Shhhhhhh!

If we didn’t spend all our time messing around with secret-this and covert-that, always digging out from under the consequence of stuff put into motion during the dark of the moon, things might look better in this nation. I’m just damned tired of all the secrets.

You might wonder about the secret that Fredo blabbed, linking the Nine Gate dialogues to further FISA programs … then you will be glad to know that the minority leader blabbed a state secret defending him, and letting us know that the secret judge of a secret court objected to Dubby’s secret spying program and now the Congress is being called upon to fix the problems with secret surveillance, post-haste. And none of us are supposed to talk about it — quick, pretend you don’t know!

I expect this kind of super-double-secret-with-sauce behavior from the Bushie crowd, but I have only contempt for the comment by game-player and Dem cynic, Rahm Emanuel, in the first article. The final two pieces here regard a national secret that I have yet to decode — why the California Grand Damme’s, Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, both have their stylishly-coiffed heads firmly up their derrieres.

Secrets! BAH!

Jude

Ruling Limited Spying Efforts
Move to Amend FISA Sparked by Judge’s Decision
Carol D. Leonnig and Ellen Nakashima, WaPo
Friday, August 3, 2007; Front Page

A federal intelligence court judge earlier this year secretly declared a key element of the Bush administration’s wiretapping efforts illegal, according to a lawmaker and government sources, providing a previously unstated rationale for fevered efforts by congressional lawmakers this week to expand the president’s spying powers.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disclosed elements of the court’s decision in remarks Tuesday to Fox News as he was promoting the administration-backed wiretapping legislation. Boehner has denied revealing classified information, but two government officials privy to the details confirmed that his remarks concerned classified information.

The judge, whose name could not be learned, concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly surveil communications between two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States, according to two other government sources familiar with the decision.

The decision was both a political and practical blow to the administration, which had long held that all of the National Security Agency’s enhanced surveillance efforts since 2001 were legal. The administration for years had declined to subject those efforts to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and after it finally did so in January the court ruled that the administration’s legal judgment was at least partly wrong.

The practical effect has been to block the NSA’s efforts to collect information from a large volume of foreign calls and e-mails that passes through U.S. communications nodes clustered around New York and California. Both Democrats and Republicans have signaled they are eager to fix that problem through amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

“There’s been a ruling, over the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States,” Boehner told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto in a Tuesday interview.

“This means that our intelligence agencies are missing a wide swath of potential information that could help protect the American people,” he said. Boehner added that some Democrats are aware of the problems caused by the judge’s restrictive ruling and the problems it has caused for the administration’s surveillance of terrorism suspects.

“The Democrats have known about this for months,” Boehner said. “We have had private conversations, we have had public conversations that this needs to be fixed. And Republicans are not going to leave this week until this problem is addressed.”

Commenting on Boehner’s remarks, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the House Democratic Caucus chairman, said yesterday that “John should remember the old adage: Loose lips very much sink ships.” But Kevin Smith, Boehner’s spokesman, denied that the House Republican leader had disclosed classified information.

Any assertion that Boehner spilled secrets “is just plain wrong and distracts from the critical task at hand — fixing FISA to close the serious intelligence gaps that are jeopardizing our national security,” Smith said.

Smith said that Boehner’s comments were based on a public, Jan. 17 letter to Congress by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, in which the administration announced that it would allow the NSA program to be reviewed by the intelligence court. That letter said that an intelligence court judge had issued orders “authorizing the Government to target for collection into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe” one of the parties is a terrorist.

But the letter referred only to “approval” of a government surveillance request and did not refer, as Boehner did, to the court’s rejection of surveillance of specific foreign communications routed through the United States. The NSA surveillance at issue is part of a broader program authorized by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said this week in a public letter that the order covered “various intelligence activities” that he did not describe. “The details of the activities changed in certain respects over time,” he said.

Since the existence of the warrantless wiretapping program was leaked to the public in late 2005, civil libertarians and legal experts have accused the administration of violating FISA and engaging in illegally broad data mining of telephone and e-mail records.

The effect of the judge’s decision to curtail some of that surveillance was to limit the flow of information about possible terrorism suspects, according to congressional staffers briefed on the ruling. Last week, McConnell told the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the government faces “this huge backlog trying to get warrants for things that are totally foreign that are threatening to this country.”

Gaining access to the foreign communications at issue would allow the NSA to tap into the huge volume of calls, faxes and e-mails that pass from one foreign country to another by way of fiber-optic connections in the United States.

“If you’re calling from Germany to Japan or China, it’s very possible that the call gets routed through the United States, despite the fact that there are geographically much more direct routes to Asia,” said Stephan Beckert of Telegeography Inc.

That was not true when Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. The law established much stricter limits on intercepting communications involving people or facilities in the United States. If those limits apply now, for example, to calls from Pakistan to Yemen that pass through U.S. switches, the NSA could lose access to a substantial portion of global communications traffic.

Since March, the administration has quickly tried to build a case for the legislation, while concealing from the public and many in Congress a key event that appears to have driven the effort.

“It clearly shows that Congress has been playing with half a deck,” said Jim Dempsey, policy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology. “The administration is asking lawmakers to vote on a very important piece of legislation based upon selective declassification of intelligence.”

In April, McConnell proposed a much broader revision of FISA than what the administration is pressing Congress to approve this week. Under the new plan, the attorney general would have sole authority to authorize the warrantless surveillance of people “reasonably believed to be outside the United States” and to compel telecommunications carriers to turn over the information in real time or after it has been stored.

An unstated facet of the program is that anyone the foreigner is calling inside the United States, as long as that person is not the primary target, would also be wiretapped. On Saturday, Bush in his radio address argued more narrowly that “one of the most important ways we can gather that information is by monitoring terrorist communications.” FISA, he said, “provides a critical legal foundation” in allowing the government to collect that information while protecting Americans’ civil liberties.

Testifying on the Hill in May, McConnell argued that the law needed to be updated to accommodate technology’s advance. “Today a single communication can transit the world, even if the two people communicating are only a few miles apart,” he said, alluding to the fact that a significant volume of e-mails and phone calls are routed through the United States.

Democrats announced this week a proposal that would also expand the government’s wiretapping authority but would keep it under FISA court supervision. The authority would expire in six months.

This week, McConnell spent hours on the Hill briefing lawmakers. On Tuesday, he gave about 50 senators a classified briefing making the case for the legislation. That briefing included the change in the threat environment, as well as a description of the court development, according to a government source who requested anonymity because the briefing was classified.

“He was not complaining about one judge or another,” the source said. “He was saying, ‘I need to collect X, but I can only collect Y and we need to change the law on that.’ ” ++

Washington Post staff writers Dan Eggen and Barton Gellman and washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.

Reflexive Fear of Wimpification
by digby
Wednesday, August 01, 2007

When I read this this morning, I thought I might be hallucinating:

Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers.

Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.

[…]

In the past few days, Mr. Bush and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, have publicly called on Congress to make the change before its August recess, which could begin this weekend. Democrats appear to be worried that if they block such legislation, the White House will depict them as being weak on terrorism.

“We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem, rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a statement Monday night.

Let’s set aside the idea that “trusting” the Bush administration with warrantless wiretaps is like trusting your four year old with a zippo lighter, what kind of bucket-of-lukewarm-spit kind of politics is this? What are they afraid of, that the Bush administration will blame them if a terrorist attack occurs and they didn’t approve another blank check? Guess what? It wouldn’t matter if the Democrats named Bush king with the power to draw and quarter hippies and Muslims on the white house lawn, they will still blame the Democrats if there is another terrorist attack.

I do not know what this latest program is, but whatever it is, it needs to be approved by somebody other than the White House. I’m sorry, but that should be non-negotiable. Dick Cheney has delegated to himself virtually limitless power and he is borderline insane. The executive branch cannot be trusted with additional power of any kind. They have quite enough, thank you.

Here we are trying to pry from the Bush administration just what in the hell was in the “other intelligence activities” they were doing before the entire upper management of the Department of Justice threatened to resign, and the Dems are now publicly capitulating to white house demands that they give them more warrantless surveillance powers — and Harry Reid is whining about how he hopes the Republicans will work with him? Talk about muddying the waters. The substance is nuts and the politics are nuts.

I feel like I woke up this morning and it was 2002 all over again. We have the two top Democratic contenders arguing about invading Pakistan and the Democratic congress is rushing to sign off on another secret surveillance program. (Hey, let’s burn some Dixie Chicks albums just for fun! It would be irresponsible not to…)

I don’t know what it’s going to take to convince Democrats that trying to “out-tough” each other or especially trying to “out-tough” the GOP is always playing to the Republican’s strength — the authoritarian lizard brain. If this keeps up, by the time we get to the election, the Democratic candidate will be vying with the Republican over who will be the first to sign a new law legalizing torture for double parking. We don’t win that way, never have, never will.

Update: I should be clear that I’m not saying that Pakistan does not have to be addressed. But it’s a complicated situation and just hate to see the Democrats reducing this stuff to cheap sound bites just like the Republicans do. It just makes things worse in the long run. ++

An Open Letter: No More Power to the Executive, Ms. Pelosi, No More!
[Raw Story’s] Larisa Alexandrovna, HuffPo
August 1, 2007

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

I cannot fathom why you would think it wise on any level to grant more power to those who have already so abused it, but since you are bent on enabling the imperial presidency, let me just remind you of something: There is nothing wrong with the FISA law that the impeachment of Dick Cheney cannot resolve. We, the public know this. More importantly, we the press know that giving the President more surveillance power is not only un-Constitutional, it is also a direct and full frontal assault on the press. Or did you actually think that Karl Rove and his new spy toy are going to go looking for Osama bin who?

I know you are eager to get to your month long, paid vacation - something our soldiers do not get and something the voting public does not get either. But if you are going to leave the country unsupervised while you are gone, the least you can do is not pass something as serious as an expansion of surveillance powers for the Decider as you head off to get your last tan of the summer.

Ms. Pelosi, you have said that you are working to reach an agreement with the White House sometime this week. Pray tell, what is it that you need to agree to that will justify anything this administration promises in exchange? You have already taken impeachment off the table, something you have no right or authority to do, as your oath of office should remind you on a daily basis. But you have unilaterally decided that no matter what the public wants, it is your opinion on this that is important, when in fact your opinion means nothing outside your duty.

Instead of going on a vacation, you should be babysitting Congressional chambers so that this duplicitous administration does not make any more recess appointments, such as, perhaps, a new Attorney General?

You should be on the House floor daily to make sure that a deranged mad-man you refuse to remove from office does not launch an illegal war against yet another country. You should be investigating if and why a Democratic governor, Don Siegelman, was really framed by the Rove machine - as many people believe - in order to make room for the White House sanctioned candidate in Alabama. You did read the letter of 44 former state attorneys generals demanding that Congress investigate why Siegelman was imprisoned?

Or were you otherwise busy drafting the more-power-to-the-decider law instead of sparing this man from having to endure one more day of false imprisonment? You should be working day and night to set right what is still wrong in New Orleans.

You should be demanding to know what happened to over $9 billion dollars of OUR money gone missing under this administration in Iraq, a sizable amount that no Executive Branch official can “recall” and something Congress appears to be barely interested in locating.

You should be doing something, anything but going on vacation. In short, you should be the leader that you were elected to be.

Instead, your last concern before you head off on a month long vacation is how to best compromise with this administration on something as sacrosanct as OUR rights and liberties. No. We have compromised enough and we go no further.

Who are we? Just in case you don’t know:

-Every single person who emails me daily begging me for hope and faith - as though I could in any way provide something so important by myself.

-Every single person who begs me to take on their cause, like Don Siegelman’s daughter, who is desperate for me to do what I have no power to do: set him free.

-Every single person like my cousin, who was picked up under Operation Return to Sender - Alberto Gonzales’ idea of a political joke in addressing illegal immigration - in which hundreds upon hundreds of legal residents have been overcrowded prisons, people piled on top of people.

-Every single American who was denied their right to vote and continues to be the target of this administration because of the color of their skin.

-Every single person, including me, who cannot afford health insurance and has to suffer not only a serious disease but also the humiliation of having to explain to a stranger picking up the phone from corporate Pharma HQ why I deserve to live.

-Every single person who has watched Congress give itself a pay-hike while they have been stripped of their most basic rights.

-Every single person who cannot speak for themselves because they died at Ground Zero, either through the negligence of this administration before the attacks of September 11, 2001 or because of the criminal conduct by this administration and its cronies in declaring the air safe to breath when they knew it was poison.

-Every single American who knows the nation was lied into a war for profit and that American lives continue to be destroyed over a political decision you and yours will not make, although you were elected for this very reason.

-Every single person who has been terrorized by this administration and their color coded political dirty tricks for the last seven years
.
And…

-Every single person who does not want a corrupt, arrogant, and power hungry administration to tap our phones, cull our emails, and spy on us because they fear us more than they care about the terrorists they claim to be fighting.

Your compromise with the decider is far too much for this nation to have to tolerate. Allowing any such compromise to even to come to the floor for a vote indicates that you are still of the belief that the administration wants to work with Congress, when in fact, they have nothing but contempt for you. In my opinion, Ms. Pelosi, you giving the Decider even more power to abuse is tantamount to declaring war on the public and the press, something that is impossible to keep silent about.

In our brave new America, Ms. Pelosi, the “good American” is someone who asks no questions, supports the President and his war, and hates whomever the scapegoat is. Anyone not part of this definition is called a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. And members of Congress have run from such narrow definitions, passed laws because of such narrow definitions, and failed their country and their own conscience in order not to be called a name or made into a talking point. Weak on terror, does that sound familiar to you? How about by cutting off funding for the war, you are cutting off funding to the troops? Sound familiar yet? Are these the types of compromises we will continue to see because people have become so afraid of not being the “good American?”

By this definition, I am not and will never be a good American and that is something that I am very comfortable with, for the same reasons that I would be comfortable not being the good German during WWII or the good Italian during WWI. And I don’t mind the name-calling at all. Why do you and your colleagues then care what labels are affixed to you when the moral argument is on your side of the isle?

No, I cannot hope to be anything before I first try for being a good human being and I cannot hope to be a good human being and continue to witness this massive failure of Congressional oversight as the rest of us - the majority of us - watch is horror our rights, liberties, money, and even loved ones are one by one stripped away from us.

I would not have been a good German under the Nazi regime, Ms Pelosi. My parents were not good Soviets under the Soviet regime and I am sure as hell not going to be the current version of a good American now. But if you were to ask about the definition of my Americanism, I would tell you to simply look at your own oath of office. There you will find my America.

Like you, I actually had to take an oath, but unlike you, my promise was given for the privilege of becoming a US citizen. Unlike most Americans, who never have to make that kind of pledge, I had to take an oath just to have the same rights that so many take for granted. Your oath was taken to uphold the same principles that I had to swear to uphold. Moreover, you took your oath as a public servant, while took mine as simply a citizen of this nation.

I took my oath seriously and because I have taken it so seriously, I cannot stand by and watch silently while you shred the Constitution for reasons that are unclear but are irrelevant in any case.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I am honoring my oath of citizenship, Ms. Pelosi, are you honoring your oath of office?

You were not elected to expand the power of the Decider, and should you agree on a compromise to make legal that which you know is un-Constitutional, and thereby enable this administration to continue its abuses, you need not bother coming back after your vacation.

We don’t need more enablers in an already compromised Congress. What we need are people who actually care, even if just a little bit, about the rest of US - the country and the Constitution.

So I ask you, please, do not grant more power to those who have already so abused the power that they have been granted.

Sincerely,

A US Citizen, a Jew, a woman, an Immigrant, and a journalist. ++

Southwick approved by Judiciary Committee
The Crypt’s Blog, Politico
August 02, 2007

With the help of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), appellate court nominee Leslie Southwick won approval Thursday from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He was passed out of the committee on a 10-9 vote, giving Republicans a victory in what had become an increasingly bitter struggle over the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals seat in Mississippi.

Feinstein rejected objections from her fellow Democrats and liberal advocacy groups about Southwick’s concurrence on several controversial civil and gay rights cases as a Mississippi Court of Appeals judge.

Through her conversations with Southwick, “what emerged was an appreciation on my part that Judge Southwick was a qualified, circumspect nominee,” Feinstein said. “I don’t believe he is a racist. I believe he made a mistake. The question is does one ever overcome a mistake. Perhaps some do. I believe he is a good person.”

Critics also argued that President Bush should appoint an African-American judge to a federal bench that adjudicates cases in Mississippi, which has the highest percentage of African Americans in the country. Southwick is a white male.

“When viewed against his record on the bench, the importance of this seat on the 5th Circuit, and the troubling lack of diversity on that court, I am not convinced that he is the right nominee for this vacancy at this time,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the committee chairman, who voted against the nomination.

Targeted as a potential swing vote by Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (Miss.) and other Republicans, Feinstein said she spoke with Southwick Wednesday and asked him to respond in writing to the criticisms of his past rulings. She indicated at Thursday’s meeting that she was satisfied with his response.

In an interview after the vote, Lott said he helped to sell Southwick to Feinstein, providing her with information about his demeanor and philosophy as a judge. Plus, Lott added, he had been helpful to Feinstein in the past when California court nominees ran into resistence.

“I don’t want to brag on her too much. It will get her in trouble,” Lott said.

More than 60 conservative organizations pressed for Southwick’s confirmation, and found an ally in Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee’s ranking Republican. With the groups, Specter attempted to raise Southwick’s profile, highlighting his deployment in 2005 to Iraq as part of the Mississippi National Guard.

Republicans warned that, by thwarting a full Senate vote, Democrats would weaken the ability of a Democratic president to win confirmation of liberal judges.

The rhetoric took on sharp edges. A week ago, Concerned Women for America put out a press release titled “Iraq War Vet ‘Spit On’ By Democrat Senators,” invoking an image associated with the treatment of Vietnam War veterans.

Democrats and liberal advocacy organizations, including the Mississippi NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus, took issue with Southwick’s record, saying he showed a lack of awareness of the “little guy” and the rights of minorities, workers and gays.

“The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to listen to the American people who voted for change last November. Instead, what we saw today was business as usual in continuing to help President Bush pack the courts,” said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, in a written statement. “Senators must recognize the transformation that is taking place on the circuit court level, particularly given these judges decide tens of thousands of cases.” ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment August 3rd, 2007

Weenie Works

All systems of authority are prone to abuse, even the best of them … and the current climate of paranoia and militarism has taken on an increasingly punitive style, even in the Heartland. None of this would be particularly newsworthy, except its happening with frequency in little towns and hamlets across the nation.

