Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- More Damning Evidence Points to Pesticide as Cause of Mass Bee Deaths
- Nobel Peace Prize Jury Under Investigation
- 'Gasland' Film Director Arrested at US Capitol Hearing
- The Cancerous Politics and Ideology of the Susan G. Komen Foundation
- A Journey To The End Of Empire: It Is Always Darkest Right Before It Goes Completely Black
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why We Were Falsely Arrested
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Government crackdowns on journalists are a true threat to democracy. As the Republican National Convention meets in St. Paul, Minn., this week, police are systematically targeting journalists. I was arrested with my two colleagues, "Democracy Now!" producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, while reporting on the first day of the RNC. I have been wrongly charged with a misdemeanor. My co-workers, who were simply reporting, may be charged with felony riot.
The Democratic and Republican national conventions have become very expensive and protracted acts of political theater, essentially four-day-long advertisements for the major presidential candidates. Outside the fences, they have become major gatherings for grass-roots movements - for people to come, amidst the banners, bunting, flags and confetti, to express the rights enumerated in the Constitution's First Amendment: "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."
Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest.
It was Labor Day, and there was an anti-war march, with a huge turnout, with local families, students, veterans and people from around the country gathered to oppose the war. The protesters greatly outnumbered the Republican delegates.
There was a positive, festive feeling, coupled with a growing anxiety about the course that Hurricane Gustav was taking, and whether New Orleans would be devastated anew. Later in the day, there was a splinter march. The police-clad in full body armor, with helmets, face shields, batons and canisters of pepper spray-charged. They forced marchers, onlookers and working journalists into a nearby parking lot, then surrounded the people and began handcuffing them.
Nicole was videotaping. Her tape of her own violent arrest is chilling. Police in riot gear charged her, yelling, "Get down on your face." You hear her voice, clearly and repeatedly announcing "Press! Press! Where are we supposed to go?" She was trapped between parked cars. The camera drops to the pavement amidst Nicole's screams of pain. Her face was smashed into the pavement, and she was bleeding from the nose, with the heavy officer with a boot or knee on her back. Another officer was pulling on her leg. Sharif was thrown up against the wall and kicked in the chest, and he was bleeding from his arm.
I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.
Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.
The attack on and arrest of me and the "Democracy Now!" producers was not an isolated event. A video group called I-Witness Video was raided two days earlier. Another video documentary group, the Glass Bead Collective, was detained, with its computers and video cameras confiscated. On Wednesday, I-Witness Video was again raided, forced out of its office location. When I asked St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington how reporters are to operate in this atmosphere, he suggested, "By embedding reporters in our mobile field force."
On Monday night, hours after we were arrested, after much public outcry, Nicole, Sharif and I were released. That was our Labor Day. It's all in a day's work.
284 Comments so far
Show AllHitler said the only thing that could have stopped the Nazis rise to power was confrontation in the street, ie counter terror.
We are confronting an enemy that only understands power...and intimidation.
Its time to start publicizing the individuals who make up our police and paramilitary (Blackwater) on the internet and other media.
Lets shine some light on these shadow individuals; lets see them going into and out of their homes on You-tube.
We need to inject a little fear of our own into the debate...
When did Hitler ever say that? There WAS confrontation in the streets of Berlin between the brown shirts and the communists. Lots and lots of it. It helped create the climate of chaos that drove the average German citizen to think a fascist regime with a strong leader could once again restore order.
Posting videos of off duty law enforcement in their homes is GUARANTEED to drive the majority of Americans to react in a similar way to the peace and justice movements.
Maybe some group "spur-of-the-moment protests" in shopping malls & main streets across the nation. Most important: Slow down/impeded commerce however & whenever you can. They just hate it when THAT happens. That's the real power.
Vote Nader or McKinney.
Quoting from the following article by Patrick Martin, entitled "McCain Launches Fall Campaign as Obama Embraces Iraq 'Surge'” --
"The most important factor propping up both the Bush administration and the Republican presidential campaign is the complicity and cowardice of the Democratic Party. McCain’s claim to be leading an insurgency against the government of his own party is undoubtedly preposterous, but he is able to adopt this posture with at least a fig leaf of credibility because the Democratic Party does not fulfill the role of an 'opposition' party in any serious sense.
