17:57 (and OP) here. I left out an "is".

My annoyance with the people that decided to enter the museum and ruin it for everyone. I thought I'd made that pretty clear.

The Drones may be a symbol of this war but they also create jobs and save US soldier lives. Why not protest outside of the offices of the lawmakers who decided to go to and continue with the war? Or better yet, protest with their vote during the next election?

Anonymous wrote:

OP here. This is what was in the article I posted:

Protest organizers said the attempt to enter the museum on the National Mall was part of the Occupy D.C. antiwar demonstrations that began on Thursday on the 10th anniversary of the start of the Afghanistan war.

The organizers planned to go inside the museum, which was stupid, IMO. The guards asked them to stop and most of them did stop. Some of them didn't and it ruined a museum day for a lot of people. I've been to quite a few anti-war and other demonstrations over the last 10 years. The museum folks are usually quite accommodating, as long as you leave the signs outside. It's not a new rule. Why didn't the organizers do a little bit of research before sending a couple hundred people down there? That was also stupid.

I don't take any issue with them marching to the museum and protesting outside, which is why I asked earlier why they couldn't just protest outside.

It appears that the author of the article you quote paraphrased an email. But, not knowing the details of the protest in Washington, which is fairly unique, made a few errors. As I have been saying from the beginning, there are two separate, but overlapping demonstrations in Washington. Occupy DC is protesting for social justice. October 2011 is protesting against war. So, the phrase "Occupy D.C. antiwar demonstrations" is simply a misnomer. The correct expression is "October 2011 antiwar demonstrations".

Second, the vast majority of the demonstrators obeyed the authorities and did not try to enter the building. The right wing agitator himself said this: "As the white-uniformed security guards hurried to physically block the entrances, only a select few -- myself included -- kept charging forward." That makes it very clear. A "select few" kept going and the rest stopped to continue their protest outside. How "select" was that few? Well, no more than 10 people were pepper sprayed and that included some journalists and the rightwing agitator. So, your issue is with probably six or seven people.

Look at this picture and you will see that the rightwing agitator was literally at the front of the protest. His own words support what this picture shows (he is the guy in the tan shirt behind the guy in the black shirt):

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the article I posted in the OP, the quoted Occupy DC organizers said entering the museum was palnned. Is that article wrong? I guess it doesn't matter. Some made the decision to go in and it was out of line.

The person quoted in the article, retired Colonel Ann Wright, is an October 2011 organizer. The protest yesterday started with a march that some say number 1,500. The group that went to the museum was less than 200 according to police. The vast majority of those stopped when told to by security guards. Do you have a problem with peacefully marching to a public museum and obeying the security guards? If so, we will have to disagree.

We probably wouldn't have even heard of this event if not for the actions of a very few -- certainly less than 20 and probably less than 10 -- that ignored the guards and continued to attempt to enter the museum. One of the two people at the head of this small group was an admitted agent provocateur. With that in mind, I think it is grossly unfair to blame Occupy DC. Based on photos, it appears the agent provocateur and one other individual provoked the pepper spraying. I'd love to know the identity of the second guy.

OP here. This is what was in the article I posted:

Protest organizers said the attempt to enter the museum on the National Mall was part of the Occupy D.C. antiwar demonstrations that began on Thursday on the 10th anniversary of the start of the Afghanistan war.

The organizers planned to go inside the museum, which was stupid, IMO. The guards asked them to stop and most of them did stop. Some of them didn't and it ruined a museum day for a lot of people. I've been to quite a few anti-war and other demonstrations over the last 10 years. The museum folks are usually quite accommodating, as long as you leave the signs outside. It's not a new rule. Why didn't the organizers do a little bit of research before sending a couple hundred people down there? That was also stupid.

I don't take any issue with them marching to the museum and protesting outside, which is why I asked earlier why they couldn't just protest outside.

Sounds to me like the original protest (unveiling the banner inside) was planned to be orderly but that the right wing provocateur encouraged other people to rush the doors and force their way inside.

A couple of thoughts:

I don't think the banner droppers should be considered unruly but I do think they should have rethought their strategy. They would have had a greater impact vigiling outside and leafletting passersby and educating them about the drone exhibit inside. They were short-sighted in their choices.

