Disappeared -- The Pre-Legend of Chris Dorner

Here to Help

Have you noticed that despite the intense media coverage of the Dorner Manhunt, and even despite the $1 million reward offered up by the City of Los Angeles yesterday (thanks to a cohort of anonymous wealthy donors)  the object of all this attention hasn't been seen or heard from in something like a week now.

He's disappeared.

Have you noticed, too, that despite the efforts of the LA and other police forces to provide Dorner with the formal three-name sobriquet always utilized for major league -- and some minor league -- criminals (in this case "Christopher Jordan Dorner") most people seem to be sticking to the informal "Chris Dorner," as if he were somebody they knew or had a beer with on occasion, who they liked and trusted, who was their friend.

Have you noticed that even though Dorner is now designated a Domestic Terrorist by the LAPD (by what authority, I wonder?) the public outpouring of understanding and even support for his cause -- which is widely recognized as a cause of "justice" -- has not diminished; if anything, it's increased. His methods may be wrong, but his cause is just, so goes the reasoning.

I've mostly followed the story online and watched with something close to amazement as the comments about it have gone from clearly in favor of the police doing "whatever is necessary to take him out" to "he's doing what he has to, may not be the right way to do it, but he's already done or tried to do all the right things and has been screwed over." The sympathy/empathy for him and contempt for the LAPD is almost all that appears in comments about the story now. It's nearly universal.

This is, I think, unprecedented at least in modern times. I've heard of outlaws in pioneer days and during the Depression receiving a lot of public support despite their status as outlaws, but the Outlaw Character has practically disappeared from American mythology these days, and people who do things which are counter to the prevailing social mores are routinely denounced, demonized and whenever possible destroyed.

This is something else again.

While the police initially panicked to protect themselves, causing a great deal of collateral damage -- thankfully no one died in the hail of bullets let loose against phantom targets of opportunity -- now they're scrambling merely to hold on to any public good will at all. It's a sight to behold. Step by step, as they have lost the public's good will through many unforced errors over the years and the clearly out of control bolloxing of this case going back to its origins in the official mistreatment of Dorner for daring to complain about abuse he witnessed, the police have tried practically all the PR stunts they can think of -- mass armed assemblies and fruitless searches in the snow at Big Bear, conceding the need for further review of Dorner's complaints while designating him a Domestic Terrorist, fundraising and offering a million dollar reward, moderating press conference statements about him, apologizing to the citizens shot up by mistake, so on and so forth -- they are not winning back the public trust. The more they try to smooth over the PR disaster they have on their hands, a disaster of their own making let it be said, the more the public sees their desperation, and the higher their level of contempt.

The more I see of this Charlie Beck person who is allegedly chief and in charge of the operations of the LAPD, the more repellant and snake-like he becomes. He's been floundering so badly, and yet is still put forth as the face of the agency. Something tells me he's not in charge at all; he's the fall-guy and will be sacrificed at the appropriate moment by those who are really in charge.

Who could that be I wonder.

Is this all an elaborate ruse to get rid of him while preserving the malformed institution he ostensibly heads? The "Chinatown" elements of whatever happens in LA are never buried very deep in any case; things are typically not what they are said to be or what they seem to be, there is always an underlying -- and often very different and very corrupt -- "necessity" being protected and promoted.

The LAPD exists to protect certain interests and certain people and to ensure that the control and exploitation of the rest continues without interruption or hindrance. When things go wrong, as they do every now and then, the LAPD pays for it with another round of "reform." But the "reform" never actually reforms the institution, because its whole point is to protect certain people and interests while ensuring control and exploitation of the rest. That's what the LAPD is for. When you understand that, you understand what their motto ("To Serve and Protect") really means. It doesn't mean they "serve and protect" you you see. Never.

There seems to be a widespread understanding that Dorner tried to do the right thing by bringing abuse that he witnessed to the attention of his superiors and he was punished for it. We can be certain that he is not the only one by any means.  He did what he thought was right and what he was supposed to do, and he was slapped down, hard, by a system that cannot accommodate that kind of idealism and honesty.