"Obama’s performance Thursday on Fox television’s 'The O’Reilly Factor' was a case in point. After winning the Democratic nomination in large measure because of his purported opposition to the war in Iraq, Obama has sought repeatedly to demonstrate to the US political establishment that he can be a credible commander in chief for American imperialism.
"He told O’Reilly that he 'absolutely' believed that the United States was engaged in a worldwide war against terrorism, including not only Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but 'a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America who have a distorted ideology.'
"Obama described Iran as a 'major threat,' and said it would be 'unacceptable' to an Obama administration for Iran to possess nuclear weapons. 'It would be a game-changer,' he said, adding, 'I would never take a military option off the table.' He called for a more aggressive military posture towards Pakistan, the day after a major US military strike within that country.
"But his starkest reversal came on Iraq, as O’Reilly pressed him to admit that the Bush administration’s troop 'surge,' the escalation of the war by the addition of some 30,000 US combat troops, had been a success. Obama has sought to dance around the issue for months, but he finally embraced the surge emphatically on Thursday.
"'I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,' he said, adding, 'It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.' This demonstrates not only Obama’s cringing submission to the pressure of the right wing, but a staggering degree of political blindness. Like Bush, Cheney, McCain and the rest of official Washington, Obama truly believes that US imperialism can, by military force alone, impose its will on the world. His only disagreement is with the Bush administration’s obsessive focus on Iraq, which Obama and many other spokesmen for the military and foreign policy establishment believe has undermined US interests in other parts of the globe.
"The Democratic Party is a capitalist party that defends the same social interests as the Republicans—the massive fortunes of the superrich financial aristocracy which is the real ruling force in American society. The Democrats play a specific role in the political division of labor: while the Republicans consistently and unabashedly uphold the rights of the wealthy, the Democrats pretend to represent working people, while ensuring that there is no challenge from below to the profit system.
"This division of labor explains the half-hearted and spineless performance of the Democrats in the current presidential campaign. Obama, Biden & Co. are at pains to demonstrate that they will make no appeal to mass discontent that goes beyond what is acceptable to the ruling elite. The Democrats offer their services to the financial oligarchy to win at least a certain degree of mass support for the reactionary program that both parties fundamentally share."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/mcca-s06.shtml
Conservatives/Liberals the terms are outmoded. Governors are less interested in the governed than they are about Re-election. Would *"Native Criminal Class", be a better Descriptor? *Gore Vidal
for: Cameiros September 4th, 2008 12:22 pm
"Bad Idea, No, No", Shakes finger and points at the ground.
Taking on the role of an authority figure and repeating the same actions by publically trying to shame them won't have the effect you desire.
I think that abridging the rights of these citizens in the article should be thoroughly documented and the following Civil Trials against the authority responsible should be documented and the inevitable dismissal of charges and the public apologies and the demands of the public defense documented with the demand sent to each and every high court (Sadly only local authorities involved so no appeal above Circuit Court level)
Look to the experience of the ACLU group and ask how you fight a belligerent opponent with attack dogs and riot gear.
There is a way to turn the public against this approach but it relies on the flow of lawsuits and court decisions to dent the wallet of the City organizations that used tactics straight out of the US Army playbook for Riot Control.
Remember that the guys dressed in Armor and holding the shields are citizens too, doing their job and trying hard not to shoot an angry citizen in the most dangerous situation that you could ask them to be in.
hman
Is it china or is it memorex?
I take it the police now work without supervision, or would like to.,..
I have been working for a St. Police Agency for 24 years. It seems to be more "Hands Off", then it was years ago. After Watergate Police agencies improved there abusive behavior. Today many Police Officers can't wait for riots or unrest. When they were issued pepper spray about 14 years ago, they were like "kids in a candy store". Bragged about and anxious to used there Pepper spray. As I ve said it's not Police or Military but the "Mindset".
We love you Amy. If we all were out there with your courage, willing to get arrested---this would end in a heartbeat.
Thanks!
Amy,
You have my full support. I showed your arrest to a Sergent of a Police Agency I have been employed by for 24 years. I can retire in 3 years. My Sgt. looked and said "She wanted to get arrested". "She crossed the police line". It's sad, this Sgt. and I started together back in 1985. She was veteran M.P. of the Army, I was a veteran of the Coast Guard. I m a Civilian dispatcher, She is sworn. We are very good friends. The Mind set of Police and Military has changed, especially since 9-11. Even the agency I work for has changed. Sad times for America. Amy I hope you keep reporting and delivering the news. Good Luck, Love You Amy
"She wanted to get arrested"
Judging from what I saw in the video, I tend to agree. I could be wrong though, it's impossible to know for sure what was in her heart.
Ok Jake. Now that you're siding with the Fascists for arresting journalists, you've crossed the line. WTF is wrong with you Jake? You've been hanging around here for several months now. Haven't you learned ANYTHING?
"Now that you're siding with the Fascists for arresting journalists"
Did you see where I wrote "I could be wrong"?
"Haven't you learned ANYTHING?"
Haven't *you*?
Come on Jake, you've read a lot of the same stuff I have over the past while... and you're STILL not convinced of the impending police state? What's it going to take Jake? Have the brownshirts come and take you away?
Jake will be joining the next batch of brownshirts. Why fear the tiger when you're holding onto its tail.
What do you mean "join?"
Maybe he is in the current batch of brownshirts. Perhaps even the one in the video.
As Jake himself says....we have no way of knowing. The video isn't clear.
stupid double post...
"I could be wrong". I like that! Genuine sign of progress.
Just one other little point...I hate to be picky, but you know what, I feel like I must continue the tutoring now. Your question to elmysterio is okay, when you don't have a better comeback, but it would be so much stronger if you got rid of the (**) asterisks??? What's up with that?
The slight change in intonation on the word 'you' in conversation, does not need to be attempted in writing with weird symbols. It actually subtracts from the effect. Watch:
_________________________________
"Haven't you learned ANYTHING?"
Haven't you?
_________________________________
Isn't that better?
How are those extra shifts coming along?
""I could be wrong". I like that! Genuine sign of progress. "
It's impossible for me to know for sure what is in someone's heart. I have always subscribed to this truism, so no progress.
"but it would be so much stronger if you got rid of the (**) asterisks??? What's up with that? "
Throwback from USENET, a plain text format. It is intended to add emphasis. I noticed you did not criticize the all caps used by the other poster, which was right there in your demonstration, so your post to *just* me is puzzling.
How do you tend to agree, unless you think asking a police officer to speak to his commanding officer is a crime or a provocation of some kind?
She wanted to find out why her producers had been arrested and to get them released, not to get arrested herself. (You have to understand that normal people believe journalists not to be subject to arrest for reporting news and that, assuming some mistake had occurred and a member of the press had been arrested, it could be easily rectified simply by speaking to somebody. This is what Goodman did; unfortunately, the country has gone crazy and Goodman ended up in jail.)
"How do you tend to agree, unless you think asking a police officer to speak to his commanding officer is a crime or a provocation of some kind?"
It wasn't her asking a question, it was her ignoring repeated orders to move to the sidewalk, compounded by trying to force her way past the line of officers.
Dude, you fuckin' blind *and* deaf? Watch the video. She walks up to a person in riot gear and tries to get his attention. A different person in riot gear orders her to move to the sidewalk before she can ask her question. She turns to the person who spoke to her, and politely says, "Sir..." Before she can ask her question, he orders her again to move. She begins to ask her question and he starts manhandling her (a criminal offense and tort). At no point does she try to "force her way past the line of officers."
It's little wonder your world view is so distorted given your literal lack of perception.
"She walks up to a person in riot gear and tries to get his attention. A different person in riot gear orders her to move to the sidewalk before she can ask her question. She turns to the person who spoke to her, and politely says, "Sir..." Before she can ask her question, he orders her again to move."
I agree with your description up to this point. You and I are in agreement that she has thus far ignored the orders to move to the sidewalk. At this point Goodman has already arguably committed the obstruction of which she was charged simply by refusing to move.
"She begins to ask her question and he starts manhandling her "
At this point the cop seems to be moving her towards the sidewalk, as if to emphasize the order given previously, and Goodman appears to resist, and seems instead to be trying to move away from the sidewalk and back into the cop. She is solidly in violation at this point in my opinion.
"(a criminal offense and tort)."
You demonstrate a profound misunderstanding about the powers given to the police, in making this statement. Police are permitted to use force against citizens who are committing violations or providing resistance, in order to force them into compliance. This includes shoving, spraying with mace, cracking them on the head with a nightstick or shooting them dead, in accordance with the law regarding the use of such force. My stating these *facts* does not make me a fascist. Yes police can be prosecuted for using excessive force which is criminal as you say, but you, as a non expert, and as such are in no position to judge that the action in this case is criminal. You are entitled to your opinion though.