The South Park creators made early work of this trend with an episode in which Cartman, an eight year old, is temporarily deputized by dopey, bumbling Officer Barbrady and takes his opportunity seriously. Of the four boys, Cartman is the GWB prototype, a first class weenie; glad-handing, selfish, hypocritical, mean-spirited, biased and a cry-baby under the skin. Now a standard, the ‘toon of him zooming along on his Hot Wheels, wearing [standard issue] mirrored trooper sun-glasses and brandishing a billy club became a “police state” moment — and his yelp, “Respect my authori-tay!” became the subject of posters, t-shirts and coffee mugs [my son got a pair of slippers for Christmas that has Cartman heads staring up at him from his toes, wearing the mirrored shades.]

You know that I think the conservative howls about how “9/11″ changed everything is a big crock — if we’d had our wits about us, and a sane man in the White House, 9/11 would have produced a global movement to disable terrorists, review policies and expand dialogue. Instead we got George. So — in my book, 9/11 didn’t change anything; the Bushies and the weenie-consciousness of a compliant nation did. And THIS, below, is the kind of crap we have to endure now, because of it.

The final two pieces in this collection are not “politically motivated,” per se, but they speak to the dark side of authority, particularly to racism … and the weenie notion that these systems are always working for the public good instead of against it. When George Bush can hold this nation hostage, ignore rule of law and thumb his nose at those authorized to hold him accountable, the message to the smaller fish in the system is clear — do what you want … ’til you get caught.

Jude

Federal Agents Searching People at Indianapolis Bus Stops: Air Marshals Patting Civilians Down
BlueDotRedField, Daily Kos
Thu Aug 02, 2007

Welcome to another creeping slide towards the big brother state. On August 2, 2007 over two dozen agents of the TSA setup two checkpoints at bus stops in Indianapolis Indiana and searched passengers who wanted to ride on city buses. Federal agents, including Air Marshals were present and patted people down, looked in bags, and performed “behavior” tests for the stated purpose of finding weapons and people who were a threat to public safety.

Before you think I am joking, let me refer to both the Indianapolis Star report TSA checks IndyGo bus passengers as well as posted first person reports of what happened yesterday and why it effects us all.

UPDATE: Thanks to DailyKos readers, this has been found to be a part of an 18 month old Federal Operation, read more below!

The first reports I heard of something going on yesterday seemed like a bloggin hoax:

Anybody know what’s going on? There are TSA stations with about 20 agents each set up in at least two spots in downtown Indy, 1 is near Capitol and Market, the other is near the federal building. They’re stopping and searching people getting on and off city busses and travelling on the street. This is going a little too far. Where exactly did this authority come from?

I thought this had to be a hoax since the TSA surely had better things to do than hassle people riding buses in a major US city. But over the day more and more reports came in confirming that not only were searches being made, but that they were being made by federal agents (including Air Marshals) and that many agencies were involved.

Then came a report from the Indianapolis Star, which said:

Screeners from the Transportation Security Administration checked passengers at two Downtown city bus stops this morning, looking for weapons and suspicious behavior.

David Kane, federal security director for TSA in Indianapolis, called it a “VIPR” operation.

“It’s called Visual Intermodal Prevention Response. We have plainclothes inspectors, blue-gloved uniformed security officers who are checking baggage, the behavior detection officers, and federal air marshals, which are the law enforcement arm of TSA.”

Security stations were set up at bus stops at Capitol Avenue and Market Street, and Ohio and Meridian streets.

Some passengers were patted down or submitted to having bags checked.

TSA said the searches were “by-permission,” meaning patrons could decline to be checked. Those who did would not be turned away, an official said, unless they otherwise appeared to be a security threat.

So to be clear, 20 or more agents of the federal government came to Indianapolis, downtown, and setup two search stops for those wanting to ride the bus. People could decline, legally, but only if the knew they could. Traveller safety was the excuse, but in reality all the were on an explicit fishing operation that included everything plus “behavior detection officers”.

Did people even know they could decline the search? That is unclear. But at least one report indicates that they TSA weren’t even aware of local law! For those who do not know, Indiana allows licensed individuals to carry firearms and accepts permits from other states for individuals to carry firearms as well. We have the highest per capita concealed carry population in the nation and the TSA was not even aware of our laws.

My wife has a cousin who lives in Indy and he was one of the lucky ones volunteered for a pat-down. He, like me, recognizes the value in being prepared for one’s own self defense. The screener asked if he could be patted down for weapons to which he responded “I’ll save you the trouble, my licensed handgun is on my right hip.” The screener thought he was joking. Once she realized he was serious she announced that there was a situation and called in the reinforcements.

He was told rudely “YOOOOUUU CAN’T CARRY A GUN AROUND HERE!” And he replied “I bet I can, this isn’t an airport…” By then a supervisor walked over, took a quick look at his Kentucky CCW and asked the Indianapolis PD next to him if it was any good. The Indy cop replied that a CCW from any state or country is valid in Indiana. So the supervisor declared in a loud voice to let him proceed, treat anyone with a CCW like a cop and pass them on. Needless to say though, he had a very quiet bus ride with lots of passengers staring at him the whole time.

Aside from being galled at the concept of this kind of thing, I think it’s pretty sad that the federal security professionals need to learn the rules as they go. One would think that if you were supposed to set up a checkpoint to screen for weapons, you’d do a preliminary check to see what was against the law in Indiana, what was permitted, etc. Goes to show how arbitrary the whole thing is.

So what was this operation, why was it needed, and what does it mean for us all?

First, it was a clear encroachment on our 4th Amendment rights. Even if it was legal (because individuals could refuse it), the fact that law enforcement is searching people without cause is an encroachment.

Second, it was an encroachment done by the Federal Government in the guise of proposed safety. While Indianapolis has had crime problems, the bus system has not been the hub of those problems. Nor have any federal crimes been committed on Indianapolis busses.

Third, it was a Federal operation performed by those who are not even aware of the law. Since they had no understanding of Indiana weapons laws and were performing weapons searches, why should I have any confidence in their understanding of, and care for Constitutional law in regards to personal searches.

Fourth, it was a Federal invasion of civilians that used our federal tax dollars to search bus passengers, who if criminal could have moved on to the next bus stop or just declined the search. The very same Air Marshals that are supposed to be protecting our plans are searching people at bus stops. This operation could hardly have been an effective expenditure of resources, especially as no reported arrests or confiscations took place.

Fifth, the stops seem to be better explained as a test of what encroachments Americans will accept, and the fact that only one article has mentioned it, sparsely at that, makes their test a likely success for federal agencies that seek to expand their powers.

So now it is up to us to decide, again, what is acceptable and what is not.

