« Latest Madrid Ad: Heather Wilson Lies for Bush | Main | Saturday Music Hall: Save the Country »
Friday, September 29, 2006
Anti-War Leader Arrested in Albuquerque
From Luis Martin, Boletin Latino:
Photo: Luis Martin, Boletin Latino
Albuquerque, 9-29-2006
Bob Anderson, leading anti-war activist for Stop the War Machine (SWM) in Albuquerque, was tackled, handcuffed, dragged and led away to Bernalillo County Detention Center West by University of New Mexico (UNM) police today at approximately 2:00 PM. The incident occurred at a campus meeting sponsored by UNM in which a panel of speakers for think tank Sandia National Laboratories were promoting the building of a new generation of nuclear weapons.
According to one witness, Anderson objected to the exclusion of anti-war views from the makeup of the panel. As someone next to him raised an anti-war placard, one member of the panel asked that it be lowered saying signs were prohibited at the meeting. As campus police entered the room, the panel member pointed to Anderson asking them to remove him from the room. Throughout the entire incident, some bystanders shouted at police to refrain from manhandling the dissenter. No other details are immediately available.
At approximately 5:30 PM, Jean Pahls, Anderson's wife, told Boletin Latino that Bob had been released from detention on his own recognizance.
UNM ranks in the top 15 universities in the country for war profiteering.
Above, Below: Bob Anderson being violently arrested after requesting a fair makeup of a panel sponsored by UNM to promote building nuclear weapons. All photos: Luis Martin, Boletin Latino
Editor's Note: Check out our earlier post about the conference where Anderson was arrested.
September 29, 2006 at 07:34 PM in Local Politics, Nuclear Arms, Power | Permalink
Comments
Unbelivable! What is this world coming to? The mismanagement of money and war profiteering are some of the reasons I left UNM.
Posted by: JD Mathews | Sep 29, 2006 9:31:21 PM
I was present at this one-sided conference promoting nuclear weapons "renewal." I saw Bob arrested and it was painful to watch what he had to go through -- being dragged and handcuffed. A cop who escorted himi first made a show of putting on heavy black gloves as though Bob were a dog who might bite him.
The conference panel congratulated themselves at the end and didn't even acknowledge his arrrest.
Posted by: Anti-nuclear | Sep 30, 2006 1:27:50 AM
And just what was his "crime"? It's bad enough if someone is escorted out of a public event just for making a comment or holding up a sign, but a violent arrest is inexcusable.
When Codepink people do similar things at congressional hearings etc., they aren't usually arrested, just escourted out.
Why did the people who put on this biased event invite the public if they didn't want any public input? Were attendees supposed to be content with adoring whatever they said?
The Albuquerque police are horrible these days. Thanks Mayor Chavez.
Posted by: Old Dem | Sep 30, 2006 10:00:33 AM
I submitted the following to the Albuquerque Journal Letters to the Editor:
Friday, September 29th, Bob Anderson was arrested at a conference being held at the University of New Mexico. The conference was open to the public and in spite of how it was described it was an effort to "sell" the building of new nuclear weapons in New Mexico. Rebuilding, and worse yet, reengineering nuclear weapons is a violation of the international treaty of nuclear non-proliferation. For those who are interested, Iran is NOT in violation of that treaty, we (USA) are!
I am SORRY Bob, that my country has turned on you. I have to accept responsibility for this because this is my city and the police in Albuquerque are my police and the police at UNM are my police. I have lost control. I am searching for how I can regain the necessary control. I am taking the responsibility for this because I have to, the "leaders" won't. I thank you so much for what you endured for me and for all of us. I hope that more citizens recognize what is happening here before it is too late and stand with you. I refuse to give up hope and I refuse to stop working at saving our country. I will see you on the street again and I will stand proudly beside you. Thank you and God bless you! You are a patriot!
Terry Riley
A Patriot too!
Posted by: Terry Riley | Sep 30, 2006 4:55:02 PM
I fail to understand the need for a "new generation of nuclear weapons. Guess we're getting ready for the inevitable "Dubya-Dubya III."
I can marginally understand someone who disrupts an event being peacefully asked to leave or escorted out, but this (violent) arrest is inexcusable. He has my support, and my thanks for standing up for his beliefs.
Posted by: < | Oct 2, 2006 12:28:27 AM
He was interrupting the symposium and was a general nuisance. He did not follow the groundrules as established by the moderator.
If the peace activists continue to protest by seeing who can shout the loudest with no rational input to the discussion, there is no future for any discussion between the 'peaceniks' and the 'warmongers'.
You guys need to change your tune. Bob Martz stated that his goal was to see the end of nuclear weapons in his lifetime. You should be opening dialogue with him and people like him who are in positions of authority at the labs, rather than applauding dumb statements like "National Security is through health care, not weapons."
Posted by: Daggs | Oct 2, 2006 9:10:29 AM
It was a public meeting. Since when is it OK to tackle and arrest someone making comments at a public meeting? After all, this wasn't a session or Congress or a court proceeding, it was an event billed as a discussion with the public urged to attend.
As to opening a dialog with the lab people, isn't that what symposiums are for? Instead we got a completely one sided PR campaign by Lockheed Martin and their cronies.
I'll bet any money Daggs is an employee of one of the bomb making labs.
Your crap about peacniks vs. warmongers is silly. Millions of people around the world oppose a new generation of nuke weapons, because they have some semblance of common sense and reason informing their views. Not just moneymaking dreams.
