Forum Post: Homeland Security Study Praises Occupy Sandy, With Murky Intentions
Posted 10 years ago on April 2, 2014, 7:07 p.m. EST by LeoYo
(5909)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Homeland Security Study Praises Occupy Sandy, With Murky Intentions
Wednesday, 02 April 2014 10:20
By Thomas Hintze, Truthout | News Analysis
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22837-dhs-study-praises-occupy-sandy-with-murky-intentions
A new study titled "The Resilient Social Network" praises Occupy Sandy, the fluid, grass-roots relief network that emerged following the devastation of Superstorm Sandy. The report offers comprehensive analysis of Occupy Sandy's "Success Drivers" and juxtaposes its findings with the "Limitations of Traditional Relief Efforts," characterizing the work of conventional responders like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and The Red Cross, and providing recommendations for the way these organizations can improve their efforts in the future. Sounds great, right?
There's just one problem: the study was conducted for the Department of Homeland Security.
The late journalist Michael Hastings covered the involvement of Homeland Security in monitoring Occupy Wall Street, a Rolling Stone story that he broke in conjunction with Wikileaks in February 2012. One document Hastings obtained, a seemingly harmless five-page report called "Special Coverage: Occupy Wall Street," led him, presciently, to conclude the following:
"It's never a good thing to see a government agency talk in secret about the need to 'control protestors' - especially when that agency is charged with protecting the homeland against terrorists, not nonviolent demonstrators exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceable dissent. ... There is not much of a bureaucratic leap, if history is any guide, between a seemingly benign call for 'continuous situational awareness' and the onset of a covert and illegal campaign of domestic surveillance."
By the end of 2012, The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund had obtained documents that broke the story of the crackdown on OWS wide open, tracing the steps Hastings described from surveillance to action. Homeland Security, along with the FBI, local and state police, regional fusion centers, and private-security firms working for big banks and industry were collaborating in a public/private security structure called the Domestic Security Alliance Council to stifle dissent and shut down OWS.
So when some OWS and Occupy Sandy organizers got wind of the recent report, the feeling was mixed: affirmation peppered with educated misgivings. Michael Premo, a longtime activist and executive producer of Sandy Storyline, a participatory documentary about the impact of Superstorm Sandy, was one of the main organizers I followed for a story in the immediate wake of the storm. When I spoke with him recently about the new report, he invoked historical examples of repression - COINTELPRO, the Green Scare, the coordinated crackdown on OWS - to map out the possible actions that the government could take against political groups. Yet, he believed that the report on Occupy Sandy might be a chance for activists to pat themselves on the back.
"This is an acknowledgement of why [Homeland Security was] so paranoid about Occupy Wall Street in the first place," Premo said. "The federal government understands how powerful autonomously organized networks can be."
Areas of Study
The report, completed in September 2013 but released on March 7, begins with an "Executive Summary" that trumpets the triumphs of Occupy Sandy: "In the days, weeks, and months that followed [Superstorm Sandy], 'Occupy Sandy' became one of the leading humanitarian groups providing relief to survivors across New York City and New Jersey. At its peak, it had grown to an estimated 60,000 volunteers." The summary concludes, "Unlike traditional disaster response organizations, there were no appointed leaders, no bureaucracy, no regulations to follow, no pre-defined mission, charter, or strategic plan. There was just relief."
Among its main observations, the study lists five "Occupy Sandy Success Drivers," which include "the horizontal structure," and "social media as the primary means to attract and mobilize a large volunteer corps." According to Tamara Shapiro, another activist whom I interviewed directly in the aftermath of Sandy and spoke with recently, both points were right, but with caveats.
"Especially in disaster response when you need to be agile and able to shift as information shifts, having a structurelessness to communications, or a way in which people can do what they see in front of them as very real needs without having to get permission, is critical," Shapiro said. "DHS taking notice that horizontality and a networked approach is effective in a crisis moment means that they could potentially use that for good. However, it could also mean that they will use it for bad. DHS has lots of arms, and clearly, disaster relief is only one."
