Friday, January 27, 2017

On Non-Violence

There are other forms of non-violence than standing around holding signs. I contributed to the Standing Rock Legal Defense Fund which is supporting protest with legal action. Including holding individuals responsible for violent orders among other more important issues of sovereignty, Treaty compliance, illegal actions of DAPL individuals and corporate "people."

Supporting journalists charged with felony reporting, including suing those testifying individually with sedition for unconstitutional infringement of the first amendment.  Just getting them acquitted on constitutional grounds is nonviolent action but so is suing the bastards individually.  Holding individuals personally responsible for their own shit is much more effective as a deterrent.

The Second Amendment explicitly enables a "well regulated Militia" to bear arms as necessary to the security of a free State. It does not define what constitutes security of a free state, Rogue LEOs even CICs may in fact compromise the security of a free State. Violence directed at those infringing on constitutional rights of the citizens of a "free State" is not only legally but morally required of a well regulated militia. The only real question is whether BLM or previously the Black Panthers were a well regulated militia. I was on the jury of the trial of the Young Lords the Hispanic version of the Black Panther trial going on right down the hall to litigate essentially that specific question. In both cases the leaders were acquitted.

The first two clauses of the military oath both for officers and enlisted personnel are "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"  It seems to me unsurprising that the ND violence stopped when the 2000 or so Vets arrived in support of the Water Protectors.  It seems that they didn't believe the Vets assertions of peaceful protest only.  Frankly, neither did I.

The last and most important is what kind of violence demands a violent response.  Does slugging a Nazi justify a violent response by the LEOs.  Should they kill the assailant as he surrenders with his hands up? (He appeared to be a minority, but I could be wrong.  No matter some LEOs consider themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner on the topic of threat to a LEO.)  Should non-violent protesters take him to court for assault?  Should the non-violent protesters take the Nazi to court for sedition? 

Non-lethal assault by LEOs can be considered to be violence justifying a non-lethal violent response.  Must non-violent protesters just stand there or should they  take names and badge numbers of LEOs using non-lethal violence to hold the LEOs and their supervisors accountable.  Admittedly standing in the face of non-lethal violence may be an effective tactic as it generates public support but it is not the only acceptable tactic.  Overwhelming numbers may permit those peacefully assembled to flank a portion of the attackers and use non-lethal violence to take names and badges for pressing charges.  

There is always a possibility that an official response to non-violent protest will  become lethal.  Some overzealous antagonist may shoot into the crowd peacefully assembled.  If that occurs violence may be justified and necessary for the welfare of the state.  Once again the appropriate response is a tactical decision: do nothing but succor the wounded in the hope of garnering overwhelming popular support; use overwhelming numbers to obtain names and badges of perpetrators forcefully but non-lethally; or if numbers are insufficient use stealth to make an example of the shooter by using lethal force.  A classic tactic is a sniper masked by the turmoil; the other is a hand weapon in a crowd behind the shooter.  

No comments: