August 2008 Archives

Bush administration proposes Congress certify notion of an open-ended, never ending war on terror, justifying the permanent exercise of executive war powers. What's more the "oppositional" Democratic congress, perpetually "nervous about casting a vote against a measure that affirms the country's war against terrorism" may, author Eric Lichtbrau assesses,go along with it.

NY Times reports

Tucked deep into a recent proposal from the Bush administration is a provision that has received almost no public attention, yet in many ways captures one of President Bush's defining legacies: an affirmation that the United States is still at war with Al Qaeda.

Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush's advisers assert that many Americans may have forgotten that. So they want Congress to say so and "acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans."

The language, part of a proposal for hearing legal appeals from detainees at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, goes beyond political symbolism. Echoing a measure that Congress passed just days after the Sept. 11 attacks, it carries significant legal and public policy implications for Mr. Bush, and potentially his successor, to claim the imprimatur of Congress to use the tools of war, including detention, interrogation and surveillance, against the enemy, legal and political analysts say.

Some lawmakers are concerned that the administration's effort to declare anew a war footing is an 11th-hour maneuver to re-establish its broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, even in the face of challenges from the Supreme Court and Congress.

The proposal is also the latest step that the administration, in its waning months, has taken to make permanent important aspects of its "long war" against terrorism. From a new wiretapping law approved by Congress to a rewriting of intelligence procedures and F.B.I. investigative techniques, the administration is moving to institutionalize by law, regulation or order a wide variety of antiterrorism tactics.

"This seems like a final push by the administration before they go out the door," said Suzanne Spaulding, a former lawyer for the Central Intelligence Agency and an expert on national security law. The cumulative effect of the actions, Ms. Spaulding said, is to "put the onus on the next administration" -- particularly a Barack Obama administration -- to justify undoing what Mr. Bush has done.

It is uncertain whether Congress will take the administration up on its request. Some Republicans have already embraced the idea, with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introducing a measure almost identical to the administration's proposal. "Since 9/11," Mr. Smith said, "we have been at war with an unconventional enemy whose primary goal is to kill innocent Americans."

In the midst of an election season, the language represents a political challenge of sorts to the administration's critics. While many Democrats say they are wary of Mr. Bush's claims to presidential power, they may be even more nervous about casting a vote against a measure that affirms the country's war against terrorism. They see the administration's effort to force the issue as little more than a political ploy.

Mr. Bush "is trying to stir up again the politics of fear by reminding people of something they haven't really forgotten: that we are engaged in serious armed conflict with Al Qaeda," said Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard and legal adviser to Mr. Obama. "But the question is, Where is that conflict to be waged, and by what means."

With violence rising in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden still at large, there are ample signs of the United States' continued battles with terrorism. But Mr. Bush and his advisers say that seven years without an attack has lulled many Americans.

"As Sept. 11, 2001, recedes into the past, there are some people who have come to think of it as kind of a singular event and of there being nothing else out there," Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey told House lawmakers in July. "In a way, we are the victims of our own success, our own success being that another attack has been prevented."

Mr. Mukasey laid out the administration's thinking in a July 21 speech to a conservative Washington policy institute in response to yet another rebuke on presidential powers by the Supreme Court: its ruling that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay , were entitled to habeas corpus rights to contest their detentions in court.

The administration wants Congress to set out a narrow framework for those prisoner appeals. But the administration's six-point proposal goes further. It includes not only the broad proclamation of a continued "armed conflict with Al Qaeda," but also the desire for Congress to "reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations."

That broad language hints at why Democrats, and some Republicans, worry about the consequences. It could, they say, provide the legal framework for Mr. Bush and his successor to assert once again the president's broad interpretation of the commander in chief's wartime powers, powers that Justice Department lawyers secretly used to justify the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects and the National Security Agency's wiretapping of Americans without court orders.

Thanks to Raw Story

Using the pretext of possible fire code violations Minneapolis cops raid headquarters of group organizing protests at the Republican National convention with guns drawn, detaining and photographing all 50 people in the premises, though arresting no one and finding no illegal activity they seized seized materials including laptops, protest literature, bus schedules, sign-making materials and a topographical map of St. Paul, site of Xcel Energy Center, the convention hall. Apparently this was one of numerous raids taking place at suspected lodging places of activist groups in St. Paul and Minneapolis for this week's planned protests.