When the Department of Homeland Security came into being in November 2002, after Congress passed the Homeland Security Act, it represented the largest government reorganization since the Department of Defense was created, combining 22 separate agencies into one department. Among the agencies that were incorporated into this new monolith were FEMA and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the second-largest criminal investigations unit after the FBI. With one organization charged with delivering disaster relief and another with prosecuting and deporting undocumented immigrants, it seems that the mission of one or both would be compromised by working together.
The DHS report on Occupy Sandy found that fluid, horizontal structures were better able to support relief work for undocumented and immigrant populations than existing agencies. A survey by the nonprofit Make the Road New York found 78 percent of immigrants, documented or not, did not apply for disaster relief from the government.
"What's complicated about these government agencies, especially DHS, is that Homeland Security is now a massive operation, and it's really unclear how well different organizations even communicate with each other," said Michael Premo. "I saw an attempt to navigate that, but as long as there are immigration policies that are as aggressive as Obama's, any federal agency is not going to be supportive of undocumented people getting access to the services and the assistance that they need."
When approached by undocumented people in need, Michael Premo observed FEMA's response: use the Social Security number of a family member who is documented to apply for aid. But in this scenario, the risks usually outweigh the benefits, and immigrants look for other options.
According to the report, in the early stages of emergent response networks, the horizontal integration of organizers and volunteers occurs through social media. Over and over, the report emphasizes information sharing. Activists I spoke with saw problems in this approach.
"It wasn't just that the methods of communication were useful; it was that the information we were getting was useful, and then the methods of delivery were fast and effective," said Shapiro, who works with Interoccupy, one of the main communications tools used by Occupy Sandy. "What I see from big institutions like the Red Cross and FEMA and the city is they came into communities and said, 'We're here to help you.' Whereas we said, 'We're here to support you in helping each other.' I think that's a really big difference, and I think it made our information better. Information will always be better when it's based in community knowledge.
"There were so many people who had no idea how to interact with FEMA despite FEMA's best efforts," Premo said. "We were able to communicate so much better with our communities because we realize how communities work."
One of the most complex issues that surfaced in the study is the concept of volunteer labor. "Overnight, a volunteer army of young, educated, tech-savvy individuals with time and a desire to help others emerged," the report croons. But quickly, the issue becomes embroiled in deeper concerns about social and economic inequality. "Occupy Sandy attracted a diverse range of volunteers, many from communities hit hard by the storm," the study observes. "Many were white, middle-class, and highly educated. Many were unemployed or underemployed and were eager to use their skills."
"What's most disturbing to me about the report is [Homeland Security] understood the activities of Occupy Sandy with no political context at all," said Pamela Brown, an activist and co-author of "Shouldering the Costs," a report that examines the use of loans as aid in the aftermath of the storm. "It was just people who happened coincidentally to be involved in Occupy Wall Street who came together as Occupy Sandy, which was a totally different kind of effort."
It would seem the conditions of inequality that brought about Occupy Wall Street were the same conditions, one year later, that brought about the model volunteer "army" of the future. Yet, when you overlook the political aspects of Occupy Sandy, at least in its early incarnations, some very critical elements of the organizing that occurred cease to make sense. For example, the study defines "mutual aid," a central concept to Occupy Sandy and Occupy Wall Street, as a kind of contractual exercise between communities, not unlike pledges of fealty in feudal societies.
"When a larger need arises, most jurisdictions have the ability to call on neighboring communities for help, often through prearranged agreements, commonly referred to as mutual aid. ... Mutual aid often encompasses multiple types of agreements through which jurisdictions can request assistance from each other." A wikipedia search of "mutual aid" would have given the authors easy access to the organizational and political theories that underly the concept and this simple definition: "a voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit."
