Recently, someone in the forums commented that WTC arrestees are “never satisfied,†suggesting that we should be content with the dismissal of the charges against us. In a sense he or she is right, the District Attorney’s choice to drop the charges does not satisfy us. Whether or not we like it, the civil suit is the only mechanism in society that will provide accountability for the city’s conduct at the WTC and other arrest locations. As a likely plaintiff I expect and hope that my "compensation" will be very small monetarily, but very high in other ways. In my opinion, there are better uses of public money. That said, public censure of the police and of their prescribed method of preemptive arrest is important not only to "teach them a lesson," and provide redress to the named plaintiffs, but to inform the brass that there are consequences when they act in violation of citizens' rights, which may possibly alter their policy at future demonstrations.

Anyone with any experience with criminal law who was familiar with the facts knew the DA couldn’t possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these 227 people committed the violation (not a crime as defined in the NY Penal Code) of disorderly conduct. I suspect a number of the police knew that as well at the scene. So why then, would they make the arrest? Because, it appears that they did a cost/benefit analysis many months prior to the RNC that informed them that they could make the preemptive arrests, pay whatever civil penalty and public censure that came of it (the cost), and still exert the “total control†policy they had determined was within the scope of their constitutional police powers (benefit). Or worse, they didn’t care that such measures would be unconstitutional. Either way, we plan to show that their math was off.

I stood for hours in that nasty Pier 57 and shuffled through the corridors of Central Booking in chains like everyone else, and now the DA admits they really had no basis for it. As gratifying as that might feel, it is not enough to have the DA admit they cannot prove it. Please understand, this is not about revenge. Its about our collective right to peaceably assemble without fear and without illegal detainment. The process of discovery and subsequent testimony at trial from police, protesters, and legal observers will show exactly what happened. Don't you want to know? Doesn't the public deserve to know? Can critics of a civil suit really suggest that such a chilling effect on free speech should be tolerated in New York City or anywhere else in this country?

Whether or not someone agrees with the protesters' views is irrelevant - the actions of the police that day show that anyone assembled in a large group that may or may not be planning civil disobedience at a later point (or just walking down the street) is subject to preemptive arrest on the false pretext that they are currently committing a crime; their actions show that they are willing to illegally detain Americans to achieve their own twisted conception of public order. This is not what the law says as defined by the democratically elected legislature of NY in their articulation of arrestable offenses in the Penal Code. The city cannot substitute its judgment for the legislature’s. Such measures are an impermissible violation of the right to peaceful assembly, and if our officials won’t do anything about it, we will prove it in court. The nature and role of the judiciary in society may not always be pretty, but it is all we have.

New York, I hope we have your support. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/nyregion/07protest.html