use of torture against terrorism suspects in some circumstances, said any First Amendment impact posed by the F.B.I.'s monitoring of the political protests was negligible and constitutional.
The opinion said: "Given the limited nature of such public monitoring, any possible 'chilling' effect caused by the bulletins would be quite minimal and substantially outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order during large-scale demonstrations."
Those same concerns are now central to the vigorous efforts by the F.B.I. to identify possible disruptions by anarchists, violent demonstrators and others at the Republican National Convention, which begins Aug. 30 and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of protesters.
In the last few weeks, beginning before the Democratic convention, F.B.I. counterterrorism agents and other federal and local officers have sought to interview dozens of people in at least six states, including past protesters and their friends and family members, about possible violence at the two conventions. In addition, three young men in Missouri said they were trailed by federal agents for several days and subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury last month, forcing them to cancel their trip to Boston to take part in a protest there that same day.
Interrogations have generally covered the same three questions, according to some of those questioned and their lawyers: were demonstrators planning violence or other disruptions, did they know anyone who was, and did they realize it was a crime to withhold such information.
A handful of protesters at the Boston convention were arrested but there were no major disruptions. Concerns have risen for the Republican convention, however, because of antiwar demonstrations directed at President Bush and because of New York City's global prominence.
With the F.B.I. given more authority after the Sept. 11 attacks to monitor public events, the tensions over the convention protests, coupled with the Justice Department's own legal analysis of such monitoring, reflect the fine line between protecting national security in an age of terrorism and discouraging political expression.
F.B.I. officials, mindful of the bureau's abuses in the 1960's and 1970's monitoring political dissidents like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., say they are confident their agents have not crossed that line in the lead-up to the conventions.
"The F.B.I. isn't in the business of chilling anyone's First Amendment rights," said Joe Parris, a bureau spokesman in Washington. "But criminal behavior isn't covered by the First Amendment. What we're concerned about are injuries to convention participants, injuries to citizens, injuries to police and first responders."
F.B.I. officials would not say how many people had been interviewed in recent weeks, how they were identified or what spurred the bureau's interest.
They said the initiative was part of a broader, nationwide effort to follow any leads pointing to possible violence or illegal disruptions in connection with the political conventions, presidential debates or the November election, which come at a time of heightened concern about a possible terrorist attack.
F.B.I. officials in Washington have urged field offices around the country in recent weeks to redouble their efforts to interview sources and gather information that might help to detect criminal plots. The only lead to emerge publicly resulted in a warning to authorities before the Boston convention that anarchists or other domestic groups might bomb news vans there. It is not clear whether there was an actual plot.
The individuals visited in recent weeks "are people that we identified that could reasonably be expected to have knowledge of such plans and plots if they existed," Mr. Parris said.
"We vetted down a list and went out and knocked on doors and had a laundry list of questions to ask about possible criminal behavior," he added. "No one was dragged from their homes and put under bright lights. The interviewees were free to talk to us or close the door in our faces."
But civil rights advocates argued that the visits amounted to harassment. They said they saw the interrogations as part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive tactics by federal investigators in combating domestic terrorism. In an episode in February in Iowa, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Drake University for records on the sponsor of a campus antiwar forum. The demand was dropped after a community outcry.
Protest leaders and civil rights advocates who have monitored the recent interrogations said they believed at least 40 or 50 people, and perhaps many more, had been contacted by federal agents about demonstration plans and possible violence surrounding the conventions and other political events.
"This kind of pressure has a real chilling effect on perfectly legitimate political activity," said Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, where two groups of political activists in Denver and a third in Fort Collins were visited by the F.B.I. "People are going to be afraid to go to a demonstration or even sign a petition if they justifiably believe that will result in your having an F.B.I. file opened on you."
The issue is a particularly sensitive one in Denver, where the police agreed last year to restrictions on local intelligence-gathering operations after it was disclosed that the police had kept files on some 3,000 people and 200 groups involved in protests.
But the inquiries have stirred opposition elsewhere as well.
In New York, federal agents recently questioned a man whose neighbor reported he had made threatening comments against the president. He and a lawyer, Jeffrey Fogel, agreed to talk to the Secret Service, denying the accusation and blaming it on a feud with the neighbor. But when agents started to question the man about his political affiliations and whether he planned to attend convention protests, "that's when I said no, no, no, we're not going to answer those kinds of questions," said Mr. Fogel, who is legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.