Personally, I plan to contact my Congressman in the morning (as this was a federal operation) and demand some basic investigations be done. Specifically, I have the following questions:

Why my tax dollars were spent this way?

What SPECIFIC threat this was addressing?

What CLEAR 4th Amendment considerations were taken in the planning and made clear in the searches?

What effect this event was expected to have among the population, etc.?

Why were federal agents unaware of Indiana law when they were there to search for violations of that law?

Was any notification given to the public before the event (as is done with road-blocks)?

In a time when there are concerns with not having enough air marshals on commercial planes, why do we have them at bus stops rather than at the airport?

Are there plans to continue this program or expand it to other cities? Should we all expect federal agents to be searching citizens in our streets with no cause?

I also plan to send a letter to the Indiana ACLU and to the mayor’s office.

To quote my congressman Baron Hill:

September 11th illustrated that, while the threat may have changed, the US still faces dangerous enemies in the 21st century. Our enemies are no longer monolithic nation-states, but, instead, fluid networks of terrorists that operate covertly in dozens of nations. To successfully combat this threat, it is crucial that we coordinate and develop a coherent strategy to enhance our homeland security. We must not, however, sacrifice the personal freedoms of American citizens to achieve these goals.

(Source: 2006 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Nov 7, 2006)

Let’s see if anyone responds.

To my fellow Kos readers, I ask “Where is the reporting on this?” I have not seen anything in the HuffingtonPost, or drugeretort, etc. Please help us all by looking into this.

It really is just the beginning.

UPDATE: I was wrong, thanks to hungrycoyote, the fact is this is a part of an 18 month old program opposed by law enforcement groups:

The law enforcement association already was unhappy with an 18-month-old TSA program that teams the agency’s armed federal air marshals — who have law-enforcement powers — with unarmed screeners and inspectors on special units deployed at airports, rail and bus stations.

These squads, known as Visual Intermodal Protection and Response units, or VIPR teams, gained a higher profile earlier this month when they were sent to East and West Coast airports and other transportation facilities to beef up security patrols in the wake of terrorist incidents in England and Scotland.

“The teaming up of highly trained federal air marshals with civilian TSA screeners in uniform in front of airports and train stations is a recipe for disaster,” Gordon wrote.

American gestapo
Abuse of power by National Park Service police
Doug Thompson, Capital Hill Blue
July 28, 2007

The last place you expect to run into a federal government goon squad is the Blue Ridge Parkway, the scenic highway that runs through Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee.

But the abuse of power spawned by the Bush administration and the rights robbing USA Patriot Act runs rampant throughout the federal bureaucracy, as I learned this week while traveling the Parkway to get to an assignment photographing a summer music festival for my newspaper.

The festival, FloydFest, draws thousands of people each July to a picturesque patch of land just off the Parkway not far from the Blue Ridge hamlet of Floyd, VA. Now in its sixth year, the festival enjoys a national reputation. It also provides an opportunity for the National Park Service police to harass patrons of the festival.

For the last two years, the Park Service has brought in its “CIT” (Criminal Interdiction Team) from Asheville, North Carolina, to police crowds that use the Parkway to reach the festival. The team, composed of swaggering young officers with little regard for due process or civil rights, is the embodiment of federal excess.

As I drove towards the site Thursday, I passed two CIT Park Police officers that had pulled cars over and were forcing the occupants to pull everything out of the car so they could search coolers, back packs, luggage, glove boxes and consoles.

I pulled off the road ahead of the second NPS patrol car, grabbed my camera and headed back to take a photo of the police action. As I approached, the Park Service officer wheeled around and pointed at me.

“Sir, if you raise that camera to take a photograph I will place you under arrest,” he barked.

I identified myself as a working journalist on assignment and said I was simply covering a news event.

“Sir,” he retorted, “this is U.S. government property and under the provisions of the USA Patriot Act you cannot take photographs of official government activity without authorization. Put your camera down now!”

I could not believe what I was hearing. I grew up in this part of the country and have photographed on the Blue Ridge Parkway since my days as a high school student. I asked for his badge number. He refused to reveal it.

“Sir, you have 15 seconds to leave or you are under arrest.” He had his hand on his gun so I left. Media General, our newspaper’s owner, has strict rules about interaction with police. At the top of the hill, I stopped and shot some photos back towards the scene.

At the festival, patrons told numerous horror stories about encounters that day with the Park Service Police. One young woman was pulled over because she had beads hanging from her rear view mirror. They detained her for more than an hour while they searched her car and found nothing. Another young man was stopped because he had a bolt missing from his license plate frame. When the cops found no drugs or alcohol, they ticketed him for “improper equipment.”

On Wednesday night, the CIT cops pulled over a car driven by Shannon Zeman, the sheriff of Floyd County, VA. Zeman later told Virginia State Trooper Andrew O’Connor that the parkway cops were rude and abusive, even to a fellow cop.

Calls to the Park Service police headquarters were not returned Friday. I called the office of Congressman Rick Boucher and they promised to check into the situation. According to the National Park Service web site, park police “provides highly trained and professional police officers to prevent and detect criminal activity, conduct investigations, apprehend individuals suspected of committing offenses against Federal, State and local laws.”

Nice to know the park service cops have professionals on board. Next time, let’s hope they send the pros instead of the goon squad from the Criminal Interdiction Team in Asheville.

UPDATE — 07/29/2007: The National Park Service recalled their CIT unit and ordered them back to Asheville after Congressman Rick Boucher, who represents the area, intervened on behalf of the festival. Boucher’s office received numberous calls of complaints about the NPS police activity on Thursday and Friday and called the director of the National Park Service. Security for the remaining two days of the festival was turned over to the Virginia State Police who patrolled the Parkway but did not harass festival attendees.

Flag-defiling charge ends in fight, arrests
Mike McWilliams, [Ashville, NC] Citizen-Times
July 26, 2007

A couple who said they were protesting the state of the country by flying the U.S. flag upside down with signs pinned to it found themselves in jail following a scuffle with a deputy Wednesday morning.

Mark and Deborah Kuhn were arrested on two counts of assault on a government employee, resisting arrest and a rarely used charge, desecrating an American flag, all misdemeanors. The Kuhns were released from custody Wednesday afternoon.

“This is surreal,” Deborah Kuhn, 52, said moments after her son Mark Stidham paid $1,500 bond to get the couple out of jail.

