2007! Someone must pay! . . .but it’s the olympian that wants restitution

author : Phan Nguyen topic : The Olympian | Protests

by Phan Nguyen

On Oct. 24, 2008, the Olympian website posted a news flash that the The Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office had filed charges against 26 activists, stemming from arrests made at the Port of Olympia during antiwar protests on Nov. 13, 2007. The following day, Oct. 25, the Olympian printed the names of all those being charged in the front page of the South Sound section. As of Oct. 30, none of those being prosecuted have received notice of charges from the county.

Which begs two questions: Why did the city and the county prosecutors wait almost a year before filing charges against the 26? And why did they decide to contact the Olympian before informing those being charged?

To answer these questions requires exploring the relationship between the Olympian’s editorial stances and its relationship to the local authorities.

The Olympian’s demands

Earlier this year, on April 1, an Olympian editorial asked, “Why hasn’t the city prosecutor’s office filed charges against protesters arrested at the time of the [military] ship-ments last November?”

On April 30, Olympia City Manager Steve Hall met with the Olympian Editorial Board and informed them that the city would have charges to file in two weeks.

Two weeks later, the Olympian published an editorial directed at Steve Hall: “The two weeks is up today, so all eyes are on City Hall to see whether law enforcement offi-cers mean what they say: There will be zero tolerance for vandalism and lawlessness.”

The next day, the city issued a press release to the Olympian, stating that it was filing charges against Katie Hutchison, Patsy Hutchison, and Shyam Khanna. (See the June 2008 Works in Progress at olywip.org for more details.) The Olympian made the charges public, named the three people charged, and even interviewed city prosecu-tor Kalo Wilcox about the charges—all before the city even bothered to notify those charged.

The Olympian’s next demands

On Sept. 26, 2008, Olympia Municipal Judge Scott Ahlf dismissed the charge against Katie Hutchison. Hutchison had originally been arrested in downtown Olympia, during the Nov. 2007 Port of Olympia protests. Judge Ahlf ruled that Hutchison would be “unfairly prejudiced” without police video of the incident, which the police had shot but failed to produce.

This prompted the Olympian Editorial Board to publish a Oct. 8 opinion piece entitled, “Prosecutors, Police Botched Protest Cases.” The piece began with, “What is wrong with police and prosecutors in this community? Why can’t they make a good case against port protesters and make it stick in a court of law?”

The piece also mentioned that “Thurston County prosecutors took over the cases of more than 40 people who were arrested the night of Nov. 13 [2007]. But not one of the defendants has been charged. Again, where’s the accountability?”

Two weeks later, on Oct. 23, the Olympian printed a follow-up editorial that stated, “[P]olice and prosecutors can’t do their job and hold port protesters accountable….

“While Thurston County prosecutors took over the cases of more than 40 people arrested the night of Nov. 13, yet not one of the defendants has been charged. The bungling of the port protest cases is a great disappointment to many. The port protest cases have a high visibility in South Sound and to expect them to be handled promptly and professionally is not too much to ask. But the criminal justice system has come up empty.”

The following day, the Olympian was notified that Thurston County was filing charges against 26 demonstrators from the night of Nov. 13. The next day, the Olympian published the names of those to be charged along with the charges, marking the first time that the defendants were notified. As of October 30, none of the defendants have received official notices for arraignment.

What’s it to the Olympian?

Although it is unknown why the Olympian editorial board takes such a particular interest in prosecuting port protesters, the board does make three assumptions to justify this obsession: 1) The cases are important, “high-profile” cases; 2) The protesters are automatically guilty of the crimes they are accused of; and 3) port protesters are somehow the source of “escalating violence in the community.”

“High-profile”

The Olympian editorial board has long argued that the port protest cases have a “high-profile” value that distinguishes it from other cases, regardless of the actual severity of the alleged crimes. Take, for instance, the “Oly 22” case. On May 30, 2006, 22 people were arrested at the Port of Olympia and prosecuted in Thurston County District Court. Six defendants took plea bargains. By June 12, 2007, the case against the remaining 16 defendants were dismissed due to “gross negligence.” (See the July 2007 WIP for details)

In response, the Olympian published an editorial chastising the Thurston County Prosecutors Office for losing what it twice described as a “high-profile case.”

