Response to Berkeley PD Chief

	In a letter to the Mayor and City Council regarding the proposed Berkeley Civil Rights Restoration Act, Police Chief invokes the tragedy of September 11th in his rejection of proposed changes to his department's policies and mutual aid agreements.

	The cusp of Meehan's argument is that less profiling, and relaxed policies towards political protest could result in no less than terrorist attacks upon the city itself. The letter also warns of an impending natural doom, proclaiming that emergency response to natural disaster will be hindered if the Civil Rights Restoration Ordinance passes.

Chief Meehan's letter can be read here: http://pastebin.com/56eE6MZp

Michael Meehan's letter misses the point of the legislation, which the council and mayor will be voting on in the Feb 14th session. The police The Civil Rights Restoration Act focuses on police profiling, as well as the rights to privacy, free speech and assembly. Instead of addressing the intended issues the ordinance covers, the police chief draws on straw-man arguments and chases terrorists.

Oddly, Meehan briefly mentions an anti-government organization in the letter which has attacked police. But the organization is nameless, and no information about the situation is given. If this anti-government organization is real, and the situation is really a problem, it should have been the main part of the police chief's argument and explored further in context. Instead it is just casually mentioned that police officers were killed, then the subject is entirely avoided. It should be at least mentioned if this group has ties to Berkeley or not.

I. Hiding behind the cloak of 9/11

The referencing of 9/11, aside from being inappropriate to the discussion, inaccurately describes the events leading up to that September day. By 2000, many of the hijackers were on government watch lists, and had been identified as allies of Al-Qaeda. This intelligence gathering was not done by police agencies, but was done by Federal agencies. Furthermore, this intelligence gathering was accomplished before the formation of Homeland Security and the reduction in civil liberties that followed suit. September 11th happened because of a lack of decisive action, not because of a lack of information. A month prior to the attack, a memo foretelling the plane hijackings was placed before Bush; it was entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US'.

II. Intelligence gathering, Fusion centers

The Berkeley police's standards for issuing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are too broad. In his response, Meehan states that if a crime has been committed, a SAR can be issued. In the same response, Meehan mentions blocking the street is a crime. So under the current standards, the Berkeley police can do intelligence gathering on a person blocking a street in a protest, then send the SAR to a fusion center (NCRIC, UASI) where it will be shared with state and federal agencies such as the FBI. Even further, it is stated that an SAR can be filed if there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime (such as blocking a street) will occur. So an SAR can be sent to a fusion center regarding a person who is planning a political rally in which a street might be blocked.

III. Urban Shield, Villainizing activists

Meehan defends participation in Urban Shield, mentioning how the police played out a hypothetical scenario in which armed terrorists take over Glickman Lab. Meehan says they "enacted the possibility" of such a terrorist attack, but doesn't mention the low probability of such an unlikely attack. Glickman is a biology lab associated with animal rights testing, an unlikely target for an international terrorist group. To use such a building as an example is a political statement, an attempt to link animal-rights with armed terrorism. Previous Urban Shield trainings in Berkeley have used hypothetical armed animal-rights activists as the opponent, such the well documented 2008 training. Training police to free-associate animal rights with terrorism is not a valid use of police resources.

IV. UC Berkeley mutual aid

The controversy behind the proposed changes to the mutual aid pact with UC Berkeley has little to do with parking or towing of vehicles. Throughout his letter, the police chief avoids the main issues, and focuses on the ridiculous. The suggestion in the proposed ordinance is that Berkeley police not aid UC Berkeley police in ceasing non-violent political protest on campus managed property. The proposed changes would not prohibit the Berkeley police from being on UC property in the cases of actual emergency, or towing, but the presence of protesters alone would not meet the standard of being emergency. There is other recommendations that the Berkeley police refrain from holding protesters in the city jail if their charges are related to non-violent protest.

V. Disaster Response

Issues relating to natural disaster (or man-made disaster) are moot. The Civil Rights Restoration Act only looks at mutual aid pacts in the context of civil rights issues. The proposed alterations in mutual aid exclude disaster response, and would not effect the Berkeley police from providing assistance in the event of a fire, earthquake, industrial accident, and et cetera.

Meehan suggests that protesting in the street leads to the impedance of emergency aid vehicles. Berkeley has a history of street marches, but there doesn't seem to have been a history of problems with ambulances or firetrucks being prevented from reaching their destinations. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which protesters would willing allow the blocking of an emergency vehicle. Sirens can be heard from many blocks away, and it would not be hard to clear a path in time for a passing vehicle. As well, the police should, in the event of a protest, be able to communicate to dispatchers were the protest is in relation to the emergency so a planned route can be established.

Overall, the letter from the police chief does not truly address the Feb 14th vote by city council and mayor. Instead of issues related to the Civil Rights Restoration Ordinance, the police chief writes about the very mundane (towing of cars) and the very dramatic (terrorism plots lurking in the city of Berkeley). The vote on the 14th is about profiling (racial, gender-identity, religious, political, et cetera). The vote is also about political free speech and freedom of assembly, not terrorist conspiracies.

The proposal before the council and mayor does nothing to change how the Berkeley police responds to actual emergencies in the city and in mutual aid to other cities. The proposal does nothing to change how the police responds to violent action; it just distinguishes between non-violence activity (a march) and violent activity (a riot). The proposal gives the police the authority they need to follow up on chatter/intelligence to prevent planned violent activity.

There will still be the policies, procedures and tools in place to keep the city and the Bay Area safe from actual intended harm, while loosening up on the monitoring and harassment of activists and community organizers.