Massive Police presence in Pittsburgh evoked 'police state' talk

by smkovalinsky | September 26, 2009 at 07:46 am

585 views | 53 Recommendations | 13 comments

The massive police presence at the People's March on Friday made many protesters feel they were in a "police state". Area police upped their numbers and added riot squads in the Oakland area of the city.

Some expressed outrage at the attitudes of police, but Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said he was grateful they they protected the city, and did their jobs as the situation warranted.

After scores of clashes and as many as 70 arrests on Thursday, Friday was comparatively uneventful, largely due to the riot squads facing the People's March.

In the years of this first 21st century decade, the numbers of both right and left commentators within the blogospere who suspect a growing police state and see signs of impending martial law have increased. One scholar and researcher, Warren Bonesteel, said recently he believes a full blown state of Martial Law is "impending and inevitable". Certainly during the FDR years, the police forces in all the states escalated; in addition, there were the famous "Vice Squads" of the World War II years.

At the "Target Freedom" blog, the authors are indeed using the Pittsburgh G20 police tactics and riot squads as signs that we are one step closer to "martial law".

"Pittsburgh police, by firing tear gas and using riot squads, were showing blatant disregard for peaceful assembly rights and freedom of speech" said one blogger. The Militarization of Our Police is a YouTube video put out by that organization.

An author from "World Fascist Watch" expressed outrage over the military uniforms, the grabbing of a peaceful demonstrator and hustling him into an unmarked car, which sped away, saying "such a scene would not be out of place in Nazi Germany".

Police in riot gear lined the streets of the Group of 20 host city in an overwhelming show of force Friday as thousands of protesters chanted, waved signs and blew bubbles.

Unlike Thursday, when police tossed tear gas and fired rubber bullets to rout protesters who threw rocks and smashed store windows, Friday's "People's March" through the hilly streets of Pittsburgh produced no serious clashes.

The presence of hundreds of police sparked outrage among the demonstrators, who never got closer than half a mile to the G20 meeting site.

"We don't need the United Police States ofAmerica," said Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar advocate who famously protested outside formerPresident George W. Bush's ranch in Texas. "I was telling the cops, 'You're facing the wrong way. Face the banks.'"

The patchwork group of demonstrators voiced their opinions on a myriad of issues, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to workers' rights to the national debate on health care.

They chanted, "We all live in a fascist bully state" to the tune of the Beatles' "Yellow Submarine."

On Thursday, when demonstrators hit the streets without a permit, sparks flew. About 70 people were arrested and a slew of businesses were damaged.

Mike Nance, 28, a graduate student fromPhiladelphia, said he had no problem with so-called anarchists vandalizing businesses.

"I don't think property violence is particularly immoral," he said.

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

René

at 08:19 on September 26th, 2009

Scary to see these guys. this isn't Iran, is it?

Amy Judd

at 08:27 on September 26th, 2009

Scary I think.

J2B (not verified)

at 09:04 on September 26th, 2009

I wonder what happened to the right to assemble and protest?

generaldecay

at 10:30 on September 26th, 2009

This is a constant battle for police forces the world over: too little versus too much police presence and where to find that satisfactory level. It is very much a case of not being able to please all of the people all of the time.

Rory Cripps

at 05:19 on September 27th, 2009

Generaldecay: It seems to be a balancing act, as it were, doesn't it?

a211423

at 10:47 on September 26th, 2009

Friday's People's March of three to four thousand people was for the most part peaceful by the participants who were sponsored by the Thomas Merton Center which is a peace organization in Pittsburgh. People gave speeches about joblessness and issues they felt were being ignored by the G-20. Many of the issues were valid, and they are within their rights to demonstrate. I hope they can be respected and assessed apart from the anarchists whose only purpose is to distroy property and cause mayham.

Rory Cripps

at 15:30 on September 26th, 2009

It is interesting that both the far left and the far right agree that a "police state" is imminent. Who knows . . .they may be on to something there. All that it would take to set it in motion would be a disaster of major proportions such as coordinated and simultaneous terrorist strikes throughout major cities or a nuclear attack . . . .

a211423

at 15:57 on September 26th, 2009

We talked about executive powers a month ago, whether you chose to call it a police state or trying to keep order in chaos in the emergency situations you cited I would want some kind of government intervention to ensure safety and protection of humans and property.

Executive Orders currently in effect:

EO 10990; provides for the takeover of all modes of transportation, control of highways, seaports etc.
EO 10995; provides for the takeover of the communications media.
EO 10997; provides for the takeover of all electric, power, petroleum, gas, fuels, and minerals.
EO 10998; provides for the takeover of food resources and farms.
EO 11000; provides for mobilization of all civilians into work brigades under the government's supervision.
EO 11001; provides for government takeover of all health, education, and welfare functions.
EO 11002; designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EO 11003; provides for the government to takeover all airports and aircraft.
EO 11004; provides for the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EO 11005; provides for the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

You will note one of the orders is the communication media.

Rory Cripps

at 05:17 on September 27th, 2009

Interesting that the above are all "Executive Orders" . I'd imagine that they'd have to be to be put into effect if and when the occasion was warranted. Here's a hypothetical: Would you feel better if these executive orders were issued by a Republican president or Democrat president? Or would it make any difference?

a211423

at 07:57 on September 27th, 2009

If an event like a natural disaster warrented the institution of any of these, the last thing I would be thinking about is whether the president is Democrat or Republican.

René

at 07:45 on September 27th, 2009

Who issued each of these?

Sad Old Fool (not verified)

at 06:50 on September 27th, 2009

Unfortunately for humankind, even when given the choice, the majority choose ignorance. A trait proven throughout history and aided by labels such as 'conspiracy theorist', unpatriotic, communist etc.The majority of US Citrizens should feel ashamed for letting this happen ... due to their comfortable ignorance, everything that was created in the name of liberty and freedom will be un-done. 'They' can't just switch from a free republic to a totalitarian state; they have to 'tip-toe', gradually chipping away at your rights and freedoms. Here's the best bit ... they're doing it in the name of freedom and the majority of you are suckers asking for it.

a211423

at 08:24 on September 27th, 2009

Rene

Through legislation the Congress has made many delegations of authority in the last 200 years. The president has powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances, other than natural disasters, war, or near war situations. These powers may be stated explicitly or implied by the Constitution and are deemed by the president to be permissible constitutionally or inferred or specified by statute.

There are limits and restraints on the exercise of emergency powers. With the exception of habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Checks and balances are ensured since the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches can restrain the executive branch regarding emergency powers, and so can public opinion. This is an important aspect to remember.

In 1976 the President became subject to certain procedural formalities in utilitzing some statutorily delegated emergency authority. The National Emergencies Act eliminated or modified some emergency authority; required the president to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority activated the declaration and the authority being sought.

The exercise of emergency powers has long been a concern of classical political theorists, including John Locke the 18th century English philosopher. He had a strong influence on the Founding Fathers. He was an exponent of a government of laws and not of men. Locke argued that occasions may rise when the executive must exert a broad descretion in meeting special exigencies or emergencies for which the legislative power provided no relief or existing law granted. He did not regard his prerogative as limited to wartime, or even to situations of great urgency. It was sufficient if the "public good" might be advanced by its exercise.