CNN reports

Police raided a rental hall used by a group organizing protests at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Friday.

The RNC Welcoming Committee, which describes itself as "anarchist/anti-authoritarian," accused St. Paul police of trying to disrupt their protest planned for Monday, the day the GOP convention is set to begin.

Although no one was arrested, the group said police temporarily detained and photographed at least 50 people who were inside the building.

St. Paul Police spokesman Tom Walsh said they were executing a search warrant.

"The cause for the search warrant is not public at this time," Walsh said.

As many as 30 police officers entered with guns drawn, according to witnesses in the building.

"The convergence center is simply a gathering place and is not used for illegal actions -- it is a place for workshops and trainings," a statement from the protest group said. "Tonight, we were watching films and sharing food.

"We are now accused of a simple fire code violation," the statement said.

Oddie Miller, a 19-year-old from Fort Collins, Colorado, said it was "just a space to get food, free Internet, community organization."

"There were no bombs or anything in there," Miller said.

Thanks to jgodsey

ACLU request for public release of unclassified materials from secret court hearings rebuffed.

Ars Technica reports

In an opinion issued late Thursday, a judge for the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denied a motion by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had sought permission to participate in secret proceedings under the controversial FISA Amendments Act signed into law by President Bush last month.

Pursuant to the new law, the FISC is empowered to review the targeting and minimization procedures employed by intelligence agencies carrying out warrant-less surveillance of foreign targets. Almost immediately upon the law's passage, the ACLU filed a motion making two requests of the Court: First, it asked that the government release unclassified, public versions of pleadings before the FISC and significant legal opinions issued by the court. Second, it had asked for permission to submit briefs and participate in hearings implicating the "scope, meaning, and constitutionality" of the new statute. Administration lawyers had strenuously urged the court to reject both requests.

Judge Mary McLaughlin did just that yesterday in an 11-page opinion, summarily denying the civil liberties group's motion. After considering and rejecting the possibility that there might exist any common law or First Amendment right to the release of FISC records, McLaughlin declined to authorize such release as a matter of discretion, concluding that such a move "would create risks to national security that far outweigh any potential benefit to be gained by providing the ACLU with access to the requested records."

As for the request to participate in hearings, the judge noted that nothing in the provision of the FAA establishing limited judicial review of targeting and minimization procedures suggested that Congress had intended for third parties to be involved. By contrast, she wrote, other provisions--such as the one establishing a process for telecoms to appeal surveillance orders--explicitly allowed for such third-party participation, implying that in the absence of such explicit allowance, the hearings were to be ex parte affairs.

McLaughlin also appeared to accept the government's argument that the ACLU would be unable to provide "meaningful input" in such hearings without access to classified details of targeting and minimization rules. Moreover, she argued, because hearings would be limited to making narrow determinations of whether these procedures met statutory requirement, it was unlikely that the Court would need to "reach beyond the Government's procedures and conduct a facial review of the constitutionality of the statute."

ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer called the ruling "disappointing" in a statement today. The court, argued Jaffer, "should not be deciding important constitutional issues in secret judicial opinions issued after secret hearings at which only the government is permitted to appear."

Attempting to make a "blue wall of silence" official policy Chief bans all city police from speaking to media.

The Flint Journal reports

The American Civil Liberties Union is asking for a temporary injunction to force the city of Flint to immediately stop enforcing a ban on police officers speaking to the media.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday asking a judge to strike down the ban instituted by interim Police Chief David Dicks. The motion for a temporary injunction was filed Thursday.

A hearing date is expected to occur next week, Gibbs said in an e-mail. "The ACLU has a right to file lawsuits and stand up for what they believe is right," Dicks said. "My decision is based on a legal update from the Supreme Court set in May 2008."

According to Dicks, the court ruled a police officer speaking about official duties or internal works of the department is not protected by free speech and can be disciplined.

Gibbs said the ban on Flint police officers is so broad it applies to an officer talking to the media about any departmental manner that affects the public.

"I can say that the courts have recognized some speech made by governmental employees that is not related to public concern and doesn't have protection of the First Amendment," Gibbs said. "But his ban goes beyond forbidding that kind of speech. His ban is so broad that it forbids people from speaking about manners of public concern that have been consistently found to be protected under the First Amendment."

Tapping a mini-keg at a July 4th party with students (all of legal drinking age) gets Iowa Central college president bounced from position.