Arrest reports show Buncombe County Sheriff’s deputy Brian Scarborough went to the Kuhns’ home on 68 Brevard Road about 8:45 a.m. Wednesday to investigate a complaint of an American flag on display after being desecrated.

State law prohibits anyone from knowingly mutilating, defiling, defacing or trampling the U.S. or North Carolina flags. Lt. Randy Sorrells of the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office said the Kuhns desecrated the flag by pinning signs to it, not by flying it upside down.

An upside-down flag typically is flown as a distress signal. The Kuhns said they flew it this way not out of disrespect but to symbolize the state of the country.

Deborah Kuhn said the signs pinned to the flag included an explanation on the meaning of an upside-down flag and asked to “help our country.” One of the signs was a photo of President Bush with “Out Now” written on it, they said.

The couple flew the flag for about a week before Wednesday.

Police visits

Deborah Kuhn said an Asheville police officer stopped by last week to make sure the couple was OK, after recognizing the upside-down flag as a distress signal.

Asheville police calls for service records show an officer did go to the house July 18 after a complaint about the upside-down flag. The officer did not issue a citation or file a report.

A couple of days later, Deborah Kuhn said a man dressed in fatigues came to the door to “harass my husband” about the flag. Someone also took photos of the flag, she said.

Sorrells said a resident approached Scarborough while he was on duty and alerted him to the flag. Sorrells said he did not know where the person approached Scarborough or what the deputy was doing.

According to the Sheriff’s Office, Scarborough went to the Kuhns’ home and gave Mark Kuhn a copy of the flag desecration statute. Scarborough told the Kuhns the flag was being displayed illegally.

Although the Kuhns live within the Asheville city limits, Sorrells said the complaint was made to a deputy.

“We have jurisdiction throughout the whole county of Buncombe,” Sorrells said. “We have a citizen that complains to us about a violation of law, we’re bound by oath to act on it.”

Scarborough told Mark Kuhn he was going to be issued a citation and asked for identification. Kuhn refused, slammed the door on the deputy’s hand, breaking the glass pane out of the door and cutting Scarborough’s hand, the Sheriff’s Office said.

Deborah Kuhn said they removed the flag from their front porch after Scarborough threatened to cite them, but they objected to showing Scarborough their IDs, which he needed to write the tickets. Scarborough then broke into their house and came after them, they said.

“He tried to keep us from closing the door, but we managed to get it closed,” Deborah Kuhn said. “We locked the door and he broke the glass to our front door and proceeded to assault my husband, saying, ‘You’re under arrest.’”

The Sheriff’s Office said a struggle ensued when Scarborough followed Kuhn back into the house. At that time, Deborah Kuhn also struck Scarborough in the face, authorities said in arrest reports.

Scarborough called for backup and five squad cars responded, Sorrells said.

Deborah Kuhn said she called 911 and ran into the street screaming for help.

Mark Kuhn said he did not attack Scarborough.

“He came after me, and I fought him back,” Kuhn, 43, said. “After I got out of his hold, I ran outside.”

Rarely enforced

Sorrells said this is the first time he has seen the flag-desecration law enforced. He said it’s a difficult decision for an officer to weigh a resident’s right to free speech against another’s complaint of a law violation.

“I think the officer did the appropriate thing by stating his intention to simply issue a citation and let it be worked out in court,” Sorrells said. “If Mr. Kuhn had simply complied with that request for identification and accepted the citation, we would have all gone about our way, and it could have been worked out in court. Once he assaulted the officer, it escalated very quickly.”

Sorrells said Scarborough suffered some scrapes and cuts to his hand and returned to duty later Wednesday. A message left for Scarborough at the Sheriff’s Office was not immediately returned.

Mark Kuhn, who said he had flown his flag upside down before without any problems, said he plans to fight the charges. The Kuhns each face a maximum 420 days in jail if convicted on all of the charges.

“We are going to do our best to get a civil liberties lawyer from the ACLU,” Kuhn said.

“We are going to take this big time. Officer Scarborough is not going to get away with this.”

The Kuhns said the Sheriff’s Office kept their flag. Sorrells said he had no record of that.

Flying Flag Upside Down Results in Criminal Charges in Washington Township [NJ]
Lehigh Valley Ramblings blog
Thursday, July 19, 2007

Washington Township police officer Scott E Miller filed criminal charges on June 11, 2007 against a Washington Township man for insulting the American flag. Easton lawyer Gary Asteak asks me the following question: “How the hell do you insult the American flag? What do you do, walk up to it and start cursing?”

The following are excerpts from Officer Miller’s lengthy affidavit of probable cause:

On May 30, 2007, this officer spoke with complainant, … who wanted to report an individual who was flying the American Flag upside down.

[The complainant] had been driving … with her family, which included four children and husband Scott, who is currently serving active duty with the Army. [Complainant] went on further to state that she comes from a military family and this was a very disturbing and insulting revelation that her family had observed, ie The American Flag flying upside down.

This officer advised her that this officer would speak to [the Defendant] and request that he remove the flag and/or fly it properly. On May 30, 2007, at approximately 1100 hrs., this officer went to [Defendant’s] residence of which nobody was at home. This officer obtained three digital photos of The American Flag flying upside down on the property … for report/investigative purposes.

This officer then left a phone message for [Defendant] in regard to the upside down US Flag. Shortly thereafter, [Defendant] returned the phone call leaving a voice message for this officer. [Defendant] indicated on the message that his purpose for flying the flag upside down is due to this country (USA) being in distress due to President Bush, Nancy Pelosi and all the other democratic politicians. He further stated that he would not remove the flag or fly it properly.

This officer then contacted [Complainant], and advised her of what [Defendant] had said. She requested this officer to further investigate the matter and determine if any charges could be pursued against [Defendant]. She was informed that this officer would look into the matter further.

June 9, 2007—After researching the above information, this officer concluded that [Defendant] is in violation of The PA Crimes Code, … Insults to National or Commonwealth Flag. This officer also researched the Flag Code … . Specifically [the Flag Code] states: The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property. It further notes that this pertains to active duty personnel.

Upon obtaining this information, [Complainant] was asked if she wanted to pursue the matter further as the complainant in criminal charges being filed against [Defendant]. [Complainant] indicated that she and her husband, Scott wanted to pursue the matter and they would complete a written statement to the facts of the case. This officer received this written statement on June 11, 2007.