In the case of the three young men subpoenaed in Missouri, Denise Lieberman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in St. Louis, which is representing them, said they scrapped plans to attend both the Boston and the New York conventions after they were questioned about possible violence.
The men are all in their early 20's, Ms. Lieberman said, but she would not identify them.
All three have taken part in past protests over American foreign policy and in planning meetings for convention demonstrations. She said two of them were arrested before on misdemeanor charges for what she described as minor civil disobedience at protests.
Prosecutors have now informed the men that they are targets of a domestic terrorism investigation, Ms. Lieberman said, but have not disclosed the basis for their suspicions. "They won't tell me," she said.
Federal officials in St. Louis and Washington declined to comment on the case. Ms. Lieberman insisted that the men "didn't have any plans to participate in the violence, but what's so disturbing about all this is the pre-emptive nature - stopping them from participating in a protest before anything even happened."
The three men "were really shaken and frightened by all this," she said, "and they got the message loud and clear that if you make plans to go to a protest, you could be subject to arrest or a visit from the F.B.I."
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 16 August 2004 13:09 (twenty-one years ago)
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/16/politics/fbi.span.jpg
F.B.I. agents and Denver police officers visited Sarah Bardwell, right, and a housemate, Sarah Graves, and two neighbors, Christopher Riederer, second from right, and Blake, who would not give his last name, at their homes to ask them about political and antiwar protest activities.
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 16 August 2004 13:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― 57 7th (calstars), Monday, 16 August 2004 13:16 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 16 August 2004 13:16 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 16 August 2004 13:17 (twenty-one years ago)
the thing is, I'm guessing Ashcroft really believes they are; he's truly afraid of those kids. I think it's a threat to national security to have a guy in charge who has such a fundamental failure to understand not only the culture of other countries, but even that of his own.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 16 August 2004 14:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 16 August 2004 14:25 (twenty-one years ago)
Thinking about smashing windows or overturning cars during the Republican National Convention? Think again: that will cost you a discounted buffalo chicken salad from Applebee's or a cheaper ticket to see "Tony n' Tina's Wedding."
In a transparently mercantile bid to keep protesters from disrupting the Republican National Convention later this month, the Bloomberg administration will offer "peaceful political activists" discounts at select hotels, museums, stores and restaurants around town during convention week, which begins Aug. 29.
Law-abiding protesters will be given buttons that bear a fetching rendition of the Statue of Liberty holding a sign that reads, "peaceful political activists." Protesters can present the buttons at places like the Whitney Museum, the Museum of Sex, the Pokémon Center store and such restaurants as Miss Mamie's Spoonbread Too and Applebee's to save some cash during their stay.
If only the Romanovs had thought of this.
"It's no fun to protest on an empty stomach," Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday, when he announced the program at NYC & Company, the city's tourism office, which will distribute the buttons to all comers to its Midtown office.
Protesters can also get the buttons from groups that have a legal permit to rally. But Mr. Bloomberg conceded yesterday that not everyone who wore a button would be strictly vetted for his or her peacefulness. "Unfortunately, we can't stop an anarchist from getting a button," he said, though he doubted any of them would want to wear one.
The discount program comes at a time when Mr. Bloomberg is under increasing pressure from the largest protest group, United for Peace and Justice, which is demanding the right to protest in Central Park, a request the city has repeatedly rejected. As a result, the city faces the prospect that the largest rally, planned the Sunday before the convention, will be an illegal gathering.
A spokesman for the group, Bill Dobbs, dismissed the discount program yesterday as a publicity stunt.
The city contends that it wants to give as warm a welcome to protesters as to delegates. "Most times, people try to keep protesters from coming," the mayor said, "and they certainly don't go out of their way to accommodate them."
In offering the discounts, the city also has its economy in mind. Officials want to make sure that hotels and restaurants are as fully booked as possible during the convention week; many have reported that reservations are slow for that week.
The discount program for protesters is modeled on one for delegates to the convention, and there are some notable differences. Protesters are offered $5 off admission to the Museum of Sex, while delegates are not. But delegates get $3 off the space show at the American Museum of Natural History, a discount not offered to protesters. The Republicans get "Rent," the people who oppose them get "Tony n' Tina's Wedding."