In fact, the charge against the 16 defendants was a simple misdemeanor of second-degree trespass. The county’s claim was that the defendants had placed some part of their body beyond an invisible line at the Port of Olympia—certainly not as dangerous as the usual DUIs that constitute the majority of court cases in Thurston County. That was inconsequential to the Olympian, which acknowledged that “it wasn’t the most heinous crime on the docket.” Regardless, “[g]iven the publicity and emotion sur-rounding the port protests...[Thurston County Prosecutor Ed] Holm should have put his best attorneys on the case from the outset.”

Thus the severity of the crime was inconsequential. What mattered more was “publicity and emotion.” “Publicity and emotion” somehow merited more than $25,000 and over a year for the county to pursue cases of second-degree trespass.

An inconsequential gang war

One can also compare the Olympian’s treatment of the Oly 22 arrests with an incident that happened around the same time and in the same vicinity.

In the early morning of Friday, May 26, 2006—at the same time as the May 2006 Port protests—a fight erupted outside the Vault nightclub in downtown Olympia. The Olympian reported that “[i]t ballooned into an unruly crowd of about 300, with several groups scuffling and flashing gang signs as they clogged Franklin Street….It took offi-cers about 45 minutes to disband [the] crowd by using pepper spray and batons.” OPD had to call for assistance from Lacey, Tumwater, Thurston County Sheriff’s Office, and the Washington State Patrol. The Olympian quoted OPD Commander Tor Bjornstad as saying, “This was the worst situation some of [our officers] said they’ve ever seen downtown.”

From the incident, two Fort Lewis soldiers were arrested, at least one of whom served in a Stryker Brigade. One of the soldiers “allegedly charged toward officers when he was ordered to back down,” “suffered minor injuries in a scuffle with [a police] officer,” and “was arrested for obstructing officers and resisting arrest.” The other soldier was arrested for malicious mischief after allegedly “trying to tear off a car door.”

The Olympian provided no follow-up to this event, no news article about the results of the charges, no editorial calling for more prosecutions, or even an update on the charges against the two Fort Lewis soldiers. Amazingly enough, a battle of 300 people in the middle of downtown Olympia did not merit “high-profile” status by the Olym-pian, despite the fact that the single Olympian article about the event recalled similar incidents of downtown nightclub violence, such as the discharging of a gun the previ-ous week, a gang-related killing two years earlier, and a general “recent spate of violence” attributed to “people with street gang ties, soldiers,” and “underage patrons.”

Instead, the Olympian spent a year calling for the prosecution of the Oly 22—who were arrested four days after the Vault incident—for the “high profile” charge of sec-ond-degree trespass.

Sex, alcohol, and antiwar protests

Three weeks after the Oly 22 dismissals, on July 1, 2007, the Olympian attacked the Thurston County Prosecutor’s Office for being “caught up in one scandal after an-other.” The four “scandals” named were:

1. Deputy Prosecutor David Soukup charged with DUI.

2. Deputy Prosecutor William Halstead arrested after drinking and having sex with an unidentified employee of the Prosecutor’s Office in a women’s restroom at Qwest Field.

3. Thurston County Prosecutor Ed Holm’s office found liable for sexual harassment and sexual discrimination, with the plaintiffs—former employees—being awarded $1.5 million. And finally….

4. Losing the Oly 22 case, which again, had a “high community profile.”

At this point, one can reasonably conclude that the “high profile” status of the Oly 22 trespass charges was a result of the Olympian highly profiling it.

And in case anyone forgot, on Oct. 8 this year, the Olympian reminded readers that the port protests are “high-profile.”