For the supposed chief now to reopen his case and pledge honesty and transparency (of course, we can assume it's a fraudulent pledge, but that's another issue, not germane to the matter at immediate hand) in reviewing the facts and Dorner's complaints, tells me that Dorner's "manifesto" has struck a strong chord within the department, that many, many LAPD officers have either hesitated to bring their own complaints about racism and abuse to the attention of superiors for fear of retaliation, or that they themselves have faced similar punishment to that of Dorner for trying to do the right thing, and now they're saying, "Look, this shit has got to stop."

Of course, the purpose of the institution requires that the shit continue. Even redouble. So they'll do what they have to to make it look like they're reforming or changing, but they won't actually reform. They'll fuss with process, they'll declare the matter settled. If you have any doubt about how these things go, look at what the Catholic Church has done in the face of withering criticism (oh yes, and lawsuits, many many lawsuits) of its institutionalized child abuse. Almost every "reform" has been eyewash.

So it is and will ever be with the LAPD.

It is the Iron Law of Institutions, and the only way to really change it is to abolish the institution and start over -- which isn't going to happen. Well, not before the Revolution comes.

Dorner's pre-legend is being put together right now, despite the fact that he is nowhere to be found. Is he even still alive? Who knows? He will become a legend whether or not he is ever found, dead or alive (my own suspicion is that he took his own life, perhaps in Big Bear). He might become a legend as powerfully iconic as the Hugo Weaving character in "V is for Vendetta." Let there be comics and movies and songs and stories.

And let there be masks. He's already got the smile...

The BART Protests

BART Protests Shut Down Several Stations: "A protest has shut down three BART stations in Downtown San Francisco on Monday. Protesters are upset over a recent decision to shut down cell service to thwart a previous demonstration. Joe Vazquez reports."



Protest at the Civic Center BART station July 11, 2011

BART stands for Bay Area Rapid Transit; it's the subway system that serves San Francisco and the surrounding area, and it's recently been in the news for a number of unpleasant incidents in which the transit police have seen fit to fire their side-arms into the bodies of... well... Negroes [and others]

[Note: One loses track of all the shootings. Kenneth Harding was shot and left to bleed out by SFPD officers on July 16, 2011 at the Hunters Point-Bayview Muni Station, allegedly after failing to pay his fare. I initially confused him with Charles Hill, who was shot and killed by a BART policeman at the Civic Center BART station on July 3, 2011. Oscar Grant was shot and killed by a BART policeman at the Fruitvale BART station in Oakland on January 1, 2009. His killer, Johannes Mehserle, resigned from the BART police force, was tried for second degree murder and was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to two years, and was released in June of 2011.]

This has caused more than a little consternation among certain BART riders who have taken to protest, on a fairly regular basis, especially after the shooting of Charles Hill on July 3 of this year at the Hunter's Point Civic Center Station, ostensibly for not paying his fare. (Exactly how that would be done, I'm not too sure because you can't get to the trains without a ticket unless you jump over the turnstiles like they do in New York.)

A protest planned for last week, August 8, was apparently thwarted when BART officials ordered cell phone service to the Civic Center station turned off, in what is apparently the first such effort to interfere with cell service by a public agency on record.

A protest of that action, as well as the police shootings of Charles Hill and Arthur Oscar Grant was scheduled for Monday evening, August 15, at 5pm at the Civic Center Station, but rather than shut off phone service, the BART authorities decided to close the station instead. They also closed the rest of the Downtown San Francisco BART Stations and suspended MUNI (bus) service in Downtown.

In addition, as they have done at other BART protests, the Authorities deployed their heavily armored, black-clad riot squads in close formation and threatened the protesters with swift and sure dispersal and/or arrest.

Meanwhile, the notorious international hacker squad called Anonymous retaliated for August 8th's cell phone shut down by gaining access to and publishing online the personal information of some 2000 BART riders and calling on participants in the August 15 protest to wear red and Guy Fawkes masks. If you click on the link at the very top of this installment, you'll go to a video of live coverage of the August 15 protest, and you will hear commentary to the effect that few were wearing red and that the mask is supposed to represent some British 17th Century revolutionary.