Bloomberg administration officials say the list of offerings for protesters may grow. An up-to-date list appears on nycvisit.com; visitors to the site can click on "Welcome peaceful political activists." There, the discontented but hungry can also find information about the city's history and tour guides for the "politically minded visitor."
Mr. Bloomberg also said that the police officers and firemen who had been holding loud demonstrations at his public appearances in the past few weeks would qualify.
Yesterday, outside the mayor's news conference, Joe Miccio, a firefighter who came to hector the mayor, fingered the button presented to him by a reporter with some confusion. "We are peaceful political activists," he said, puzzling over the notion of discounted hamburgers and office supplies (at Kroll's Office Products, free magic marker included). "We'll take a look at it."
The city says it expects at least 200,000 people - both out-of-towners and aggrieved New Yorkers - to protest around the city between now and the end of the convention on Sept. 2. And, as Mr. Bloomberg pointed out, they will need to eat.
With the convention a week and a half away, there are already some who may not qualify for the discounts. Yesterday, four members of Code Pink, a women's protest group, were arrested for trying to dangle a 40-foot-long banner from their ninth-floor window at the Sheraton Hotel across from Mr. Bloomberg's news conference, the police said.
Jodie Evans, a co-founder of the group, identified the women as Andrea Buffa and Colleen Galbraith of San Francisco, Claire Varoney of Los Angeles and Danielle Feris of New York City. The charges against the women are pending, the police said yesterday afternoon.
Gary Ferdman, the executive director of Sensible Priorities, a business consortium, said yesterday that he came up with the idea for the discount program when the city decided it needed to reach out to protesters. "I'm afraid this Central Park thing is really going to blow up," he said after the news conference, perhaps speaking more bluntly than city officials about the motivations for the program.
In announcing the program, Mr. Bloomberg was joined yesterday by former Mayors Edward I. Koch and David N. Dinkins. While Mr. Dinkins said that he might have handled the request to protest in Central Park "differently," Mr. Koch said he agreed with the Bloomberg administration's plan to keep the largest protest off the Great Lawn. That decision has angered many New Yorkers, particularly those who have ambivalent feelings about the convention, which Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly said will be an economic boon for the city.
Among more veteran protesters, the city's offer had a certain appeal. "Since we're both guests, New York City should treat us equally," said Aron Kay, who is also known locally as the Mad Yippie Pie Thrower. Mr. Kay is the organizer of a protest planned for outside Mayor Bloomberg's townhouse on the Upper East Side on Aug 22.
"Maybe we would like to eat in a restaurant or catch a play," he mused. Before or after haranguing the mayor? "I would say after," he said.
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 05:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 12:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)
"Protesters are offered $5 off admission to the Museum of Sex, while delegates are not. But delegates get $3 off the space show at the American Museum of Natural History, a discount not offered to protesters."
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― ())(())()()()(()(LASER)()()()LA(Z)E(R)()()()((L)()()(A)(S(E)R()()()) (ex machina, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― ())(())()()()(()(LASER)()()()LA(Z)E(R)()()()((L)()()(A)(S(E)R()()()) (ex machina, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 13:36 (twenty-one years ago)
I kinda want both the button and the discounts (though fuck Applebee's and that Tony and Tina's Wedding bullshit).
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)
― Anthony (Plato Guy), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)
again, ALWAYS have to pound in the idea that any protestors anywhere are violent, black-garbed anarchist-types.
― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)
Hey NYC folk--guess what you get to look forward to! "Protesters gear up for N.Y"
O Shit! It's the Republican National Convention!
Hunh. Looks like I started both of these. Funny, that.
― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:54 (twenty-one years ago)
at any rate, i know that some of the Air America shows have talked to folks who are already in town for the fun. I think NPR has done a piece, too.
― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)
― Anthony (Plato Guy), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)
Protesting at the GOP convention? Legal observers have your back.The Watchersby Janelle NanosAugust 11 - 17, 2004
There are a few things to know when planning a protest in New York City. An archaic state law forbids multiple protesters from wearing identical masks at an event. Signs carried on sticks or poles are considered potential weapons and will be confiscated. And if you didn't know these facts already, you should at least get acquainted with the volunteer corps of legal observers. They do know the rules, and they're an essential element in preserving your right to free speech and assembly.