Why should Lockheed Martin be allowed to organize a fake symposium on the UNM campus without any input from the public at a public meeting on campus? If you want private meetings, hold them on private property.
Posted by: No New Nukes | Oct 2, 2006 11:27:34 AM
It was a public meeting. Since when is it OK to tackle and arrest someone making comments at a public meeting? After all, this wasn't a session or Congress or a court proceeding, it was an event billed as a discussion with the public urged to attend.
______________________________
He was interrupting the symposium and was a general nuisance. He did not follow the groundrules as established by the moderator.
Why is it ok to be rude and disruptive in public?
______________________________________________
Your crap about peacniks vs. warmongers is silly. Millions of people around the world oppose a new generation of nuke weapons, because they have some semblance of common sense and reason informing their views. Not just moneymaking dreams.
_________________________________________
You don't address my point at all, which is that the no-nuke crowd can't argue rationally, and can only rely on rhetoric.
I'd love to live a nuke-free world, I really would. However, we've got them now. The RRW program allows the US to retire many more weapons than will be replaced by the RRW. That's a good thing. Perhaps someday there will no longer be a need for nukes, I sure hope so. Yelling and interrupting a public forum and generally looking like an ass is not a good way to present your views. Yeah, we heard you, No New Nukes. How about helping to advertise the fact that the US nuke stockpile is at the lowest levels since the early days of the Cold War? How about watchdogging the way the DOE spends its money?
During the QA, a gentleman stood up and said that the US is breaking international law, and that the UNs first resolution condemned nuclear weapons. The panel pretty much admitted that they a)didn't know about international law and how it applies to nukes and b)they would like to learn more about it. How about educating the public on these points, rather than coming off as crazy beatnik protestors? Talk to Andrew Ross and organize a public forum that has your viewpoints, and discuss them rationally. Do you think anyone can take the no-nuke movement seriously when the best slogan you can come up with is "Security is through health care, not weapons"??
We've got nukes. RRW reduces the number of nukes that we need. How is that a bad thing?
I don't work for the labs, I'm in the USAF, btw.
Posted by: | Oct 2, 2006 12:08:41 PM
There are plenty of reasoned discussions about this issue if you'd care to look. I suggest you check out the Los Alamos Study Group for just one source.
You may not like the tactics pursued by someone at the conference, but I still don't see why an arrest with tackling, handcuffs and other roughing up was justified.
If you asked the American people what would make them feel safer, I think you'd get a huge majority picking high quality health care for all than new nuclear weapons we don't need and which are banned by current treaties. If the panelists didn't know this, they shouldn't have been on the panel in my opinion. But when you run a symposium according to the PR demands of Lockheed Martin, this is what you get.
Can you explain to me what the word "beatnik" has to do with an exchange at a symposium that you don't happen to agree with? I guess it's only "beatniks" who don't agree with designing new nuclear weapons.
Posted by: No New Nukes | Oct 2, 2006 1:11:07 PM
You may not like the tactics pursued by someone at the conference, but I still don't see why an arrest with tackling, handcuffs and other roughing up was justified.
________________________________________
He was asked to leave, and didn't. UNM security tried to escort him out, and he did not. He then became resistant. Security did what they had to do to remove him from the room, as he refused to do so on his own.
Posted by: | Oct 2, 2006 1:40:21 PM
If you asked the American people what would make them feel safer, I think you'd get a huge majority picking high quality health care for all than new nuclear weapons we don't need and which are banned by current treaties. If the panelists didn't know this, they shouldn't have been on the panel in my opinion. But when you run a symposium according to the PR demands of Lockheed Martin, this is what you get.
______________________________________
Don't confuse the security you get by having healthcare with national security provided by nuclear weapons. Apples and oranges. Healthcare doesn't provide deterrence.
_____________________________________
But when you run a symposium according to the PR demands of Lockheed Martin, this is what you get.
_____________________________________
Please show any kind of causal effect between LM and this symposium. It was hosted at UNM, moderated by the OPST, WIIS, and the SNL. Yes, LM runs the SNL management contract. Is that seriously what you're drawing your assertion on?
Posted by: | Oct 2, 2006 1:49:43 PM
Universal healthcare certainly would be a deterrence to desease and its ill effects. Just take away Daggs "socialized medicine", paid for in part by people who do not have or can not afford decent healthcare, and watch the results.
Posted by: Marc | Oct 2, 2006 2:28:23 PM
Oh what would make anyone think there's any relationship between Lockheed Martin running SNL and SNL giving much funding to OPST and this conference that's pitching a way for the labs to justify their existence and increase their funding? Why would anyone connect those things!
There are always apologists for horrible "defense" programs and horrible behavior on the part of police and "security." Strangely enough they always seem to make their money from some segment of the war machine.
Posted by: GG | Oct 2, 2006 2:44:35 PM
Show me the funding stream from SNL to OPST.
Posted by: | Oct 3, 2006 7:36:54 AM
Mr. Anderson was shouting, not "commenting". If he wants to act like a whiny brat, he needs to be treated like one....taken out by the ears and spanked. BTW, since when do liberals hold "balanced" panel discussions? They don't. You either agree with them or you're labeled a racist, a fascist, or otherwise intolerant of their lunacy.
Too bad liberals can't admit they're really Marzist-Stalinists. Where's the USSR now?!?!
Posted by: | Oct 3, 2006 10:39:39 AM
"Swaying to the rythm of a new world order and,
Counting bodies like sheep to the rythm of the war drum"
Manard / a perfect circle / 13th step
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8024076748679173978
Posted by: Systemic | Oct 9, 2006 11:19:25 PM