Des Moines Register reports

Iowa Central Community College President Robert Paxton will collect $400,000 from the school in return for his resignation.

After 13 years as president of the Fort Dodge school, Paxton resigned Wednesday, one day before the school's board of trustees was scheduled to discuss an undisclosed "personnel matter."

The special meeting was called after The Des Moines Register published a July 4 photograph of Paxton aboard a boat with a group of young people, holding the spigot of a small beer keg suspended over a young woman's open mouth.

College trustee Mark Crimmins was aware of the photo before it was published and told the Register that Paxton had done nothing improper and the matter wasn't deserving of the board's attention.

When questioned by the Register, Paxton initially denied knowing anything about the photo or any recent boat outings with young people. After being told that Crimmins had already informed the Register that he had seen the photo and the two men had discussed it, Paxton acknowledged the photo's authenticity. He said he had done nothing illegal or improper.

But the photograph, along with Paxton's explanation for it, was picked up by other media outlets and sparked a heated debate in Fort Dodge over the personal conduct of public officials.

At today's board meeting, the trustees met for eight minutes and agreed, without discussion, to accept Paxton's resignation and approve a compensation package for him. The deal calls for Paxton to receive $200,000 in January 2009 and $200,000 in January 2010.
Trustee Larry Hecht said the board felt the compensation package was fair to all parties.

"The thing we struggled with was whether his personal life was, you know, his," he said. "I think we all thought that was true. On the other hand, his position -- I guess what you do in your personal life does affect the public's perception of what you do on the job."

Hecht said the decision to accept the resignation was "heart-breaking" given Paxton's dedication to the school. Asked why there was no discussion of the compensation package, Hecht said, "It wasn't like he killed somebody or stole money, so where we'd end up court was 'who knows.'"

Paxton was not present for the board meeting, but said in a written statement to the board, "It was a true joy and honor to serve" the school.
Thanks to Raw Story

Yankee stadium security accused of forcibly ejects man for wanting to use the bathroom during 7th inning stretch singing of God Bless America.

The Gothamist reports

From the inbox: Baseball fan Brad Campeau-Laurion says a uniformed police officer (perhaps off-duty but working security for overtime) forcibly ejected him from the stadium last night during the Yankees-Red Sox game.

Why? He says all he did was try to go to the bathroom while "God Bless America" was played during the 7th inning stretch. His letter reads (plus some updates after the jump):

"I attempted to get up to use the restroom, rather urgently, during the 7th inning stretch as God Bless America was beginning. As I attempted to walk down the aisle and exit my section into the tunnel, I was stopped by a police officer. He informed me that I had to wait until the song was over. I responded that I had to use the restroom and that I did not care about God Bless America.

"As soon as the latter came out of my mouth, my right arm was twisted violently behind my back and I was informed that I was being escorted out of the stadium. A second officer then joined in and twisted my left arm, also in an excessively forceful manner, behind my back. I informed them they were violating my First Amendment rights and that I had done nothing wrong, with no response from them.

"I was sitting in the Tier Level, and of course this is the highest level of the stadium and I was escorted in this painful manner down the entire length of the stadium. About halfway down, I informed them that they were hurting me, repeated that I had done nothing wrong, and that I was not resisting nor talking back to them. One of them said something to the effect that if I continued to speak, he would find a way to hurt me more.

"When we reached the exit of the stadium, they confiscated my ticket and the first officer shoved me through the turnstiles, saying 'Get the hell out of my country if you don't like it.'

"Nowhere on the Yankee Stadium ticket policy nor on any posted sign does it say that forced patriotism is a required element to attend a baseball game. Nowhere in the laws of this country would that begin to be defensible.

"Furthermore, when the two officers returned to their section, Steve who was still in the stadium overhead one of the officers say 'We got to watch ourselves. One day we're really gonna get in trouble.' They were also spreading rumors with a fan with whom they were friendly that I had said 'This country sucks.'

"I do not believe in God, nor am in support of this country to a degree of patriotic fanaticism. The fact that I wanted to use the restroom instead of standing through God Bless America should not be grounds for a forcible ejection from a baseball game."

The man tells us he's left a message with no response from the Operations Office at Yankee Stadium. He's also contacted Norman Siegel, the ACLU, and filed a complaint with the NYPD Civilian Complaint Review Board. We're still working on getting a response/denial from Yankee stadium, but a regular attendee of Yankee games tells us, "This tip doesn't surprise me at all. Everyone has to stand, just like in school, and you'll get berated and harassed if you don't."