Armed with neon-green hats, video cameras, and a knowledge of the law, legal observers were witness to more than 2,000 arrests—some peaceful, some not—at New York City demonstrations in 2003. This past March, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau predicted in a City Council hearing that there would be up to 1,000 arrests a day during the upcoming Republican National Convention. To prepare for this likelihood, the progressive National Lawyers Guild is recruiting over 250 volunteers to observe rallies and marches, and is bringing in a bevy of lawyers to handle, pro bono, any civil rights cases that arise.
The guild has drafted an $80,000 budget for legal outreach during the convention. The group will also keep a database of arrests and arraignments, but won't stop there. "A lot of what we do is not only the protection of people's rights, but providing emotional support," said Bruce Bentley, who's coordinating convention work for the guild's Mass Defense Committee. "When someone is waiting for 12, 24, or even 36 hours to be arraigned, their friends and family members will often call us to find out more about their arrest."
While at protests legal observers often act as liaisons, passing along police warnings or conveying demonstrators' concerns, their primary responsibility is to document police activity, gather contact information and witnesses during arrests, and then head to the precinct to determine when the detainees will be released. The information they collect can be instrumental in preparing a defense.
"You're not a protester. You may not even agree with the cause," said Jeff Senter, a legal observer who has attended more than a dozen protests in New York City in the past year. "But the Bill of Rights, dead as it may seem, is a constant issue of contention. And in instances of police misbehavior, legal observers are an integral part of the protection of those basic rights."
Legal observing began as an outreach program of the National Lawyers Guild, which was established in 1937 to use the law to promote social change. Its members worked to create labor unions and support the efforts of the civil rights movement, but soon decided they needed to take a proactive approach to protecting the public's rights.
"I became involved in mass defense work following the Columbia riots in 1968," said Martin Stolar, president of the New York City chapter. "Back then, legal observing was not quite so institutionalized. We decided that we had to do something else between the arraignments and the cases, and started being there to watch the cops and develop evidence. People started to trust us and began giving us advance information, and from there we created a Mass Defense Committee."
There are currently about 100 legal observers who make up the standing New York City's Mass Defense Committee. They are on call, responding to requests to witness everything from anti-war rallies and labor disputes to neighborhood fights for community gardens. Such protests happen daily in New York City, and most are relatively calm, with little police presence or cause for concern. But now the committee is preparing for what they expect will be tense encounters between protesters and police.
"The biggest risk is that the police will create an atmosphere that chills First Amendment rights and results in a public misconception that demonizes the protesters," said chief negotiator Leslie Ann Brody, who works to secure demonstration permits for groups throughout the city. "Within every crowd, there are a small percentage of things that will go wrong. But as a whole the protests will be a spirited, creative, and important discussion of vital issues. In times like these, we have to uphold the basic principles of freedom of expression."
The groups organizing the protests and the legal observers who monitor them certainly have reason to worry. Police have stepped up surveillance of their activities, and there has been a rash of police misconduct at protests. During a free-trade summit in Miami this past November, police used a combination of batons, pepper spray, and rubber bullets against some of the 15,000 assembled protesters. They arrested 250, including a few media representatives and legal observers, who are typically exempted. And during a February 15, 2003, protest against the impending invasion of Iraq, more than 300 protesters were arrested in Manhattan. In depositions conducted by the guild, the arrested testified that they were detained between 16 and 24 hours and were interrogated about their political beliefs.
"The bottom line for the police is control," said Bentley. "So long as they believe they are controlling a situation, their response to people who are protesting will be more measured. When they perceive they are losing control, they're going to move in and act physically. That's where you get a lot of problems."
Legal observers say heavy-handed treatment and prolonged detentions have had a chilling effect on dissenters, causing some to tone down their actions and others to avoid protests entirely. "I'm concerned about security too," said Joel Kupferman, a public interest lawyer who attends an average of one protest a week in New York City. "But there's no clash between security and allowing people to exercise their First Amendment rights. That's what makes America different."
At "Know Your Rights" training sessions, given by members of the National Lawyers Guild, protesters can learn the legal ramifications of their activities, how best to deal with the police, and how to proceed if their case goes to trial. (See nlgnyc.org for information about upcoming classes.)
Activists view the work of legal observers as integral to their efforts. "Legal observers are an arm's length from protest activity and play an important role in police accountability and ensuring our rights," said Bill Dobbs, spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, one of the groups planning a large-scale demonstration during the convention. "They observe the events as they unfold on the street, and provide invaluable legal advice right on the spot."
