![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
My first post on this is here, if this one is not making total sense.
Of course, the New York Civil Liberties Union is a biased source, and it looks like they don't have completely sure information yet either, but here is their page on the matter thus far.
Or this take on the folks involved, from New York's "alternative" newspaper. I have to admit, the complaint about the lack of vegan food at once made sense to me, and yet boggled the mind. It all comes down to whether the folks involved deserved to be arrested, and whether the place actually did have toxic chemical problems. If the answers are 'yes' and 'no' then this article pretty much sums up what we're hearing. If there were folks rounded up who were, in fact, not involved in civil disobedience or otherwise breaking the law, that changes things a bit but could be a mistake. If, however, the accusations of how nasty the floor was made by some of the folks detained there are accurate...that's a whole different matter.
Also interesting is the back-and-forth on what it was. One article says it was a converted warehouse, another it was a bus terminal, another that it was a bus depot/garage for buses. Given the stories of oil on the floor, I'm assuming the article stating it was a converted warehouse is crap.
Tentatively, what I'm seeing is that it was probably an old bus depot, with old oil on the floor, but also with benches, water, etc. It still all comes down to "was the facility dangerous to the people in it" because, other than that, it sounds like it was just an unpleasant place to spend time. Well, that and to some degree the argument of how long people were held there, since the viewpoints vary on that too. But it's mostly the "toxic chemicals" piece that has me wondering, at this point.
More stories on it, for those forming their own view:
http://www.news-gazette.com/story.cfm?Number=16663
http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/16134
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040909/southsound/140705.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/nyregion/08detain.html?ex=1095307200&en=2ba9eda6177e32e2&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
I suspect, now that I've done more digging, that it will be months before we know, if we ever do (but the lawsuit threats and other allegations make it pretty likely that we'll at least get more information, I imagine).
I don't like Bush. There's a cynical part of me, though, that wonders if this wasn't the sort of thing that at least some of the protestors were hoping for. It should - and probably is going to - do more damage to the mayor's reputation than to Bush's, though. Aside from the letter quoted in the first link in my original post, everything else seems to suggest that Pier 57 (whatever the conditions) was a city action, not the RNC's choice. Which is as it should be - if the RNC had had their own personal holding pen, as the first writer said, that would also be a problem. So - is the truth being hidden? Or is it, as seems more likely, that the first writer was taking the opportunity to engage in a bit of politicking via her own personal horror?
Of course, the New York Civil Liberties Union is a biased source, and it looks like they don't have completely sure information yet either, but here is their page on the matter thus far.
Or this take on the folks involved, from New York's "alternative" newspaper. I have to admit, the complaint about the lack of vegan food at once made sense to me, and yet boggled the mind. It all comes down to whether the folks involved deserved to be arrested, and whether the place actually did have toxic chemical problems. If the answers are 'yes' and 'no' then this article pretty much sums up what we're hearing. If there were folks rounded up who were, in fact, not involved in civil disobedience or otherwise breaking the law, that changes things a bit but could be a mistake. If, however, the accusations of how nasty the floor was made by some of the folks detained there are accurate...that's a whole different matter.
Also interesting is the back-and-forth on what it was. One article says it was a converted warehouse, another it was a bus terminal, another that it was a bus depot/garage for buses. Given the stories of oil on the floor, I'm assuming the article stating it was a converted warehouse is crap.
Tentatively, what I'm seeing is that it was probably an old bus depot, with old oil on the floor, but also with benches, water, etc. It still all comes down to "was the facility dangerous to the people in it" because, other than that, it sounds like it was just an unpleasant place to spend time. Well, that and to some degree the argument of how long people were held there, since the viewpoints vary on that too. But it's mostly the "toxic chemicals" piece that has me wondering, at this point.
More stories on it, for those forming their own view:
http://www.news-gazette.com/story.cfm?Number=16663
http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/16134
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040909/southsound/140705.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/nyregion/08detain.html?ex=1095307200&en=2ba9eda6177e32e2&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
I suspect, now that I've done more digging, that it will be months before we know, if we ever do (but the lawsuit threats and other allegations make it pretty likely that we'll at least get more information, I imagine).
I don't like Bush. There's a cynical part of me, though, that wonders if this wasn't the sort of thing that at least some of the protestors were hoping for. It should - and probably is going to - do more damage to the mayor's reputation than to Bush's, though. Aside from the letter quoted in the first link in my original post, everything else seems to suggest that Pier 57 (whatever the conditions) was a city action, not the RNC's choice. Which is as it should be - if the RNC had had their own personal holding pen, as the first writer said, that would also be a problem. So - is the truth being hidden? Or is it, as seems more likely, that the first writer was taking the opportunity to engage in a bit of politicking via her own personal horror?
no subject
It's clever, short term brutality would get attention and be really noticed and then the protesters would heal and go on their merry way. But this will go below the radar and totally fuck up hundreds of lives.
If there really was a pregnant woman in there, I feel very, very sorry for her.