"At no point does she try to "force her way past the line of officers."
I disagree.
You state that police are permitted to use force against citizens who are committing "violations". What the heck does that mean? Violations of what? You are really out of line, off base, etc etc. Ms. Goodman was violating no law by trying to ask a civil question of a police officer. There is NO RIGHT to use force against citizens who are breaking no laws. Get real, this supposedly is still a country ruled by Laws and not Men. Remember we still have a Constitution and all those other pesky laws protecting us. I guess you think the Police ARE the Law...
Peggy
"Ms. Goodman was violating no law by trying to ask a civil question of a police officer. "
The above statement is correct. But for your benefit and that of everyone else who seems to be confused: The crux of this incident is Goodman's refusal to move to the sidewalk when ordered to several times. This point is strongly supported by her own video, and as this discussion approaches 200 posts no one has yet disputed that. Having thus committed the violation of obstruction, she was consequently arrested.
Nobody has disputed it because it isn't necessary to dispute. Ms. Goodman had no obligation to move to the sidewalk. Police orders are not laws. If a police officer orders me to shoot an innocent bystander in the head, it is not now the law that I must shoot somebody in the head by virtue of that fact. Nor do I break any law by refusing. Indeed, since the police officers here were violating federal rights under the cover of state law, they were in the course of breaking federal law. Then they committed a criminal assault and the torts of battery and false imprisonment against Goodman. (You also fail to note that the men giving what any rational and educated person would understand to be unlawful orders wore no official insignia.) You seem to be utterly confused about who is engaging in criminal and unlawful behavior here. It's understandable, given your conditioning to unquestioningly obey authority, but it is not excusable.
"Nobody has disputed it because it isn't necessary to dispute. Ms. Goodman had no obligation to move to the sidewalk."
You are so very sadly mistaken.
"Police orders are not laws."
Correct, but police orders may be lawful. Here is a link to the statute that Goodman violated by refusing to move as ordered:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=2007&num=609.50
The relevent passage:
"(2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the
performance of official duties;"
Where "official duties" can and does include the occaisional restriction of access by the public to certain public areas.
"If a police officer orders me to shoot an innocent bystander in the head,"
This is absurd. There is no comparison of the above to the reasonable and legitimate restriction of public areas from time to time.
"since the police officers here were violating federal rights under the cover of state law, they were in the course of breaking federal law."
What on earth are you talking about?
"Also, what will your argument rest upon when the charges get dropped I wonder?"
Dropping of charges is often done for reasons having nothing to do with the veracity of charges. You know that.
You wrote: "This is absurd. There is no comparison of the above to the reasonable and legitimate restriction of public areas from time to time."
I agree with you that the proposition that police orders must be followed on pain of arrest is absurd. Maybe I see where your problem is now. You apparently believe--probably because, as we've established, your perceptive skills are deficient--that the police were making a "reasonable and legitimate restriction of [a] public area." That is not what they were doing. They were in the course of carrying out a criminal conspiracy to deprive people of their First Amendment rights.
You wrote: "What on earth are you talking about?"
42 U.S.C. 1983: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress..."
18 U.S.C. 241: "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
"If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
"They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
It's ironic how even the provision written for the Klan (the second subpart) has direct and literal applicability to the Twin Cities' policing actions during the Republican convention.
"They were in the course of carrying out a criminal conspiracy to deprive people of their First Amendment rights."
BS. Restricting access to the street while allowing access to the sidewalk does *not* constitute a violation of First Amendment rights. I have never once heard of any such restriction being ruled a First Amendment violation, and you will not be able to cite any such examples. The First Amendment does not require that anyone including the government provide a particular venue for speech or assembly. Try again?
Again, jakenewton, you misrepresent what is happening as a factual matter. The police's restriction of access to the street was only incident to the commission of its criminal conspiracy. If the police require a street to be cleared in order to commit a crime, their orders to clear the street are ipso facto invalid and unlawful. To think otherwise is mad.
"The police's restriction of access to the street was only incident to the commission of its criminal conspiracy."
Until you or someone else makes a detailed case based upon facts as to this alleged conspiracy by the police there is nothing to comment on. There was no police conspiracy. But I'll go make us some popcorn while you put your case together.