Looking more closely at the ramifications of the report's view of volunteer labor, Pam Brown finds problems within the overall horizontal structure of the organization. There were limits to the mutual aid Occupy Sandy and communities could provide because volunteers needed to pursue employment to support themselves. "The extreme horizontalism that they look to in the report as an ideal was problematic," Brown said. "Within the organizing structure, people did emerge as regular volunteers and leaders, but they didn't have work. So at some point, either they had to find work or they had to advocate to be paid for the work that they were doing that they felt was valuable through stipend." This model for a volunteer organization is inherently unsustainable if volunteers lack political solidarity. The economic system that creates a surplus of skilled workers also takes them away and forces them to labor for wages.
Beyond leading us to paradoxes like these, the report leaves a number of questions unanswered, like this ambiguous statement: "If there will be more disasters in the future, and there will be, then there will be more opportunities, opportunities like Occupy Sandy." It is unclear what the report is referring to, but activists like Tamara Shapiro have their own interpretation of these "opportunities." "What we saw during Sandy was how unbelievably ineffective the Red Cross was," she said. "So what I'm really interested in is how can we fill in the gap left by that failing model? Can we use these moments of crisis to inject money directly into communities to shape what's possible?"
Shapiro said she's still involved in the recovery work in the Rockaways, building worker-owned cooperatives and a coalition to oppose real estate development. Despite the murky intentions of the Homeland Security study, she is proud of many of the recommendations it makes, a testament to the success of Occupy Sandy. "There are contradictions baked in everywhere, but I don't think that it's a bad thing. In fact, I think it strengthens our ability to do what we can and should be doing. We proved through Occupy Sandy that the skills we were learning and the tools we were using and the infrastructure we were building could be used incredibly effectively to do something concrete."
Copyright, Truthout.
Police Killing Inflames San Francisco Community, Revealing Further Divides
Wednesday, 02 April 2014 13:05
By Joseph Mayton, Occupy.com | News Analysis
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22851-police-killing-inflames-san-francisco-community-revealing-further-divides
San Francisco, Calif. – A police shooting of a 28-year-old man in San Francisco last Friday has left the city divided, angry and uncertain over the fast-changing social and economic landscape of the Bay Area. On Tuesday, frustration boiled over at a community meeting led by San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr after he argued that the officers who shot Alejandro Nieto had "fired in defense of their lives."
The latest police-related violence to hit the Bay Area, last week's shooting and its fallout have residents – especially the non-white community that has long called the Mission District home – fearful of the future.
"We've been here before," said Dario Gomez, an immigrant who moved into the Mission neighborhood 12 years ago, and says he has long faced discrimination from the men in blue. "This is nothing new and the police arguments that Ale was a threat or posed danger is simply not true."
"Police know that young people go up to Bernal Hill to release anger and get away from their troubles," Gomez added. "To be shot there is just a wrong and this is murder."
But Police Chief Suhr argued differently, saying that officers responded to calls from area residents who claimed Nieto had a gun and was waving it around as he sat on Bernal Hill, a short walk from the Mission district.
The police account laid forth in the meeting was confusing, in which officers claimed they responded with numerous shots at Nieto when the young man allegedly reached for his holster, which carried a well-marked taser. Nieto was in possession of the taser due to his job as a security guard at a local bar and nightclub.
Suhr said the "officers approached [Nieto] with the information, triangulating around him as is protocol with armed suspects."
According to the police chief, when officers called out to Nieto to show his hands, the man reportedly pulled out the taser, which has a red target laser similar to those displayed by firearms. The officers then opened fire.
While police have not released information about the number of bullets that were fired, witnesses say Nieto was shot more than 14 times.
Grieving friends, family and community members are now questioning how a squad of trained police officers could have mistaken a taser for a gun.
"This is a travesty," Benjamin Bac Sierra, Nieto's friend and former English professor at City College of San Francisco, told the San Francisco Chronicle at the meeting. "He was not bothering anyone. There is no justification whatsoever – whatsoever – for him to be massacred with 14 bullet holes."