A fairly comprehensive news story appears in this morning's Chron -- though it was actually more comprehensive last night when posted shortly after the Downtown stations were reopened.

It appears that the majority of BART riders in Downtown San Francisco were seriously discommoded during rush hour by the disruption of service brought on by the protest and the police reaction to it. But at least cell phones weren't interfered with. So there is that. From the comments I've read and heard about last evenings action, the riders were not amused.

I've long said that discommoding the powerful is essential for protest demonstrations to have an effect rather than being dismissed out of hand. That may mean, for example, actions that result in shutting down subway stations, streets, bridges, shutting off or disrupting communications, or what have you.

In the "cat-and-mouse" of yesterday's protest (as the Chron puts it) discommoding tactics were employed both by citizens and by the authorities, with the upshot being a standoff. According to reports and videos I've seen, the protesters marched above ground from the Ferry Building to the Civic Center Plaza (those familiar with San Francisco know these locations well) on Market Street, shutting the thoroughfare down; once they found they could not enter any of the BART stations along the route, they remained assembled at Civic Center Plaza (surrounded by Robo-cops) while a splinter group marched back to the Ferry Building chanting slogans and carrying signs.

For all the rage that is being expressed right now over the inconvenience to commuters, let alone the privacy invasion by Anonymous, in fact, the tactics being employed by the demonstrators are the kind of non-violent civil disobedience measures that are necessary for a protest to have an effect, and further, they are persisting in protest despite being thwarted in reaching their initial objectives.

This is how it is done, and no, one doesn't "like" it. These kinds of protests are disruptive and inconvenient, they disturb one's routine, and they interfere with one's comfort and convenience. That's what has to be done. The argument against this sort of non-violent disruptive protest is that it "punishes the innocent." Well, one might want to take that issue up with the corpses of Oscar Grant and Charles Hill.

BART cops have become notorious for their excessive use of force and for their very itchy trigger fingers. They have long been known for thuggishness toward a certain class of rider, ie: Black men, but they have become murderous, much as the Oakland police department did during the hey day of the Miami Vice-ified drug war. They'll shoot your ass to this day. Ordinary people seem to intellectually understand this is "wrong," but they don't want to be unduly inconvenienced, so they also declare these protests "wrong" because the protesters are getting in the way of their comings and goings. Yet getting in the way -- of ordinary people and the powerful -- is one of the few ways that Americans have left to them that can actually cause the Authorities to change their deplorable behavior.

"But the protesters are behaving deplorably!" Nonsense. Complete nonsense. They are bringing attention to issues and people that are important to them, and they are demanding positive changes in the behavior of Authority. One of the chants they use is: "We are all -- Charles Hill! We are all -- Oscar Grant!" I don't know if you have to live in the Bay Area under oppression to understand the deep emotion such a chant can touch, but it is very effective. What happened to Charles Hill, what happened to Oscar Grant can most certainly happen to anyone the BART cops target -- you, in your narcissistic bubble are not immune.

The protesters themselves are behaving effectively. Which is, of course, a threat to The Powers That Be, which is why such an overwhelming and uncalled for police reaction force is deployed to intimidate the protesters and -- theoretically -- to reassure ordinary BART riders that the Authorities have got their backs. No, that isn't what this deployment of overwhelming and unnecessary force communicates at all. WTF, they've got automatic weapons. No one in the crowd -- so far as we know -- is armed, and there is no hint of a threat of physical violence of any kind by the protesters -- unless of course you consider "protesting while Black" such a threat, which is just stupid.

This overreaction by Authority is one of the characteristics of The Powers That Be when they know they are being shamed and they refuse to take the shame and correct their evil ways. BART is a public agency and they are accountable to the People. They have done everything in their power to avoid accountability -- or shall we say to divert accountability -- in the ongoing struggle against police brutality and overall high-handedness and contempt of the public by the Agency.

I'm sure the BART (and area-wide civic) authorities are well aware that murderous brutality and high-handed contempt of the public by representatives of Authority are sure-fire triggers of civil unrest and disorder, not simply peaceful protest. (We saw this in Britain recently, eh?) BART seems intent on pushing the envelope just as far as they can, pushing the public's rage and reaction buttons to such an extent that there are riots (which there have already been -- on a small scale -- over Oscar Grant's killing and the blank-stare reaction of the BART honchos in their defense of the transit police.)

There are many lessons to be learned in the ongoing struggle against the Police State being imposed on Americans from above. BART is only a tiny corner of the whole, but unless there is significant, persistent, and effective protest, nothing will stand in the way of its expansion.

Those Robo-cops are a threat to everyone.

In the immortal words of MDC (Born to Die):

No War
No KKK
No fascist USA

The Expanding Surveillance State

Indeed.

After the PATRIOT Act is extended for Four More Years, the always obliging New York Times runs a lengthy article on what the surveillance provisions of the Act mean in real life, as opposed to the fictive "meanings" developed through 24 hour cable teevee news fantasies and FOX Entertainment.

Real People get caught up in the domestic surveillance nets, and Scott Crow of Austin, TX is one of them.

AUSTIN, Tex. — A fat sheaf of F.B.I. reports meticulously details the surveillance that counterterrorism agents directed at the one-story house in East Austin. For at least three years, they traced the license plates of cars parked out front, recorded the comings and goings of residents and guests and, in one case, speculated about a suspicious flat object spread out across the driveway.

“The content could not be determined from the street,” an agent observing from his car reported one day in 2005. “It had a large number of multi-colored blocks, with figures and/or lettering,” the report said, and “may be a sign that is to be used in an upcoming protest.”

Actually, the item in question was more mundane.

“It was a quilt,” said Scott Crow, marveling over the papers at the dining table of his ramshackle home, where he lives with his wife, a housemate and a backyard menagerie that includes two goats, a dozen chickens and a turkey. “For a kids’ after-school program.”

Yes. Well.

Obviously terrorists. And it's not just Austin Anarchists like Crow.

It's like the Grannies for Peace surveilled and reported upon to Military Intelligence when they protested the Various Wars at the California State Capitol. Peace activists of any kind anywhere they congregate and plot and plan their next sign-carrying demonstration calling for an End to This or That Imperialist War of Aggression are always considered "threats" to the State. And sometimes they are met with considerable official violence and repression.

It's like anyone who protests Authority. Protests the ever more institutionalized Autocracy. Protests Corporate Greed, Media Lies, Public/Private Propaganda Partnerships, you name it.

All fall under the "counterterrorism" investigation rubric, as they have done for many a long year now, and the Times bethinks itself, now that the Authority to Surveille has been extended by act of our Representatives in Congress Assembled and the President via Auto-Pen Overseas, to tell its readers some of the story of what this particular Authority has led to.

Of course the Times, as it so often is, is late to the Party. These incidents of excessive zeal to surveille have been documented and discussed in alternative media for a decade or more, and its precursors were, of course, characteristic of the Cold War and the McCarthy Era and many other periods of the US Government's abrogation of personal privacy rights to gain information that can be used against targeted suspects -- and not necessarily in court, either.

From time to time, as a Federal employee, I was involved in aspects of civilian surveillance, and I have some idea of the mindset that goes with it. Put simply, it's wildly out of whack, but those who do the surveillance or those who order it really have no conception of how bedrock batshit their quest tends to be. It truly does not occur to them.

For the starting assumption is that the target(s) MUST have come under scrutiny for "some reason", even though there may be no violation of law or custom. The point is not (always) to find a chargeable offense. Not at all. The point is to gather as much useful intelligence about the target(s) so as to have it available should the need arise.

The question is who determines "need." More and more clearly, "need" is determined by political considerations -- and agency statistical goals. Political considerations include the whole "anti-terrorist" thrust and obsessive purpose of the Government, much as, during the Cold War, the Government was obsessively anti-Communist and targeted and surveilled all kinds of people who were suspected of Communist ties or sympathies or... something.

It goes beyond that because agencies and individual personnel are expected and required to meet certain statistical goals based on previous performance and/or newly minted objectives. Political considerations combined with statistical requirements inevitably produce the kinds of off kilter surveillance activities documented in today's NYT and long a feature of alternative media.

And it is justified, always justified, by those involved, who typically do not and cannot see anything wrong (at all) with what they are doing.

Of course, it can lead to tragic consequences for those who are targeted, even when that is not -- at all -- the intention of those who have ordered or are doing the surveillance.

Once these episodes get started, they continue by inertia as much as anything else, which is one reason why representatives and the public (let alone the Sponsors) should be very careful about what they task Government to do.

A really stark and bloody consequence of not thinking through the consequences of tasking Government to do this or that is the ongoing, seemingly endless, series of Imperial Wars of Aggression that arise as a function of the AUMF of 2001 and subsequently. No, you say? The endless wars of aggression against peoples and nations of the Muslim persuasion was NOT what the AUMF was intended to instigate?

Buzzzzt. Wrong.

Just so, the PATRIOT Act sets up a whole system of -- and virtually a requirement for -- the ongoing targeting and surveilling of potential threats. Not just dirty, filthy, stinky Ragheads. Oh no. Anyone who could represent a threat -- of any kind -- to the State (and its Sponsors.)

Thus, of course, Anarchists and Peace Activists are caught up in it, just like Civil Rights Workers and Peace Activists were caught up in the surveillance nets of the past.

Because these targets want to change the dynamic of rule in this country, they are by definition potential "threats," and by the lights of the agencies involved and the directives they are operating under, they must be surveilled.

"But they are doing nothing wrong."

So? It doesn't matter. Well, it does in the sense that the surveillance will rarely lead to charges or any other legal consequence for those targeted. That's not the point of the surveillance in most cases. The point of the surveillance is to have "intelligence" available should the "need" (remember, the "need" is determined by political considerations and internal statistical requirements) arise.

If there comes a political "need" for sacrificial lambs, you bet, into the maw some of these targets go. Too bad, so sad, bye bye now. It is that coldblooded and that rude. Watch how your military behaves in the field when identifying and targeting -- and from time to time liquidating -- "insurgents." It ain't pretty. Well, that's how your Federal Government and its agents regard you. And, with some adjustments, that's how they will treat you if the "need" arises.

They are just as coldblooded, rude and -- very often -- wrong.

But by and large, that is a consequence of how they are tasked and expected -- and required -- to perform, just like the military. If We the People don't like it, we are the ones who have to do something about it, and it is never easy.

As I said, once these things get under way, they continue by inertia as much as anything else, and if the brakes aren't working, as they aren't in our hollowed out Republic, they snowball.

And what are we supposed to do when the brakes aren't working?

Telling the story after the fact, like the Times is doing, does not provide any means to prevent what's already occurred and is occurring. Any effort to stop the excesses of the Surveillance State has to come from elsewhere than stories like this. As I say, these sorts of things have been reported in alternative media for years and years and years. They never cease to OUTRAGE!!!™ a certain ilk, but their OUTRAGE!!!™ quickly enough becomes "poutrage" -- because it is completely impotent against the Authority of the State to do these sorts of things.

There is no brake on this juggernaut. At least the Busheviks would say, "Trust us; we'll drive responsibly." If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

So what do you do?

You can try the meatgrinder of process, ie: going through the endless routines of elections and Congress and the Courts that really don't get you anywhere -- at least not for decades. And even if you do win -- eventually -- the process always leads to reversion, we're back where we started, and like Sisyphus, we have to start all over again.

Some people have been trying something else, though, and it seems to be at least partially effective:

You... to put it delicately... fuck with your surveillance operators. You surveille them for example, if you can find them. You produce bogus trails for them to follow. You create outrageous scenes that bollox their supposed lines of investigations. Yes, it's work, and it doesn't always work, but that's ultimately how you defeat them. What they're doing, of course, is time serving and time wasting. But they don't have any idea of that. They're just doing what they are ordered to do. Generally speaking, they're doing it mindlessly. So, fill up their journals and reports with bullshit. It's work, but it's easy enough, and it may even be pleasurable in the end.

You see it more and more, people in Guy Fawkes masks turning up at protests all over the country, all over the world. It's... a statement. There are times when everyone should wear their Guy Fawkes mask, no?