Ha. Funny. All that coordinated activity resulting in the mass arrest of journalists and citizens exercising fundamental First Amendment rights was coincidental, I'm sure. It just happened that a bunch of people individually made the determination to show up in St. Paul in military garb and gas masks and start threatening citizens. Nevermind the communication devices. Nevermind that they are clearly and overtly acting in concert. Nevermind that all this is videotaped.
You're a riot, man. Truly.
"It just happened that a bunch of people individually made the determination to show up in St. Paul in military garb and gas masks "
It was of course a perfectly justifiable mobilization of police, given the various groups pledging in public ahead of time to go to St. Paul and disrupt the convention. Here is just one example:
http://www.nornc.org/
From the link, here is item 2 of their stated strategy, urging people to come form out of state (thereby justifying FBI involvment) and block traffic, an illegal activity:
"Transportation Troubles – This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."
*This* is your conspiracy right here, a conspiracy to commit disorderly conduct on a large scale, publically and proudly announced ahead of time. It would have been irresponsible for officials to *not* mobilize armed police forces in light of this, and considering what happened at similar conventions in the past.
Was that your best shot in making a case that the police were conspirators? It was a wasted post.
"You're a riot, man."
Right back at you dude.
Jake,
A government's knowledge of plans to commit misdemeanors as a form of political expression does not require "officials to ... mobilize armed police forces." The suggestion that it does is absurd on its face and unworthy of further comment. Nor does the State's knowledge of conspiracies to commit misdemeanors authorize State officials to conspire to deprive people of their rights to free expression, assembly, petition, and press. Never. You can unpatriotically defend the prerogative of the government to abuse Americans to your heart's content, but some of us will not stand for it.
"A government's knowledge of plans to commit misdemeanors as a form of political expression does not require "officials to mobilize armed police forces. "
Sure it does. If they were openly declaring their intentions to disrupt the convention, it would be irresponsible to not assume that much worse actions are planned in secret. And this ignores the history of previous conventions, as well as destructive acts actually committed in St. Paul such as broken windows, slashed tires etc.
Ever go to a sporting event or parade? Police are deployed there. Concert? Police are deployed. Do you think there are more police at the symphony show or the death metal festival? It's the latter that gets more police in case you are wondering, and you know why. If the rock festival is staged in a city park, and they restrict access to the backstage area, do you really think that your speech or assembly rights are violated because you lack access to that space? The fact is, police are deployed at any public event involving crowds and rightly so. Riot police are going to be just a call away if needed.
Now we have a case where tens of thousands of protesters are expected at a political convention with websites urging people to violate the law in order to disrupt the event. *Of course* they are going to beef up the force.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.
"Nor does the State's knowledge of conspiracies to commit misdemeanors authorize State officials to conspire to deprive people of their rights to free expression, assembly, petition, and press. "
Simply by deploying police they did none of what you claim above. You have yet to prove that that is what it is. In the case involving Goodman, all they did was restrict access to a limited area of a street, which is well within their lawful discretion. And you seem to forget that states and municipalities are already authorized to deploy police as they wish, in accordance with statutory laws that grant them this power that have been upheld in court.
Perhaps we can agree on something here,
You quote from above "A government's knowledge of plans to commit misdemeanors …" and respond "Sure it does."
There is a case where that is actually factually correct -- especially when the advance plans that the police know of, are of those of using violent agent provocateurs ( pretending to be demonstrators ) .
It would be stupid to underestimate the politically fueled advantages of making good use of PUNISHING on camera such anarchists ( even of OOoopps, the ones you beat up are the real PEACEFUL demonstrators, while letting the truly violent agent provocateurs, get away scott free ).
There's just so little real justice these days for those that really abuse the public's trust and degrade their constitutional rights, and those acting in their behest like independent reporters …
Namaste
Replying with a new post to avoid text squish.
It called being marginalized.
Just like sidelined Democracy.
Namaste
'truly violent agent provocateurs' = 'anarchists' is pereptuating a cultural myth that belies ignorance and the inability to do a little research to discover who these people are... (both the anarchists and the agent provocateurs...)
w/ respect and wisdom
...peace...
No evidence of anything like this in St. Paul.
unended September 5th, 2008 8:36 pm
"A government's knowledge of plans to commit misdemeanors as a form of political expression does not require "officials to ... mobilize armed police forces." "
I just can't believe this statement. As if the top limit of the numbers of police to be deployed would be based only upon the minimum crime expected to occur. That's just not how it works anywhere.
