Thousands came to Miami last week to demonstrate against the proposed
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), a trade agreement that would
extend NAFTA to all 34 nations in the Western Hemisphere except for
Cuba. Whether you think, as I do, that the FTAA will erode human rights,
environmental protections, and democratic sovereignty is immaterial.
The people who came to Miami to peacefully protest the FTAA were met
with a brazen show of military force, and their Constitutional rights
were seemingly suspended. That fact should chill you to the bone.
Estimates place the number of protestors anywhere between 8,000 (the
police count) to 30,000. Peaceful demonstrators vastly outnumbered the
small faction who conflicted with police. Yet the police promoted an
overwhelming “us against them” message to the demonstrators, to the
media, and to the Miami community. Every protestor was viewed as the
enemy. They were subjected to random searches, illegitimate arrests,
taunts and intimidation, and unprovoked violence both before and after
arrest.
I experienced or witnessed much of this. I suppose I was lucky in
that what I experienced was one of the less-violent civil liberties
violations. It happened on Friday, when a journalist colleague and I
were unlawfully detained while walking down Miami Avenue. Moments
earlier we had come upon a group of 10–12 demonstrators on their way to
what they called "The Really, Really Free Trade Market." They were
carrying a piece of anti-FTAA art to the market, and we followed about
20 feet behind to photograph them. They were peaceful and in good
spirits.
Within seconds, eight vans and SUVs surrounded us. More
than 60 officers—in full riot gear and armed to the teeth—poured out of
the vehicles and demanded we put our hands up and face the nearest wall.
My colleague and I flashed our press passes and tried to explain to an
officer that we had simply been taking photos. The officer responded by pointing a gun at our chests.
The
police told us to remove our bags and place them on the ground. On
several occasions we attempted to explain our situation. One officer
seemed to understand this and to want to let us go. He was overruled.
Multiple officers ordered us in this direction and that, searching our
bags and our bodies repeatedly. Another officer grabbed our press passes
and flung them down. Presumably because they weren't CBS or NBC, they
weren't “official.”
The police incorrectly told all of us that we
were in violation of a new Miami ordinance prohibiting the assembly of
groups of eight or more. The police informed the others that the same
ordinance prohibited their art. The ordinance the police spoke of is
Ordinance 54-6.1. It was passed two days before the demonstrations,
meaning that even if it violated Constitutional rights, there wouldn’t
be time to overturn it before the protests began. The ordinance is
scheduled to "sunset" on November 27.
The police officers who militarized the streets of downtown Miami
used this ordinance to justify their actions. Of more than 270 people
arrested over the week, five were journalists and eight were legal
observers. Various sources reported these and other violations: the
belongings of arrestees were not collected, and expensive or necessary
items like eye glasses and cameras were dumped in the gutter; protestors were illegally
detained or searched; bonds were set uncharacteristically high; and
buses carrying thousands of retirees and union members were blocked from
entering the city of Miami, effectively taking away their First
Amendment rights. Many peaceful demonstrators found themselves subject
to police harassment. Those arrested were treated with disdain, with
some subjected to strip searches and violence.
I saw
police fire indiscriminately with rubber bullets and launch tear gas
canisters near retired Steelworkers assembling to get on their bus home.
Police were filmed using concussion grenades, tazers, pepper spray, and
billy clubs against people peacefully assembled. Miami police chief
John Timoney, who has a history of disdain for protestors, lauded the
police in a Miami Herald story, "I thought they showed remarkable
restraint." Presumably, "restraint" means we should be impressed they
didn't burnish rocket launchers or machine guns.
In fact, part of
what makes demonstrating so frustrating is that due to police tactics,
peaceful people with no intention of engaging police feel they need to
wear bandanas, goggles, and helmets for their own protection. These are
the images the mainstream press thrive on now, and it contributes to the
process of criminalizing dissent.
Which brings
me back to our experience with the police. After being detained for
about 20 minutes without cause or reason, the police told us we could
go, but that due to the ordinance, we had to disperse and travel in
groups of less than eight. Never mind the fact that the ordinance does
not prohibit the assembly of eight or more people (which would clearly
violate the First Amendment), it just limits the types of materials such
a group may carry. But the police told us that were we to refuse, we
would be arrested.
In the meantime a police-ordered garbage truck pulled up and the
protesters’ art piece was thrown onto it. It was quickly crushed. One of
the police officers in charge proudly said to us, "You should put this
on the front page of your Web site! This represents what happened to you
people in Miami."
When I responded that none of us should have
been detained and intimidated, he insisted it shouldn’t matter. “What
really happened to you here? Nothing happened,” he said. So I asked him
how he’d feel if 60 officers with guns suddenly surrounded him while he
was walking down the street. “It would depend on the context,” he said
with a shrug.
It really is all about context. Somehow, the
context of dissent made Miami’s leaders attempt to limit the
Constitution. They appear to have suspended or severely bent the First
Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of the
Press), the Fourth (Protection against search and seizure without
probable cause), the Eighth (Excessive bail shall not be imposed) and
the Fourteenth Amendments (Equal protection under the law) of the U.S.
Constitution.
If this were an isolated event, it would be a
disturbing footnote in history. But the repression in Miami reflects a
growing trend toward criminalizing non-violent dissent in the United
States. That trend is right in line with the words of George W. “You’re
either with us or against us” Bush. Just this week the New York Times
reported that the FBI is returning to Hoover-like policies by
investigating, bugging and harassing antiwar protestors. Similarly, the
New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against New York
police for their tactics during a February antiwar demonstration.
It’s hard to pick out the most disturbing aspect of this growing
trend: Is it the ease with which many Americans are willing to give up
their hard fought liberties in the name of security? Is it the fact that
while martial law existed in an American city, the biggest news stories
were Michael Jackson's arrest and the 40-year anniversary of the
Kennedy assassination? Or is it simply that so few seem to have noticed
that this country’s hardest fought liberties are floundering on life
support?
Or maybe it’s just like the police officer on Miami
Avenue claimed—nothing really happened to the many protestors whose
civil liberties were violated and then let go. But when you think for a
second of the history that created those liberties, it’s clear something
has happened. John Locke once wrote: "Wherever law ends, tyranny
begins." John Stuart Mill noted that the world’s tendency is to
"diminish the power of the individual; this encroachment is not one of
the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary,
to grow more and more formidable." Locke was a major influence on
the framers of the U.S. Constitution; Mill's work helped
define the Western ideals of democracy and liberty. Their
beliefs were nowhere in sight in Miami."
Patriotism is not the
exclusive right of those in power, nor is it simply blind love of one's
country. Patriotism is the willingness to defend an established system
of laws. No matter where one comes from on the political spectrum, the
real patriot act will arise among those who do not believe that the
"Miami model" of repression belongs under any system of law.
As
we were walking away from the officers on Miami Avenue, one of them
reminded us, "This is my city. You people came here to disrupt our way
of life." His attitude, sounding like that of a cowboy sheriff engaged
in a turf war, seemed apt. In the Old West, men with guns invented the
law. The same could be said of Miami in 2003.
Chris Jones is a writer and editor living in Minneapolis.
He traveled to Miami to report and photograph for AMERICAS.ORG.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted
material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material
non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this
constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this
site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper
which first published the article online and which is indicated at the
top of the article unless otherwise specified. |