UPDATE: We just spoke to Brad, whose story is attracting a lot of attention. He has a few comments, based on your reactions:

1) I was not drunk. I had two beers about an hour apart and this was about an hour after my last one (hence, needed to pee). I have receipts to prove this, as I was using my credit card, and my friend who was with me as a witness.

2) Yes, I am Red Sox fan. I have lived in New York for over 8 years and I do not cheer loudly or wear blatant Red Sox attire at the games. In fact, I was dressed in business attire - dress shirt/pants/shoes.

3) I may have affected a little attitude, but nothing that warranted a violent response.

Last year, the NY Times looked at this confining policy. Apparently, post September 11, fans had complained that other spectators weren't singing or observing a moment of silence; spokesman Howard Rubenstein told the Times, "Mr. Steinbrenner wanted to do all games to remind the fans about how important it is to honor our nation, our service members, those that died on Sept. 11 and those fighting for our nation."

  Thanks to Jonathan Turley

In the name of  homeland security Minneapolis police five days before convention harass collective of NY independent journalists in town to cover RNC.

Twin Cities Daily Planet reports

Cameras, camcorders, cell phones, computer, notebooks - even clothes and a sleeping bag - were confiscated by Minneapolis police in the name of Homeland Security Monday night, according to a trio of young artist-journalists in town to report on the RNC.

Anita Brathwaite, age 20, had just arrived on the bus from Chicago late on August 25, ready to report on the RNC. Vlad Tichberg and Olivia Katz, fellow members of New York's Glass Bead Collective had arrived earlier. They met her at the bus station, and the trio headed back to the home in Northeast Minneapolis where they planned to stay while reporting on the convention. According to their attorney, Bruce Nestor, they boarded the 17B bus, getting off at Washington and 27th Avenue, and walking the final two and one-half blocks at about 1:30 a.m. on August 26.

Then two Minneapolis squad cars stopped them. In the initial conversation, Brathwaite said, the officers asked them about robberies in the neighborhood. Then they were ordered to put their hands on the hood of the squad car and officers began searching them. When they asked if they were under arrest, the officers said no. They asked if they were free to go - no, again. At some point, a white SUV from the Hennepin County Sheriff's department pulled up, but no one got out of that vehicle.

"We kept saying we do not consent to any search," Brathwaite said, but the officers searched their belongings anyway. The three young people were questioned separately, photographed, and released, but police refused to return their belongings. They even took the backpack and sleeping bag that held all of Brathwaite's clothing and personal belongings for the week ahead.

"To add insult to injury," Tichberg said, "they refused to give us a receipt for our belongings. This is completely outside what I would call a law and order society."

Attorney Bruce Nestor says that he was informed that police are now seeking a search warrant to search the items for evidence of trespassing in a railroad yard, a misdemeanor offense. In his fifteen years of practicing law, Nestor said, he has never seen confiscation of belongings under similar circumstances for investigation of a misdemeanor. The trio insist never went into the railroad yard, and that video from the squad cars will show that they did not.

The one-line police report says, "S1, S2 and S3 were observed walking out of the railroad yard at 26th AV and 6TH ST NE." In a section labeled "Incident Details," the report lists two offenses. Trespassing is a violation of 385.380. The other offense is called "Homeland Security Offense," but no statute or description is given. None of the three have been charged with any offense at press time.

 

ABC News reporter cuffed and thrown in paddy wagon after photographing Democratic senators and lobbyists leaving meeting at hotel.

ABC News reports
Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

Eslocker was put in handcuffs and loaded in the back of a police van which headed for a nearby police station.

Eslocker and his ABC News colleagues are spending the week investigating the role of corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention for a series of Money Trail reports on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

Thanks to Lew rockwell

AKA Freedom of Assembly

Raw Story reports

Denver police have taken 100 protesters into custody after ordering them to disperse and spraying them with pepper spray from cannons.

The action happened last night but more details have emerged this morning.

Riot police forced several hundred protesters out of the civic center and blocked them before they could reach the 16th St. Mall. They used at least two armored vehicles, according to the Denver Post.
A spokeswoman for the convention's Joint Information Center, "said one officer fired pepper spray during the initial confrontation near the City and County Building and one officer fire pepper spray on 15th Street. She also said one officer fired pepper balls in once instance, but wasn't sure of the timing."