"conspire to deprive people of their rights to free expression, assembly, petition, and press."
This ignores all the hundreds and hundreds of examples we could see of people who were actually assembled, holding signs, chanting slogans, etc., i.e. exercising their constitutional rights.
No, he's so much more than just a R.I.O.T,
as he's a MARS rules
__ PAT_ternally drooling
__ PAT_r.i.o.t_ically inclined
__ maniacally obsessed
__ neo.Zio_NAZI_st
Namaste
Also, what will your argument rest upon when the charges get dropped I wonder?
To ~jakenewton~,
First of all, "Police" aren't the universal institution that you present them as. The various police organizations are responsible to their individual Municipal, State, or Federal governments -though there are guidlines based on the Federal Constitution and individual State Constitutions and legal precedent that control (or are intended to control) the behavior of all.
Making this sort of basic error seems to call your attitude of superior expertise into question.
Second, while the treatment and arrest of Amy Goodman and her producers may not be detemined by the St. Paul D.A. to be worthy of criminal charges that decision could very well be political, and is in any case not the end of the story.
Ms. Goodman et al. may pursue a "Rights"-based case in Federal Court or a "Tort"-based case in the Civil Courts.
If I was their Lawyer I would be looking into both.
Because while it is, generally, a minor crime to fail to respond to Police orders, typically, these orders must be both Lawful and Justified.
And since there is a general exception for members of the Press -they are understood to be "bystanders" NOT participants in whatever is occuring- AND Ms. Goodman and her Producers had Official Press Badges prominently displayed on their persons, the officer's-in-question treatment of them needs some justifying. This is exactly what the RNC organizers went to the trouble of issuing "Official" badges FOR, after all. Also remember that this incident begins BEFORE Ms. Goodman approaches any Officer. It begins with the detention and arrest of her Producers.
The basic question would be "Why are they assuming a confrontative attitude to Legitimate and Vetted members of the Press?".
Even if the response to this is some form of "mistake in the heat of the moment" that just begs the further questions of "Why did the arresting officer's not correct this mistake at the time, when it became clear who Ms. Goodman was?" or "Why were they surprised to have one member of the Press question them on the arrest of other members of the Press?" so "Why didn't they just call the Sergeant or whoever over to explain the situation, as Ms. Goodman was clearly expecting?" and "Wasn't it reasonable of Ms. Goodman to expect this? Why would any member of the Press expect anything different? What extra-ordinary circumstances were occuring that could possibly change the reasonable-ness of this Expectation? Why is whatever-that-may-be not apparent in the video recording?"
I suspect that at the end of the day the real truth will be that this strange treatment of vetted journalists was entirely intentional and conducted under orders, likely untimately sourced in someone at the Federal level through some "partnership" with the Sheriff's Office and the St. Paul PD.
Whether we ever see this revealed is wholly dependent on Amy Goodman and her collegue's pursuit of Redress through the Courts.
Which is why this Right is so essential to the preservation of our Liberties.
BTW are you a cop?
That's not a shot, I'm just curious because of some of the terms you use.
Have Fun,
-matti.
To M A T T I,
You go ( girl ? ).
Thank you for the very detailed and relevant issues, that so many need to know about ( or will need … ).
We must take Jake at his word, as a information technologist -- although he didn't mention where he worked in that capacity.
Namaste
"First of all, "Police" aren't the universal institution that you present them as."
Thank you for your long reply. I haven't done what you say above and don't see how it would apply to the technical issue of whether Goodman committed a violation anyway.
"Making this sort of basic error seems to call your attitude of superior expertise into question."
I did not make the error, but to be clear I claim no expertise.
Second, while the treatment and arrest of Amy Goodman and her producers may not be detemined by the St. Paul D.A. to be worthy of criminal charges that decision could very well be political, and is in any case not the end of the story.
Ms. Goodman et al. may pursue a "Rights"-based case in Federal Court or a "Tort"-based case in the Civil Courts.
If I was their Lawyer I would be looking into both.
"Because while it is, generally, a minor crime to fail to respond to Police orders, typically, these orders must be both Lawful and Justified."
Agreed. The police from time to time are justified in restricting access to certain public areas such as when they are engaged in crowd control activities.
