FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Disrupt J20 and the Real Cost of Violence

Photo by Alek S. | CC BY 2.0

Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration on January 20 in Washington, DC last year is something that most of us who read rags like this try to forget. The arrest of over 230 protesters at “Disrupt J20” that same day in DC, and the charging of 194 of them with felony rioting – allegedly for their part in setting fires, hurling rocks, and creating $100,000 in property damage – is something we need to remember.

If you’ve glanced at J20 headlines, news of the defendants seems good. Last December 21, the first six were acquitted in a jury trial. Then, on January 18, charges against 129 of the remaining 188 defendants were dismissed, leaving 59 to face charges. These are the 59 people our government now names as the “smaller, core group” of anti-fascist, anti-capitalist activists “most responsible for the destruction and violence that took place on January 20.”

Offhand, that might sound fair: Let’s go after the violent ones. But beneath the prosecution’s seeming pursuit of justice is a classic attempt to divide and conquer: to separate defendants from each other, and a diverse political movement from its “extremist” elements. It’s also the kind of law enforcement that quietly divides us from an awareness of rights now being lost to us under Trump’s government.

The prosecution, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff, has spent months obsessively reworking this case. Several weeks after being charged with felony rioting, all 194 original defendants were charged with eight more felonies, including conspiracy to riot, inciting riot, and property destruction, which can incur over 70 years in prison.

As if the First Amendment never existed, J20 defendants, convicted of conspiracy, can be deemed guilty of violent acts for having worn black at a protest or yelling sensible things like, “Keep moving.” Fifty-nine people now conceivably face decades behind bars, for simply attending a protest where laws were broken.

In its January 18 “Notice of Intent to Proceed,” the prosecution claimed it is now specifically targeting protesters who carried out destructive or violent acts, as well as those who planned the Disrupt J20 event. The feds added that they’re also targeting those “engaged in conduct that demonstrates a knowing and intentional use of the black-bloc tactic on January 20, 2017, to perpetrate, aid or abet violence and destruction.”

The prosecution’s focus on the “black-bloc tactic” (wearing black and protesting anonymously) intensifies the scrutiny of behavior, dress, and speech already embedded in the felony charges. It may also lead to “a terrifying precedent,” says Sam Menefee-Libey, a member of the DC Legal Posse, which supports the defendants. In an online message to me, Menefee-Libey writes that this is a “significant escalation by law enforcement, making explicit their intent to criminalize the kind of anti-capitalist organizing and direct action that has been happening for decades. If the prosecution is successful here, we could see other cases brought against social movements, organizers, and activists to further criminalize political action.”

Reducing the number of accused to 59 does nothing to guarantee that each protester acted “violently.” According to Sam Adler-Bell in The Intercept, this winnowed group includes a professional journalist who was covering the march, other citizen journalists, medics, and an organizer who never even attended the march.

Early last year, 130 J20 defendants pledged to stand together and not make plea bargains jeopardizing codefendants. Given the prosecution’s separating nonviolent/good from violent/bad protesters, this “Points of Unity” agreement has become psychic bedrock. One of the signers was Erin [last name withheld], whose own trial was fast approaching, until January 18, when her charges were dropped.

“All the defendants have witnessed the prosecutor’s near-fanatical engagement with this case,” Erin told me. “There is no way this culling of defendants does not serve her strategy to attach criminal charges to as many people as possible…. Coming up with a Points of Unity document was essential to establish trust. It’s provided defendants with a shared purpose and agency within a legal process that’s inherently individualized and isolating.”

Further isolating is the fact that Erin’s charges, like those of all 129, were dismissed “without prejudice.” This means the government can re-file these charges any time, within six years, on legal discretion. In case you thought it was safe to wear your black hoodie at a DC protest again.

Finally, amid all the Big Headline infotainment of Russia-gate and assorted Trump fiascos, it’s important to recollect what real violence is. The Disrupt J20 protest happened on a day when a little over $100,000 property damage was done. Some McDonald’s and Bank of America windows were smashed, MAGA baseball caps were burned, cars were damaged, a limousine set ablaze. If ours were a just government, I might see the logic of spending up to $470.58 in federal funds to hold a restorative justice panel, where the folks who actually smashed things would agree to wash Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s car for a year.

But compare this $100K damage to what it costs the U.S. government to wreak its own violence. The breathtaking billions, for instance, spent daily on munitions to extinguish lives in counties like Yemen, Syria, and Somalia. Business Insider – hardly a bastion of black-bloc, anti-capitalist opposition – wrote last August that, under Trump (who, remember, got a late start), the United States now drops bombs at unprecedented levels: “about 20,650 bombs through July 31, or 80 percent the number dropped under Obama for the entirety of 2016.”

I’ll wager that each and every person who showed up at J20 – whether they threw rocks or not – is aware of this U.S.-sponsored violence; it’s why they came in the first place. These are people who felt deeply enough that they risked their jobs and security to remind us of who Trump is and what this country does.

We may not have gotten the message; we may prefer other methods of delivery. But if we let ourselves write these people off because the government calls them “violent,” we’ve damaged our own ability to rise and resist.

More articles by:
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
Michael Collins
The Affirmative Action Silo
Andrew Levine
Tipping Points
Geoff Dutton
Fair and Balanced Opinion at the New York Times
Ajamu Baraka
Cultural and Ideological Struggle in the US: a Final Comment on Ocasio-Cortez
David Rosen
The New McCarthyism: Is the Electric Chair Next for the Left?
Ken Levy
The McConnell Rule: Nasty, Brutish, and Unconstitutional
George Wuerthner
The Awful Truth About the Hammonds
Robert Fisk
Will Those Killed by NATO 19 Years Ago in Serbia Ever Get Justice?
Robert Hunziker
Three Climatic Monsters with Asteroid Impact
Ramzy Baroud
Europe’s Iron Curtain: The Refugee Crisis is about to Worsen
Nick Pemberton
A Letter For Scarlett JoManDaughter
Marilyn Garson
Netanyahu’s War on Transcendence 
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail