The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy

[ExRetailDrone]

This is incredibly sickening and frightening.

From this article, it sounds like there is some organization going on regarding the crackdown by the police forces around the U.S. And the starting point is way too damn high up the political ladder. Government corruption and crooked politicians just continue to shit on the people who they are supposed to be working for. I can only hope that the movement continues to gain support in the States and around the world, and we see real, positive change for once. Otherwise, I fear for what my country will become >.<

[Gravekeeper]

Ugh, yeah I read that article the other day. Its very unsettling seeing how high up the ladder this goes and just how coordinated the response is. Occupy seems to have succeeded in smearing shit on the side of the ivory tower. Now the ruling class is trying to surpress the rabble before the rest of us plebs get any ideas about whats going on. -.-

[Panacea]

The article was interesting, but I don't believe everything it implied. There is a blatant and heavy bias to the article. Not a good example of journalism IMHO.

It will be interesting to find out did DHS initiate contact with these mayors and city councils, or was this organized by a politician with a specific agenda? We really don't know, and it's too early to speculate.

To say Obama was 'conveniently" out of the country is disingenuous. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest he knew DHS was involving itself in the Occupy protests, and techincally they would have an interest in what's going on with that.

"Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware . . . " This is an interesting statement. How does the reporter know this? What's his source? While I would not be surprised to find out that the government is keeping an eye on what's going on, there's a big difference between having some plainclothes folks listening in on the OWS General Assemblies to "infiltrating" its ad hoc "organization". I require proof of such a statement, not assumption or innuendo.

Of course, if any of this IS true, it just reinforces what I was saying awhile back about how it is naive to think the Federal Government wouldn't act to suppress US citizens engaging their right to protest

[Canarr]

I agree that there's too little proof and too much speculation in that article; not really an example of solid journalism. However, there is a certain logic to the speculations; in general, I do not doubt that those with access to power and wealth would try to protect that access from those threatening to take it from them - whether that be in the US, in Europe, or in Syria. After all, humans aren't really so different from one another, no matter where they're raised.

[Greenday]

Sounds like a whole lotta guesswork without any evidence to support the arguments.

[Gravekeeper]

The article was interesting, but I don't believe everything it implied. There is a blatant and heavy bias to the article. Not a good example of journalism IMHO.

Agreed, the author themselves is clearly biased. But he/she linked some stories I hadn't caught wind of yet that don't paint a particularly pretty picture. Even if the author off on a tangent with their own conclusions. Though I can see why she might be a bit sore, seeing as she was apparently arrested herself for daring to stand on a public sidewalk. -.-

Her links to other stories, however, are solid if you follow them and rather unsettling. Even if her conclusions themselves are biased. I read the article more as a nice summary of noteworthy stories. But she had lost me on her own opinion by the last couple paragraphs.