High profile does not mean guilty

In the same Oct. 8 editorial, the Olympian lamented that although “[m]ore than 60 people were arrested during the [Nov. 2007 port] protests...only a handful have been held accountable.” The false assumption was that the people arrested had something to be accountable for. This call for “accountability” is also a repeating pattern in Olympian editorials against port protesters.

When the case of Katie Hutchison was dismissed, the Olympian responded that the police and prosecutors had “botched” the case and that it was “a terrible message to send to the South Sound community.” The assumption was that since Hutchison had been arrested, she should have been found guilty. In reality, the case was dismissed because of all the video shot by police during the two weeks of port protests, the video of the day Hutchison was arrested was inexplicably missing. It is not difficult to imag-ine that that videotape would have contained exculpatory evidence, especially since the Olympian’s own videographer, Matt McVay, actually videotaped Hutchison’s arrest, and it also showed that Hutchison was wrongfully arrested. The Olympian video showed Hutchison approaching police officers with her hands raised. As she stood on the sidewalk facing the police, she attempted to inquire about her sister, who had just been severely pepper-sprayed and arrested. It was at that moment that the police grabbed Hutchison and dragged her away to be arrested, although Hutchison had not committed a crime. Hutchison later recounted that one of the officers accused her of being a protest leader, which was why they wanted to remove her from the scene.

The Olympian could have responded to the dismissal by asking why Hutchison was arrested in the first place and why she should ever have been prosecuted. Instead, the Olympian sarcastically responded, “There goes another case.” For the Olympian, the only satisfactory conclusion to a port case is a guilty verdict, and anything less would constitute a “botched” case, a “blown case,” or a “bungl[ed]” case. The Olympian has never even congratulated the city for securing plea bargains in some port cases.

One wonders about the “terrible message to send to the South Sound community”: that Hutchison is walking the streets a free woman, free to approach more police offi-cers.

In another example, a June 5, 2006 editorial entitled “Protest Costs Must be Paid by Someone” typifies Olympian Editorial Board logic. Regarding the May 2006 protests, the Olympian claimed $7500 in damage was done at the port. Ignoring the fact that a claim for restitution from the Port of Olympia contradicted this amount, the Olympian declared, “More than 20 people were arrested. They should shoulder full restitution costs.” Never mind the fact that those arrested were charged with trespass, not property damage. Never mind the fact that the trespass charge was based on the idea that the defendants simply had some part of their body over an invisible line. Never mind the fact that the restitution cost was based on alleged port damage that occurred the day before the defendants were arrested, as well as during the time the defendants were sitting in jail. The Olympian had already determined that someone had to pay, regardless of whether the defendants had anything to do with alleged damage.

The Tony Overman arrest

We can contrast the Olympian editorial board’s treatment of port protest arrestees, with the treatment of Olympian photographer Tony Overman’s recent arrest.

On June 6, 2008, Overman was reporting on the scene of a house fire. He got into an altercation with a Lacey police detective and was arrested and charged with simple assault and obstructing an officer.

On June 8, the Olympian published an article in which Olympian publisher (and permanent member of the Olympian Editorial Board) John Winn Miller declared that “the newspaper will fight the charges.” Lacey police spokesperson John Suessman was reported to say that the Lacey Police Department “values its relationship with The Olympian.” Said Suessman: “We certainly don’t want this incident to get in the way of our positive relationship, not only with Tony [Overman] but with the other staff at The Olympian as well.” Overman was given the last word: “There has to be accountability about why this happened and who caused it.”

Two days later, the Olympian published another article on Overman’s arrest, entitled: “Accounts Differ on Encounter of Photographer, Detective.” The article gave two paragraphs to the Lacey detective’s side of the story, followed by twice as many words for Overman’s side of the story. The article then evoked Suessman: “Suessman reiterated prior statements that the Lacey Police Department values its positive working relationship with The Olympian, and wants to continue that. The department is conducting an internal investigation of the incident based on Overman’s complaint to Lacey police about the incident, Suessman said.” The article ended with Overman’s thorough description of injuries he sustained by Lacey police.

Two weeks later, the Lacey city prosecutor dropped both charges against Overman.

There was no call from the Olympian shaming Lacey prosecutors for not pursuing charges against Overman. There were no demands that Overman “must be held ac-countable.” There were no condemnations for the “botched case.” It was automatically presumed that Overman was innocent until proven guilty.

And although Overman was accorded a full account of his injuries from the Lacey police, the same was not provided for port protesters. On Nov. 11, 2007, then–Olympia City Councilmember TJ Johnson assembled a press conference for residents to detail their injuries sustained by police while nonviolently protesting at the Port of Olympia. Dozens spoke and recounted details of their treatment by police. A Nov. 14, 2007 Olympian editorial dismissed this event as a meeting “where protesters whined about their treatment at the hands of police,” claiming that the demonstrators “asked for it.”

Nonviolence begets violence

The third component of the demonization of port protesters is to identify them as the source of “escalating violence in the community,” instigated by “protesters” and “activ-ists,” as a May 14, 2008 editorial assessed. According to the piece, “The port protests launched a series of confrontations between police and unruly crowds.” Thus the port protests led to the overturning of the police car at the Dead Prez show on Feb. 14 and then to the broken windows at the May Day rally. Such a direct lineage should not be blindly assumed, however. The opinion piece made no attempts to substantiate the assumption, and thus there are no arguments to refute.

Moreover, it is not difficult to imagine that even without the port protests, the Dead Prez incident could have transpired similarly. One only needs to imagine the following elements: a hip-hop performance with a socially conscious group such as Dead Prez; a young African-American male arrested for a crime he did not commit; police at-tempting to disperse the resultant crowd by deploying pepper-spray and batons; and after assaulting the crowd, the police leaving one of their own cars at the scene. There is no need to have the experience of the port to give such a crowd ideas.

As for the May Day rally—which the Olympian admits was “hijacked” by non-organizers—it is easy to find several precedents for violent May Day clashes around world. Like it or not, the more violent, “Anarchist” traditions of May Day preceded the port protests. It might not be an agreeable concept of May Day, but it apparently is one that has now manifested in Olympia, regardless of the port and cannot be curtailed by more port prosecutions.

The recent prosecutions of the 26 port protesters is yet another attempt by the Olympian to deal with a scourge that is less actualized and less linear than is imagined by an editorial board that holds too much power and is too out of touch with reality.

Those charged are scapegoated for everything negative that may or may not have happened at the port and elsewhere. The Olympian editorial board looked to “City Hall to see whether law enforcement officers mean what they say: There will be zero tolerance for vandalism and lawlessness.” What the editorial board failed to notice was that none of the 61 people arrested at the Port of Olympia were arrested for vandalism or even for any sort of violent act. Moreover, in light of two weeks of action at the port, specific incidents of violence instigated by port protesters were rare. This is beyond the comprehension of the editorial board, as it has neglected to chastise the police for not charging anyone from the port for specific violent acts.

Although the Olympian Editorial Board praises itself for “taking a strong stand against the war in Iraq”— that is, since July 2007—the board has never supported any an-tiwar move. They have criticized activists for “tarnishing the anti-war effort” while having never supported any “anti-war effort” themselves. They declare that they “disagree with [the] methods” of activists, but offer no methods of their own to end the war. As far back as 2004, the editorial board ridiculed a phone-in campaign to encourage the port to refuse military shipments—a campaign that was initially misrepresented by an Olympian article that faked an interview with a local activist organizer. “[T]aking a strong stand” is not enough if all you’re doing is just standing there.

Amazingly, although the Olympian is generally derided by the public, it still wields influence as the only daily newspaper for the region.

A Dec. 4, 2007 letter to the Olympian by the then–Port of Olympia Commissioners acknowledged that “there were many peaceful protesters involved,” in the Nov. 2007 port protests, but that “a few blocked roads with destructive and unlawful means….” The Olympian simplified this letter with the accompanying headline, “Port Protesters Were Not Peaceful.”