"And since there is a general exception for members of the Press -they are understood to be "bystanders" NOT participants in whatever is occuring- AND Ms. Goodman and her Producers had Official Press Badges prominently displayed on their persons, the officer's-in-question treatment of them needs some justifying."
Goodman is no longer a "bystander" when she actively engages the police officers, and moves into an area they deemed off limits at the time.
"Also remember that this incident begins BEFORE Ms. Goodman approaches any Officer. It begins with the detention and arrest of her Producers."
Which occurred while she was not on the scene. That is not the same incident.
"The basic question would be "Why are they assuming a confrontative attitude to Legitimate and Vetted members of the Press?"."
The video clearly shows Goodman as the one who first confronts.
"Why did the arresting officer's not correct this mistake at the time, when it became clear who Ms. Goodman was?"
For starters, there may have been no mistake at all. The officers may simply have had other more pressing issues to attend to than indulging questions from a journalist. We certainly cannot rule this out given the limitation on the video we have.
"What extra-ordinary circumstances were occuring that could possibly change the reasonable-ness of this Expectation?" Why is whatever-that-may-be not apparent in the video recording?""
Because of the *huge* swaths of space omitted from the recording to the sides and rear of the camera. The camera is likely showing less then 60 degrees out of 360 at any time.
"Whether we ever see this revealed is wholly dependent on Amy Goodman and her collegue's pursuit of Redress through the Courts."
I would advise them to carefully read the statute under which they were charged, and compare to their own video.
"BTW are you a cop?"
No.
"Have Fun, "
Always, you too.
jakenewton!! You're slipping into that illogical "what's in her heart stuff"! You should know by now, that's just not logical. That fellow wearing a mask running into the bank with a gun in his hand...You can do more than just observe! Give it a whirl....What's in his (geez...heart is so 30's Tin Pan Alley song)...okay, what's in his heart. Can only observe?! Your house is burning again.
That is endemic to any need to discover thought crime.
"You're slipping into that illogical "what's in her heart stuff"! You should know by now, that's just not logical. "
Not everything is in the realm of logical analysis.
I feel sick to my stomach reading this. These are fundamental principles of American civilization that are being trampled and there is nothing we can do about it.
I participated in two marches at the DNC and along the whole route we were escorted by hoards of Oakley clad policemen with identical fade hair cuts waiting to pounce on us. It was all so fully controlled and tightly orchestrated that I felt like like a dog on a leash.
Amy, you and your colleagues are a credit to your sadly blighted profession!
I saw your exchange with the obnoxiously self-satisfied and evasive Chief Harrington. The strains of "Tea for Two" and a little sand on the floor might've improved his tapdancing.
All that said, it is appalling to find so many commenters on this and other "leftish"/progressive Internet sites buying into the righteousness of the Imperial Stormtrooper goon squad approach to maintaining Law and Order in the Twin Cities.
One commenter on Glenn Greenwald's Salon.com site, who purported to have a "realistic" understanding of proper citizen deportment and conduct during police overreactions, insisted that you'd "crossed the line" by foolishly approaching a Storm Trooper in the middle of a battle zone (I paraphrase) and "demanding" to be taken to a commanding officer. In his (?) view, you deserved what you got.
This description made it sound as if the cops were in the middle of a shootout or dire catastrophe when you approached them, instead of being one of scores of heavily-armed and armored thugs standing around with their thumbs up their butts looking for someone to gratuitously pepper-spray.
Anyway, this commenter lectured the rest of us that obviously the "proper" procedure to check on your associates was to report to the nearest police station and ask nicely instead of interrupting and bothering the cop while he was working, prima-donna style. And this commenter claimed to have seen the video!
Who should I believe-- this "expert" play-by-play analyst or my lyin' eyes?
I presume that these defenders of authority simply disbelieve your reports of the vicious and outright sadistic treatment while in custody, e.g. cops responding to complaints that the plastic cuffs were painfully tight by tightening them further. And then there's the matter of that Secret Service agent literally ripping off your press credentials, in every sense of the term.
I'm surprised and disappointed by those who express both a lack of sympathy for you and your associates personally, and who side with the agressive paramilitary tactics because of bad old-fashioned hooligans (or provocateurs pretending to be hooligans) committing vandalism and wanton violence in the name of civil disobedience.
How the possible presence of criminal hooligans justifies broad and overt suppression of civil liberties is beyond me. Good work, and thanks!