In the week since the killing, many have questioned the police account and the way that Nieto was treated as a "threat," even as he ate a sandwich and air-boxed, a visible sign of releasing tension. Suhr alluded to Nieto's mental health saying the man could not own a gun "for mental health reasons," which sparked outrage from the crowd.
A Mission District community organizer, Roberto Hernandez, told the audience on Tuesday that mental health questions should not be taken as a justification for murder and being shot multiple times. He pointed out that when he was younger, he and his friends also found solace running up Bernal Hill to get away from their problems.
"It hurts that the first thing to come out was that he had mental health problems," Hernandez said. "If that would have been me up on the hill, screaming and yelling, you would have gotten a lot more calls than that."
The SF Police Department would not comment on the investigation when Occupy.com asked for a statement on the shooting, saying only: "We are currently looking at what happened and the procedures in place in these instances are being dealt with."
The officers involved in the shooting have been placed on administrative leave as per department policy related to police shootings.
On Monday, a vigil held for Nieto drew scores of friends, family and others who came together to show their grief and express anger at the SFPD. Predominant among them were Latinos and African-Americans – revealing what many at the vigil noted to be an absence of the "new white residents" of neighborhood.
One African-American activist named Omar told Occupy.com he thought it reflected "a sign of the colonial attitude that many new residents have in the area." He continued, "The white people, unfortunately, do not come out in anger at these things because they are rarely, if ever, the victim of police profiling and violence."
Others at the vigil demanded that the police officers be brought to justice over the killing of an unarmed man, who was a Buddhist and avid supporter of peace and nonviolence.
"If they knew him and had learned more before opening fire, they would have known he was not a threat. But because he is dark-skinned, he didn't get that opportunity," one family member said with tears pouring down her face.
Police maintain that ethnicity had nothing to do with the shooting – and that the officers were only following procedure in what they termed a "defensive" action.
Nieto is the latest in a string of police killings – in addition to beatings and other violent attacks against non-white males – that have inflamed passions in the Bay Area in recent years. The most famous incident, when police shot dead young African-American Oscar Grant at the Fruitvale BART station on New Year's Day in 2009 – an event that was made into a film which won top awards at Sundance last year– was referenced by some community members at the vigil.
The absence of white people attending the vigil, however, was notable, reinforcing the divide in the community. Occupy.com asked a number of white people seated at local, nearby cafes what they thought about the shooting – and none expressed distrust or frustration over the lethal action taken by police.
"I think this is a situation where a troubled person was up on a hill, threatening others, and had a taser," said Josie, a 28-year-old web designer. "Why did he pull out the taser? This is a safety issue and we want the police to make sure our safety is where it needs to be."
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.
The ''Bounty'' Police Force? Albuquerque Officers Face Protests, Probe Over Spate of Fatal Shootings
Wednesday, 02 April 2014 11:58
By Renee Feltz and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
Outrage is growing in Albuquerque, New Mexico, after the latest incident in a spate of police shootings. Video footage captured by a police helmet camera shows officers killing James Boyd, a homeless man who appeared to be surrendering to them at a campsite where he was sleeping. Boyd is seen picking up his belongings and turning away when officers deploy a flash grenade and then fire six live rounds at him from yards away. The Albuquerque Police Department has come under federal scrutiny for being involved in 37 shootings since 2010, 23 of them fatal. This week the FBI confirmed it is investigating the killing of Boyd, and the Justice Department has already been investigating the city's police shootings for more than a year. We are joined by Russell Contreras, an Associated Press reporter who was tear-gassed while covering the Sunday protest and has been following the police shootings. We also speak to Nora Tachias-Anaya, a social justice activist whose nephew, George Levy Tachias, was fatally shot by police while driving in Albuquerque in 1988. Tachias-Anaya is a member of the October 22 Coalition To Stop Police Brutality.
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22850-the-bounty-police-force-albuquerque-officers-face-protests-probe-over-spate-of-fatal-shootings