On December 16, 2013, a Federal Appeals Court judge
ruled
that South Carolina Governor Niki Haley violated the civil rights of
protesters. The protesters, who gathered at the state’s capital building
in 2011, were a spring off of the Occupy Wall Street movement. 19
protesters, who were a part of the group Occupy Columbia, were arrested
without cause. The arrests occurred under the direction of the SC
governor.
Gov. Haley ordered the arrest of Occupy members who did not break the law.
Haley
ordered
the arrest of protesters who were camping on the grounds. The arrests
were made even though there was no law in SC that made it illegal for
the group to set up camp. Seven members of the protest group filed suit
against Haley for violating their first amendment rights. Attorneys for
the protesters
claimed
that it was their message of income inequality that Haley didn’t like.
They presented no danger and broke no laws. Haley’s attempts to quash
the protests, as well as to silence the protester’s political speech,
would not have taken place if the message had been one she agrees with,
attorney’s stated in the suit. The protesters, whose hands were zipped
tied, were taken to a detention center after the arrests. Charges
against them were dropped shortly after.
The judge found that there was enough proof to show that the civil rights of protesters were infringed upon.
The recent ruling, which comes two years after the arrests were made,
is being seen as a victory for civil rights. Although the ruling does
not give restitution to the protesters at this time, it upholds their
right to sue Gov. Haley and state officials involved in the arrests. In
his ruling, the judge
wrote that
the protester’s civil rights were infringed upon by Gov. Haley, with
the help of state officials, who were acting upon her orders. The ruling
is further proof that while republicans often say they care about the
Constitution, when civil rights get in the way of their agenda, they
have no second thoughts about trampling them. The right to free speech
and the right to assemble are protected by the US Constitution. Reps
like Haley, who claim to care about constitutional rights, also have a
habit of denying them, when it better serves their purpose.
Did the president order a crack down on the occupy protests, as some people claim?
Some
Occupy protesters have pointed a finger at President Obama, claiming
that he ordered a nation wide crack down on Occupy protests in 2011. In
order to support this claim ‘journalists’ have cited
documents that show that the FBI and other agencies were keeping tabs on the protest activity. Still there is nothing in those
documents that suggests, even to a slight degree, that any federal agency ordered or even wanted the movement put down. Another ‘
journalist‘ claimed
he had secret. inside information from an unnamed source within the
Justice Department. The source supposedly told him that the Department
of Homeland Security was training state and local police to crack down
on the Occupy protests. Speaking from a journalistic perspective, if I
cannot track down the source of story and verify for myself that it is
based on fact, I don’t give it a lot of weight. On the other hand,
internal
e-mails (that can be read with your own eyes) do show that President Obama did
support
the Occupy movement and that he requested that the civil rights of
protesters not be infringed upon. There are several times that the
president is known to have
requested that state and local authorities
not crack down
on the protesters. If there was a national, coordinated effort to
suppress the Occupy protest, the big question would be why did protests
receive support in some parts of the country, while being openly
attacked in others? With Haley and so many other Republican leaders
being the loudest critics of both President Obama and the federal
government, it’s unrealistic to think they wouldn’t be pointing the
finger now, if federal agencies were involved in the crack downs.