
Cop Attack at Oakland Docks Premeditated, Say
Protesters
by Bob Mattingly
Oakland, CA, April 9—Was the April 8 cop riot at
Oakland’s docks, which injured at least nine longshore workers and even more
antiwar protesters, planned beforehand? An eyewitness to the cop attack made
the charge that it was. At a session of Oakland’s city council, the day after
the assault, Michael Eisenscher, a founding organizer of U.S. Labor Against the
War (USLAW), testified at the council meeting, “I did not witness anyone
throwing anything at the police.” An aide to one of the council members
corroborated his statement, as did several other speakers before the council.
Moreover, Eisenscher testified, “It was
perfectly clear that the police had intended to conduct this kind of violent
assault even before they arrived or determined the intentions of the
demonstrators, since they arrived in full riot squad dress with gas masks
already on.” Some 300 others applauded Eisenscher’s remarks when he charged,
“This assault was premeditated!”
Eisenscher’s charges seemed to be confirmed by
an Oakland Tribune report that appeared the day after the cop riot. “At
a meeting last week, officials from the Police Department, port and two
shipping companies targeted by protesters came up with a strategy to handle the
expected gatherings.” That “strategy” was to prevent the blocking of terminal
gates, according to a port representative. “How they decided to do that,
however, was not under our control,” he told the Tribune.
The city’s police chief added still more fuel to
Eisenscher’s charges when he said that he feared that the protesters might have
been able to shut down all of the city’s seaport terminals. “The concern I had
today is that we would have been overwhelmed,” the chief told Tribune
reporters. “They could have taken over the whole port, and we did not want that
to happen.” The police chief told the New York Times (April 8) that
American President Lines and SSA Marine, who have contracts to ship military
cargo to Iraq, “had asked the police to disperse the crowd because the
demonstration, which began in early morning, was disrupting business.”
However, no one at the council meeting, which
was heavily patrolled by the city’s police, challenged Eisenscher’s or anyone
else’s assertions that the demonstrators had formed a peaceful picket line and
that they had not witnessed any attack on the police. Moreover, the web site
used to organize the picket line stressed the nonviolent intent of the
demonstration.
It’s impossible, after connecting the dots, not
to conclude that the cops were under pressure from the shipping lines to make
sure that their private property rights prevailed over the protesters’
constitutional rights to peacefully assemble. As Eisenscher put it about the cops’
tactics, “the police chose to employ a ‘preemptive strike’ and now justify that
decision with the same logic used by President Bush to justify the U.S.
‘preemptive strike’ on Iraq. It was not a response to what the protesters were
doing, but rather an effort to discourage any others from joining them…”
Some of the protesters are clearly amazed that
their rights were violently ignored, but as union picketers can testify, such
cop violence is all too frequent. Perhaps that was on the mind of the head of
San Francisco’s Labor Council, who declared in a letter to Oakland’s mayor,
Democrat Jerry Brown, that he demanded that Brown conduct “a full investigation
into this police violence on the Oakland docks.” Oakland’s Labor Council
officers, as well as other Bay Area labor councils, have protested the Oakland
cops’ actions, which have been defended repeatedly by Jerry Brown, the mayor.
Walter Johnston, principal officer of the San
Francisco Labor Council, told Brown, “These acts of police misconduct are outrageous
and must be condemned as yet another attack on our civil liberties and
democratic rights. Working people have the right to peaceful assembly and
protest, including picketing.”
The city council may hold another hearing on the
police misconduct in two weeks, but it’s not clear that there will be an
official investigation or, if there is, that it won’t be a dog and pony show
designed to discourage the cops’ critics rather than protect civil liberties.
Some attendees at the council meeting expressed fears of a whitewash, while
others called for an independent investigation, not one conducted by the police
department.
The Oakland cop attack has received media
attention from around the nation and overseas, and no wonder. As the Oakland
press said, “The clash was the most violent between protesters and the
authorities anywhere in the country since the start of war in Iraq.” Like the
war on Iraq, the “clash” was hugely one-sided; an overwhelming powerful force,
equipped with the latest combat gear, face shields, gas masks, motorcycles, and
helicopters, and armed to the teeth with tear gas, rubber bullets, concussion
grenades, and inch-thick wooden projectiles fired from shotguns, easily
dispersed up to 750 antiwar protesters, peacefully assembled.