June 11, 2007 @ 1600hrs.—This officer contacted [Defendant] and advised him of the written complaint … . He was once again asked to either remove the flag or fly it properly, or he may be subject to criminal actions based upon this officers’ investigation. [Defendant] stated he is flying the US Flag upside down because our country is in distress due to the politicians and that it is not personally against our troops in Iraq. He was informed that although the upside down flag is an accurate form of distress for active military personnel, him flying it upside down due to his anger over the current administration is not the proper form of the flag flying upside down, and that his actions are criminal in nature. [Defendant] then advised this officer to do what was necessary and if need be, he will take this matter to the US Supreme Court, because he will not take it down or fly it properly.

June 11, 2007 @ 1630hrs.—[Defendant] came to WTPD and requested a copy of the US Flag Code … along with a copy of PA Crimes Code section 2103 … .

June 12, 2007—This officer obtained four photos of the upside down US Flag that resides on the property of [Defendant], which borders the public roadway. While photographing the flag, [Defendant] came out and spoke to this officer. He was still refusing to remove the flag or fly it properly. Therefore, [Defendant] was advised that charges will be filed again him.

And so they were. On June 21, 2007, this Washington Township resident was charged with a second degree misdemeanor. He retained Gary Asteak, and was ready to slug it out in court. But the DA was not. He dumped the case. Good for him.

Instead of spending all his time reading the Crimes and Flag Code, he should take a gander at this thing called the First Amendment. It’s not too long and doesn’t contain any big words. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now he can return to harassing skateboarders.

‘Impeach Bush’ Sign in Kent, Ohio, Gets Man a Day in Court
Issued a $125 ticket for advertising ‘Impeach’ Bush on public property
David O’Brien, The Record-Courier (Ohio) via CommonDreams
Thursday, August 2, 2007

KENT, Ohio - For doing what he believes is expressing his First Amendment right to free speech, Kevin Egler has a trial date in Portage County Municipal Court in Kent.

The South Lincoln Street resident was issued a $125 ticket July 25 by Kent police officer Jerry Schlosser for “advertising on public property,” according to court records.

His advertisement? A sign reading “Impeach,” urging the impeachment of President Bush placed in a small public garden at the intersection of Main and Willow streets and Haymaker Parkway.

Egler, 45, said he has placed more than 450 anti-Bush signs in the Kent area.

Kent city ordinance 503.02 states “No person shall stick, post or attach any advertisement, poster, sign, handbill or placard of any kind or description upon any telegraph, telephone, railway or electric light pole within the city, nor upon any public building, voting booth, flagging, curbstone, walk, step stone or sidewalk, or write, print or impress or in any manner attach any notice or advertisement of any kind upon any public building, voting booth, flagging, curbstone, step, stone or sidewalk” that is the property of the city.

However, Egler said he believes the message on the sign he posted is at issue, not the act itself. He said he can show dozens of other examples of advertising on public property in the city, including U.S. Army recruitment posters, “for sale” signs and other handbills tacked to public property that have not attracted the same attention.

If he can’t place them in Kent, Egler said he will move his operations to the Akron area.

Egler, who is not affiliated with any local anti-war groups, hosted a small gathering Tuesday with Chicago activist and poet Mario Penalver, who has undertaken an 800-mile walk from Chicago to Washington D.C. to protest the Iraq War and inspire dialogues on peace.

Joining Penalver are Denver-based activists Brother Raymond Schwab and Brother Elliott Nesch of Beit Shalom Ministries, an evangelical Christian ministry dedicated to protesting the war, who left Denver March 1 on their own mission to Washington D.C.

All three men attended Egler’s hearing Wednesday, picketing outside the Kent courthouse with signs saying “Honk for peace” and “Impeach Bush.”

The three activists said they are disturbed by what they believe is a political motive behind the ticket.

“We need to be more vigilant in times of war to protect our liberties,” Schwab said.

“We can’t let fear compromise our Constitution,” Penalver said.

Judge John Plough set a pretrial for Aug. 9 and a trial for Aug. 16.

Apartheid Americana
“I Don’t Know That the Police Look at Us as Human”
SUSIE DAY, CounterPunch
July 26, 2007

Two of my friends were just beaten and arrested by Brooklyn police. My friends, Michael Tarif Warren and Evelyn Warren, are African-American attorneys whose work consists, in part, of defending victims of police violence. I want to tell you about how police punched and humiliated these good people on the corner of Vanderbilt and Atlantic, in their own, predominantly Black neighborhood on June 21st; about Tarif’s clothes being torn almost off–I don’t want you to miss a thing. But many facts must wait until the Warrens’ trial. Here, excerpted from a legal brief, is how Tarif describes what happened:

“At approximately 5:45pm, petitioner and his wife were in their vehicle, stuck in traffic, when they saw members of the New York Police Department apprehend a young man, handcuff him, and physically abuse him while he was prone on the ground. Petitioner and his spouse exited their vehicle to inquire why police were engaging in that behavior, but immediately returned when ordered, without getting near the police or the young man. Sergeant Steven Talvy, however, approached the petitioner and his spouse and, after they identified themselves as attorneys, proceeded to strike petitioner numerous times in the head and face and strike petitioner’s wife in the face.”

Sergeant Talvy handcuffed Tarif and pushed him into the police van. Evelyn, though “stunned,” remembered her legal training and walked toward the mostly African-American crowd of onlookers:

“I said, ‘Did you see what was happening?’ Naturally, they did. All these people had poured out of a nearby McDonalds, plus it’s rush hour and traffic was deadlocked. I say, ‘Did anybody take photographs?’ They said, ‘Look at your jaw.’

“I didn’t know it, but my jaw was swelling up. So I said, ‘Take a picture of my jaw,’ you know?”

I saw Evelyn three days later; her jaw was still swollen. It could have been worse: Seeing that Evelyn was trying to retrieve her confiscated driver’s license, Sergeant Talvy ordered police to throw her to the ground, but the onlookers’ shouts stopped them. Evelyn and Tarif were taken to Brooklyn’s 77th Precinct.

“We were lined up against the wall with other prisoners. Tarif’s clothes were ripped and falling off him. I will never forget, there was this blond officer in Talvy’s unit–they were laughing together–and the guy said, ‘What’s this, a strip show?’

“You have to remember that Tarif and I were involved because the police were kicking this young man viciously. He was Black; probably around 18. His face was a bloody mess. Obviously, Talvy thought he could get away with it because he said, ‘Well, it’s your word against mine. Let’s see what happens.’”