Though most legal observers acknowledge that their own politics tend to align them closer to the activists than to police, they pride themselves on their neutrality during events.
"I'd be willing to be a legal observer for the Ku Klux Klan," said Benjamin Bernard, a student at New York Law School. "Whether I agree personally or not, I'd go to protect their constitutional rights."
Those rights, as simple as the First Amendment may sound, are not so easily secured.
"Just being present puts the police on notice that there are people there watching how they conduct themselves," said Bentley. "There is a long history in this country of progressive political activism, and I think that if we can play a role that helps people to safely and orderly express themselves, then that's a good thing."
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)
On March 24, though, Chief Robert Duffy said the protestors should show "understanding" about pressure on the RPD budget. In an interview with WROC-TV Channel 8 news, Duffy said recent protests have cost the RPD around $20,000. "While some are protesting a loss of life over in Iraq among our service men and women and others, there's also a loss of life going on right here in Rochester," he told Channel 8.
RCAN organizer Nathan LaFratta responded on a local progressive listserv: "I am sure many people could cite all sorts of waste by our police department, and [Duffy] seems to forget we are protesting the spending of billions on this war at the expense of cities and services. This is a free speech issue and not-so-subtle way of trying to turn the public against the antiwar demonstrators."
― ())(())()()()(()(LASER)()()()LA(Z)E(R)()()()((L)()()(A)(S(E)R()()()) (ex machina, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:13 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)
every time i've been to a protest, the coolest parts haven't been the chanting - an art which may be irrevocably lost at this point - but the bonkers left-field aspects.. like the three-piece band of tuba, accordion, and drums that i saw at the big anti-war rally in NYC.. people visibly PROUD and HAPPY to be there and making a noise about it
i like the lights idea a LOT - very good for TV
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)
― ())(())()()()(()(LASER)()()()LA(Z)E(R)()()()((L)()()(A)(S(E)R()()()) (ex machina, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)
I do like the consistent claim that anarchists = thugs though.
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)
― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)
http://www.southern.com/BURNINGFLAGS/libertystreet_protest.php
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)
"The current Republican administration is perhaps the most arrogant, abusive, power-hungry government that has existed in U.S. history. Most Americans can't stand them. They "stole" the election, they are headed towards global destruction for corporate gain, and it is the responsibility of every citizen to speak out against them!"
makes me think they don't get out of NYC too often.
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)
http://community.webshots.com/s/image4/1/67/72/100316772vYMfTN_ph.jpg
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)
Group Asks to Protest in Central Park 2 hours, 22 minutes ago
By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - An anti-war group planning a massive demonstration the day before the GOP convention asked a judge on Wednesday to overrule city officials and let protesters gather in Central Park.
Lawyers for the group, United for Peace and Justice, filed a lawsuit in State Supreme Court in Manhattan seeking an order prohibiting the city from denying the group use of the park and finding that the denial violated the state Constitution.
City officials say that the expected crowd at the Aug. 29 rally, which could exceed 250,000 people, would damage the grass.
But the lawsuit noted that the park has been used in the past such gatherings as a Paul Simon concert attended by 750,000 people, a papal Mass that drew 250,000 people and regular performances by the New York City Opera and the New York Philharmonic.
The Constitution was violated "by discriminating on the basis of content in allowing cultural but not political events," the group claims.
Last week, the group had backed out of a deal it had reached with the city that allowed it to rally along a Manhattan highway after marching past convention headquarters at Madison Square Garden.
The organization's leaders said they changed their minds about the West Side Highway as an alternative to Central Park because they couldn't resolve issues like access to drinking water and how crowds gathered along the long, narrow highway space could hear the speakers.
On Wednesday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he was disappointed that the lawsuit had been filed, but said the city would not relent without a court order.
"We are not going to give a permit for Central Park," he said. "I've said that many times. I don't know how many times I've got to say it."
The fight between city officials and the anti-war group has prompted some organizations to urge activists to gather in the park anyway, risking arrest.
But Leslie Cagan, the group's leader, has said that United for Peace and Justice is trying to secure permits because the group wants a family-friendly gathering where participants don't have to worry about clashes with police.
On Tuesday, Bloomberg announced a plan aimed at encouraging peaceful protest during the convention, offering discounts on meals at some restaurants, hotel rooms and Broadway tickets.
"There is no reason we shouldn't welcome them in the same way we are welcoming the delegates and the press," Bloomberg said.
