Arguments Against Occupy
A positive conclusion is that the demonstrations put the democratic globalization movement on journalists’ agendas (Rauch et al., 2007).
Looking at the legal ramifications, Occupy were protesting on private properties that they were not supposed to but they had the consent of the property owner. They were also exercising their first amendment rights by having press conferences, rallies or demonstrations on public streets, sidewalks, in front of city halls, and city parks. While demonstrating, an employer can't take actions against employee-protester. Certain items should not be brought, it's legal to take pictures and videos in public spaces. In NY chalking on sidewalk or wearing masks are not allowed.
Occupy was under surveillance by the
press, NSA, DHS on their social media activities, phones and emails (Michael H, The Rolling Stone, 2012). The FBI was also on the look out to crack down on crimes by the movement (Naomi W, The Guardian, 2012). A number of emails went back and forth in this 398 pages website (http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/occupy-wall-street-redacted-1.pdf)
OWS was going to die a natural death because they had no leadership nor the continuous financial support (Marty L, CNN, 2011). Their strongest financial donor was George Soros, a radical anti-American billionaire (Matthew V., Human Events, 2011).
OWS protesters presented MBA with demands including:
• Ensure ending the Bush tax cuts and raising tax rates for the wealthiest individuals; and also supporting the Rep. Schakowsky’s Fairness in Taxation Act.
• Instituting a Financial Speculation Tax on risky Wall Street trading, while closing corporate tax loopholes and offshore havens. In effect all corporations should pay their fair share.
• Putting millions back to work to repair and upgrade our crumbling physical and social infrastructure by enacting a real jobs program.
• Require the banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to lower principal amounts for all the underwater mortgages they hold and guarantee to create jobs, save communities, families and tax-payer dollars from any more unnecessary foreclosures.
With all the above reasons, I concluded that the intelligence gathered shouldn’t make my policy maker concerned about the OWS activities.
Looking at the legal ramifications, Occupy were protesting on private properties that they were not supposed to but they had the consent of the property owner. They were also exercising their first amendment rights by having press conferences, rallies or demonstrations on public streets, sidewalks, in front of city halls, and city parks. While demonstrating, an employer can't take actions against employee-protester. Certain items should not be brought, it's legal to take pictures and videos in public spaces. In NY chalking on sidewalk or wearing masks are not allowed.
Occupy was under surveillance by the
press, NSA, DHS on their social media activities, phones and emails (Michael H, The Rolling Stone, 2012). The FBI was also on the look out to crack down on crimes by the movement (Naomi W, The Guardian, 2012). A number of emails went back and forth in this 398 pages website (http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/occupy-wall-street-redacted-1.pdf)
OWS was going to die a natural death because they had no leadership nor the continuous financial support (Marty L, CNN, 2011). Their strongest financial donor was George Soros, a radical anti-American billionaire (Matthew V., Human Events, 2011).
OWS protesters presented MBA with demands including:
• Ensure ending the Bush tax cuts and raising tax rates for the wealthiest individuals; and also supporting the Rep. Schakowsky’s Fairness in Taxation Act.
• Instituting a Financial Speculation Tax on risky Wall Street trading, while closing corporate tax loopholes and offshore havens. In effect all corporations should pay their fair share.
• Putting millions back to work to repair and upgrade our crumbling physical and social infrastructure by enacting a real jobs program.
• Require the banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to lower principal amounts for all the underwater mortgages they hold and guarantee to create jobs, save communities, families and tax-payer dollars from any more unnecessary foreclosures.
With all the above reasons, I concluded that the intelligence gathered shouldn’t make my policy maker concerned about the OWS activities.