What happened was that Tarif was charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration, Disorderly Conduct, and Resisting Arrest; Evelyn, with Disorderly Conduct. Reactions poured from the Black press and community; there was almost no coverage from mainstream media; and a resounding silence still emanates from the New York Times.

Three weeks later, I visit Evelyn at home. She tells me how she’s fighting to put her life back together:

“I grew up before segregation ended. My father was a contractor, a small-business person. He used to go to Mississippi to work. And every time he would leave for Mississippi, my mother would cry. So I recognize racism.

“I guess I was raised to be the best I could be in whatever I chose to do–by being the best, I could overcome certain conditions. I was foolish enough to believe that. I still know my value, but this incident tells me that they don’t know my value–whether you’re a kid wearing baggy pants, or a lawyer wearing a suit and driving an upscale vehicle–it doesn’t matter to them.

“I should have been more aware of this. Tarif and I represent police brutality victims. I’ve heard accounts and seen the evidence, but to experience it firsthand–it’s earth-shattering. So I have a new appreciation for what people go through. While you live in a world that’s in turmoil, you still have a little corner where you feel safe and secure. I no longer have that. Before this, I was concerned about what was going on in Iraq, Africa, Venezuela. Now, I’m concerned about what goes on within ten blocks of where I live.

“Black people are hit harder by police than any other community–I know that. Tarif and I went to a meeting last Saturday where, in the projects, Black people are accosted coming out their door. Police say, ‘Let me see some identification.’ Now, if you’re coming out the door, you must have had some right to be there. Unless you’re seen carrying a TV or stereo system, why should you show ID?”

I ask Evelyn what she wants white people to know.

“I want them to know that what I’m telling is the truth. That any people of good moral standards should be concerned about law enforcement that’s out of control. At minimum, they should ask questions of Police Commissioner Kelly and of Mayor Bloomberg: ‘What’s going on, here? This is unacceptable.’ If those officers knew they could face charges just like any civilian, they’d think twice.”

Then Evelyn says something that stops me cold:

“I don’t know that the police look at us as human. I don’t know that they would hear us if we spoke to them.”

And I realize that, like many white people, I have lived for years with the genteel, self-protective assumption that, if I believed hard enough that Black and White people are equal, then the world must be OK. I realize it’s never been OK–that my friends are in danger–that our lives remain deeply divided.

“Tarif keeps saying this happened for a reason, that the Creator is on a mission here. But my overriding emotion, aside from sadness and feeling powerless, is anger. I’m determined to change things. Because, if that officer can do what he did to us, in broad daylight, with 50 to 100 people watching–what happens when nobody’s around?”

A Girl’s Fear and Loathing
Bob Herbert, NYT
Friday, July 06, 2007

In a column earlier this week I wrote about a cop who grotesquely abused his power by invading a high school classroom in the Bronx because a girl had uttered a curse word in a hallway. Not only did the cop handcuff and arrest the girl in a room filled with stunned students and a helpless teacher, but he arrested the school’s principal, who had attempted to reason with the officer.

The principal was suspended from his job immediately after the arrest in February 2005, but was reinstated when the charges — bogus from the very beginning — were eventually dropped. Still, the police commissioner, Ray Kelly, defended the police officer’s action, telling reporters at the time, “The principal was simply wrong.”

As I continued to look into this case, it became clear that police officials were trying to withhold important information about the officer, Juan Gonzalez. In response to a question, a spokesman for Commissioner Kelly said that Officer Gonzalez, now 29, had been placed on modified duty and that his gun and shield had been taken away.

But why? Despite repeated requests, the department would not say.

Then I found out through other sources that Officer Gonzalez had gotten into trouble for stalking, kissing and otherwise harassing a 17-year-old girl at another high school in the Bronx. The girl, extremely upset over the unwanted advances, notified school authorities and they notified the Police Department.

The Police Department confirmed this yesterday.

The encounter with the girl occurred in September 2005 outside Truman High School. The girl, questioned at a hearing by a lawyer representing the city, said she had just left the school and was on her way to a bus stop when Officer Gonzalez, in uniform, walked up to her.

He let her know that he had been watching her, and he followed her as she tried to walk away. He asked to see her school program, which lists, among other things, a student’s classes and schedule. She handed it to him.

According to the girl, the officer said, “It doesn’t have what I’m looking for.”

She said that when she asked what he was looking for, he replied, “Your address.”

The girl said Officer Gonzalez began touching her as they were passing another school. “He started touching my hair,” she said, “and pulling it all towards one side to touch my neck.” She backed up against a wall, she said, and the officer leaned over her, pressing his arms against the wall.

“I wasn’t looking at him,” the girl said. “I was turning my face away, and he touched my face and put my face to look directly towards, at him. He said, ‘Why can’t I look at him?’ And he touched my waist and pulled me closer to him, and he kissed me on my cheeks.”

The girl said, “I tried to push him away, but I couldn’t. So I had to duck under his arms.”

Officer Gonzalez followed her as she resumed walking toward the bus stop. He suggested they go out on a date. The girl said she told the officer, “I don’t think so.”

Then, she said, he told her what a powerful man he was, how he had kicked down doors and even arrested a high school principal.

This week, even as I continued asking questions about Officer Gonzalez’s status, the Police Department gave him back his gun and his badge and put him back on patrol.

It was a wildly irresponsible decision. Parents across the city should be warned about this officer.

Over the past several weeks I have heard one credible story after another of police officers ruthlessly harassing, and frequently arresting, youngsters who have done nothing wrong. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly seem to be in denial about this problem, which is widespread. There is an astounding reluctance to criticize or properly discipline police officers, no matter how egregious their conduct.

The big losers are the good kids who are treated like criminals by bullies and predators masquerading as New York’s finest. Other losers are the many cops who routinely take their crime-fighting mission seriously, but are undermined by these lowlifes in blue.

Jonathan Moore, a civil rights lawyer who represents the girl harassed by Officer Gonzalez, said his client had agreed, with “some hesitation,” to my request to tell her story in a column. She is still afraid, he said, that Officer Gonzalez will “track her down and cause her harm.”

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
ringtone katana 24 forsouth 509 nv yeringtonmaedean and al arrington3100 nokia ringtoneringtones 3210ringtones $0.993588i nokia ringtone sprintringtone lg verizon 6000 Map

Add comment August 3rd, 2007