Protest groups said Tuesday they were less than impressed with the city's attempts at hospitality. They said hotel rooms remain unreserved and theater tickets unsold because Bloomberg has alarmed many potential visitors.
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― amateur!!!st, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 19:59 (twenty-one years ago)
I didn't think so either.
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 20 August 2004 23:31 (twenty-one years ago)
August 23, 2004Judge Lets City Bar Convention Protest on Park's Great LawnBy CHRISTINE HAUSER A federal judge ruled today that two groups of protesters cannot use Central Park's Great Lawn for a demonstration related to the Republican National Convention in New York City that starts next week.
The groups, National Council of Arab Americans and Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, or ANSWER, had sought an injunction directing the New York Parks Department to grant them a permit to use the Great Lawn for a demonstration of 75,000 people on Aug. 28, before the start of the convention on Aug. 30.
The case highlights the intersection of the public interest to peacefully assemble and the preservation of a "unique pastoral oasis amid a towering urban setting," according to the ruling by the judge, William H. Pauley III of United States District Court in Manhattan.
The judge said that he believed that the two sides could still bridge their differences and fashion a revised permit. Neither side had any immediate comment on the court's decision.
The Great Lawn is a fenced-off, grassy expanse of fields with baseball diamonds and open spaces used by New Yorkers to sunbathe, play games, picnic and gather in the city's landmark park for the occasional concert.
The Parks Department received 30 applications for special rallies or demonstrations during convention week, when Republicans will gather through Sept. 2 at the city's Madison Square Garden to announce the formal nomination of George W. Bush for a second term as president.
The National Council of Arab Americans had sought permission to use the Great Lawn, or another area known as the Sheep Meadow, for a demonstration on Aug. 28, the ruling said, but the lawsuit focused on the Great Lawn. The council later teamed up in the suit with the Act Now coalition, known as ANSWER.
The Parks Department denied the permit request, saying the areas could not accommodate such an event, and offered alternative locations that the plaintiffs rejected.
The ruling took note of what ANSWER said was the Great Lawn's historic and symbolic significance to the plaintiffs, owing to its role as "the heart and soul of New York City" and as a rallying point for the 1963 civil rights march on Washington led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
But the Aug. 28 rally and another one sought for the next day, the judge said, would damage the Great Lawn's approximately 12 acres of space, restored in 1997 at a cost of over $18 million.
"Given the intense public interest in these proposed events, the possibility exists that a demonstration estimated to be 75,000 could swell several magnitudes, overwhelm the police and destroy the Great Lawn," Judge Pauley wrote.
The defendants, including the City of New York, argued that the lawn would be significantly damaged by a gathering of 75,000 people if it rained the day before or the morning of the event.
Furthermore, the judge's ruling noted, a parallel state-court litigation by United For Peace and Justice seeks a permit to hold a demonstration of 250,000 people on the Great Lawn on Aug. 29.
Organizers and the city have yet to reach an agreement on how to handle the masses of protesters, setting up the potential for confrontations with the police just as the Republican delegates arrive.
City officials and United for Peace and Justice are locked in a court battle over the route of the march.
The group itself is fractured over how to proceed, and many protesters are vowing to use Central Park despite the determined opposition of the city, which wants the rally to take place on the West Side Highway.
"New York City has a way of pulling things off," Mayor Bloomberg's press secretary, Edward Skyler, said. "But if U.P.J. feels that marching past Madison Square Garden and having a rally off the Hudson River is such a tragic abuse of the First Amendment, then they have the option of not taking the city up on its offer."
The conflict over that protest began a year ago, when United for Peace and Justice first solicited a permit to rally on Central Park's Great Lawn, and it grew into a battle that pitted veteran leftist demonstrators against city officials, including a mayor whose love of the park led him to once sit on the board of the Central Park Conservancy and donate large sums of money to its cause.
The United for Peace and Justice leadership backed out of its agreement for a West Side Highway rally and sued in State Supreme Court for access to the park.
Jennifer Steinhauer and Diane Cardwell contributed reporting for this article.
― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 23 August 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)
http://www.moport.org
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 23 August 2004 18:07 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I. (Dan I.), Monday, 23 August 2004 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Monday, 23 August 2004 18:32 (twenty-one years ago)
― morris pavilion (samjeff), Monday, 23 August 2004 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)