(a continuing series…)

The current size and scope of our government’s repressive ‘law and order’ campaign dwarfs any previous anti-dissident efforts, even during the worst excesses of COINTELPRO.  Using the World Trade Center attack as justification for the ‘temporary’ suspension of long standing protections against government repression and persecution, the Bush administration has declared war against our previously sacrosanct Bill of Rights’ protections.  

Under the guise of ‘fighting terrorism’ the administration has used every available method to clamp down on dissent, unleash law enforcement from any type of restraint and generally whip the nation into a frenzy of ultra-nationalism.  The Left is guilty of many things, but one that is frequently ignored is how we did not take Bush’s admonition that “you are either with us or against us” seriously enough.  It was initially stated in the context of the international community and intended to let other countries know that they had to make a choice regarding the ‘war on terror’; standing by on the sidelines would not be tolerated.  But this statement has taken on far greater urgency and the brunt of the impact is being felt much closer to home.  In this, the last year of the Bush presidency, you are either part of ‘team America’ or you are her enemy; and this decision is not left to the leaders of foreign countries; every American citizen is being forced to take sides.   Not only are we expected to give up our protections from unreasonable search, seizure or detainment, but we are now expected to rat out our neighbors, monitor our coworkers and report ‘suspicious activity’ among our fellow travelers to ‘the authorities.’

Conservatives, long the champions of individual rights and freedom from unwarranted government interference, apparently see no irony in now applauding the administration’s move toward a police state.  Where is their opposition to laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the new Homegrown  Terrorism Prevention Act, both of which address activities which were already considered crimes? (criticizing proposed laws that address behavior already covered by existing laws has been a long time favorite right wing talking point – what has changed?  oh yeah – ‘911 changed everything!’)   Not surprisingly, any concern for individual rights was sacrificed in favor of all-powerful support for corporate interests.  (to be fair, the Homegrown Terrorism  Prevention Act also criminalizes thought, a first even for Republicans…)

In the face of this unprecedented onslaught against dissent, many on the Left seem unsure of how to respond.  The Vietnam era provides two contrasting examples worth considering.  Some activist groups openly challenged the government, hoping that their direct confrontation in the streets would encourage the poor and working classes to join the struggle.  In contrast, other groups advocated a less aggressive, more defensive posture against government repression and police brutality.  Knowing that the USA government has almost unlimited manpower and resources, declaring open war against it was (and is) foolhardy - even more so in the current climate where the administration has done such a successful job of instilling an “us against the world” outlook among many of the people.  Instead, a more appropriate model for opposition would be to stand up forcibly against government persecution; a model of direct resistance that can build public support by clearly delineating the government’s repressive methods.  Public support for anti-government direct action is much easier to achieve when the government is clearly the instigator and plainly guilty of violating the civil rights of the dissidents.  The Bush administration has completely ignored the failed lessons of “pre-emptive’ war.  As long as they continue to attack without provocation, (at home as well as abroad) we can use this against them, very effectively. 

One of the greatest benefits of modern technology for activists is the ubiquitous video camera.  The CopWatch [http://copwatch.org] organization is an excellent model for local activists to follow when encountering the police.  The key to the success of this type of community oversight of the police is that the cops must be made to understand that they are always under surveillance. If they decide to go after the guy with the camera, three other cameras will be capturing this effort at removing community oversight.  

This method of holding the police accountable is not limited to traffic stops and street corner protests.  Few criminals are held in greater contempt in this country than the “cop-killer”.  But if there is a single criminal type that deserves an even worse reputation it would be the out of control renegade police officer with blood on his hands.  And if the entire incident is captured on video, even the most police-friendly judges will have a hard time ruling in favor of lawless cops who have killed those they are sworn to protect.  In any rational assessment, a killer-cop is a far worse crime against the community than even the dreaded cop-killer; the media has just been reluctant to tell this side of the story.