I think the right wing provocateur deserves a great deal of blame for the commotion and that his employer should fire him. He actually mocked the protesters for not wanting to rush the doors! (Moron.) However, he also appears to have influenced some others and that is why there needs to be a great deal of training before events like this to maintain nonviolent discipline. This is also a drawback of an event where everyone is invited to join and demonstrate about whatever they feel is important. Democracy and inclusion are important but when it comes to this kind of protest there needs to be some form of leadership and discipline.

Last, if it was the security guard who pepper-sprayed the protesters I don't really have a problem with that. Now the police should have more experience and discipline and be able to avoid it. If the security guard felt overwhelmed, well of course what else would you expect someone to do who probably in his/her whole career has never dealt with this situation? At any rate, its' the guy from the American Spectator who caused most of the trouble as far as I can see and he deserves much (but not all) of the blame.

I am sad to see this go down this way. I agree with the banner-dropping folks but I think they should have thought more carefully about whether this was the right approach and should have considered what could go wrong.

Anonymous wrote:What they were doing was effectively a sit-in, and it is a part of protest from the civil rights era. King did it, Ghandi did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in

In the case of a sit-in, usually one occupies the building that is the center of the dispute - whether it is a lunch counter or a bus station or a library. But in this case, the target is the government. It would be dangerous and irresponsible to stage such an event in our Capitol Building, and impossible at the White House. They can't do it at Hart or Rayburn or the Supreme Court.

A museum is a public place that gets attention without creating a major security incident. It is an inconvenience.

I am of mixed mind on the use of sit-ins, but I can also understand why they chose Air and Space.

Actually people do "sit ins" in the Senate office buildings all the time. There was one there a week or so ago. I think these people just thought, correctly, that they would get more publicity by shutting down a museum on a weekend.

Anonymous wrote:In the article I posted in the OP, the quoted Occupy DC organizers said entering the museum was palnned. Is that article wrong? I guess it doesn't matter. Some made the decision to go in and it was out of line.

The person quoted in the article, retired Colonel Ann Wright, is an October 2011 organizer. The protest yesterday started with a march that some say number 1,500. The group that went to the museum was less than 200 according to police. The vast majority of those stopped when told to by security guards. Do you have a problem with peacefully marching to a public museum and obeying the security guards? If so, we will have to disagree.

We probably wouldn't have even heard of this event if not for the actions of a very few -- certainly less than 20 and probably less than 10 -- that ignored the guards and continued to attempt to enter the museum. One of the two people at the head of this small group was an admitted agent provocateur. With that in mind, I think it is grossly unfair to blame Occupy DC. Based on photos, it appears the agent provocateur and one other individual provoked the pepper spraying. I'd love to know the identity of the second guy.

In the article I posted in the OP, the quoted Occupy DC organizers said entering the museum was palnned. Is that article wrong? I guess it doesn't matter. Some made the decision to go in and it was out of line.

Anonymous wrote:Then why didn't the quoted organizer say that it was a smaller group and not the plan of the larger group of protestors? Instead, he made reference to evidence of repression. That doesn't make it sound like it was unplanned.

I am not following your logic. A small group of participants in an unplanned action can certainly be subject to repression. The planning of an event and any repression to which it is subjected are unrelated. The organizer is clearly trying to connect the small number of individuals that attempted to enter the museum to the larger Occupy DC movement. Regardless of that individual's wishes, the fact is that not even a majority of the anti-war group joined in that effort. It is likely the majority of those participating in Occupy DC didn't even know about the march, let alone an attempt to enter the museum. This is a case where a fringe group is motivated to exaggerate its popularity. Others, including some members of the media, are also motivated -- but for different reasons -- to exaggerate the significance of that fringe group.

It seems like there are two issues here: (1) Is it appropriate to protest INSIDE the museum, and to scuffle with guards on the way in; and (2) Was that a decision that the genuine protestors made, and should they get the blame/credit for that decision?

The answer on (1) seems pretty clear: No, it wasn't appropriate. A protest outside is fine, but protesting inside isn't, and fighting with guards in an attempt to get inside certainly isn't.

The answer on (2) seems a lot less clear. It's unfortunate that the protest organizer who was quoted tried to defend this, rather than disavowing it.

Then why didn't the quoted organizer say that it was a smaller group and not the plan of the larger group of protestors? Instead, he made reference to evidence of repression. That doesn't make it sound like it was unplanned.