The spokeswoman said the office fired his spray after protesters "charged the police line." She did not cite any violence on the protesters' behalf.

Police processed detainees until nearly 1am ET last night. They were then loaded onto sheriff's detainees for transport to a temporary "processing center" set up just for the convention. Denver Police have been criticized by civil liberties groups such as the ACLU, which released a leaked memo showing that the police had classified all manner of people as a threat, including those on bicycles, wearing football helmets, or carrying city maps or protest signs.

"I'm a little in shock," said Joey-Kenzie, 21, of Denver, told the Post after spending about an hour and a half in the crowd of people pinned in by SWAT officers.

Officers group surrounded the protesters, leaving them no way out.

"At one point we didn't know what we were going to do, we were going to get arrested or maced," Kenzie added, saying. police never asked for her identification.


Larry Hales, speaking for the group Recreate 68 said his group did nothing wrong Monday and had a permit for the Civic Center gathering when police closed in and created havoc.

CNN reported on the protests Monday. A reporter from the scene said he'd seen no violence from the protesters, and complimented police on their handling of the scene earlier in the day.

One protester told the paper the police had used the spray "like a supersoaker."

The paper offered a chaotic blow by blow of the moments leading up to the police spray.

---

Video showing peaceful march surrounded and penned in by phalanx of militarily armed police.
Thanks to American News Project and Alternet

Guard from security firm hired by Dept. of Homeland Security ejects woman as she tries to pick-up social security card. 
Fresno Bee report

A woman wearing a T-shirt promoting lesbianism said she was forced the leave a federal building Monday by a security guard who didn't approve of her attire.

Lapriss Gilbert said she was picking up a Social Security card for her son when the guard was offended by her "lesbian.com" shirt and threatened her with arrest.

She was eventually allowed inside after her mother called police, according to a Los Angeles Daily News story.

The guard, whose name was not immediately available, works for Paragon Security, which contracts with the Department of Homeland Security.

Lori Haley, a spokeswoman within the Homeland Security Department, said the guard's actions were inappropriate and unacceptable.

"We have notified his company, Paragon, of our position in the matter," Haley said.

A message left with Paragon Security was not immediately returned Monday night.

Gilbert said the guard cited a document, the Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Federal Property, as proof he had jurisdiction over her clothing. The document does not address what type of clothing is allowed in federal buildings.

Gilbert called the guard's actions "shocking."

"As an African-American and a lesbian, I haven't been through one day without facing some sort of discrimination," Gilbert said.

Her mother called police after Gilbert was kicked out, but another security guard escorted her to the front of the Social Security line before officers arrived, the Daily News reported.

According to a police report, a witness described Gilbert as "peaceful and quiet" before the guard told her to leave.

Thanks to Wendy McElroy

s

Cointelpro redux? Will Potter posts leaked presentation, "Animal Rights Extremists: Targets, Tactics Business Response & Countermeasures," from the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a division of the U.S. State Department, outlining how the government and corporations can wage a Green Scare on naimal rights and eco-activists.

From Green is the New Red

A PowerPoint presentation, leaked from a division of the State Department, reveals that the government is briefing corporations about animal rights activists and offering "countermeasures" to protect corporate profits.

For years, the government has relentlessly pushed to label animal rights and environmental activists as "eco-terrorists" and domestic terrorists. The FBI even labels these groups the "number one domestic terrorism threat." But this State Department PowerPoint puts the "Green Scare," as many activists are calling it, in much different perspective.

It spells out, with startling candor, that animal rights and environmental activists are less a threat to national security than to corporate financial security. And it shows that the targets of this "War on Terrorism" aren't just people burning SUVs: the targets are people using their First Amendment rights.

It's a harrowing glimpse at what this country has become: the dissolution of all lines between corporate interests and government interests, between "terrorism" and free--albeit controversial--speech.

The presentation, "Animal Rights Extremists: Targets, Tactics Business Response & Countermeasures," is by the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a division of the U.S. State Department. It was leaked to me by someone who attended the briefing, and I have made it available for download at GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

The notes section of the PowerPoint shows the comments of State Department officials, including a listing of illegal activist tactics by groups like the Animal Liberation Front, from arson to the beheading of a snowman (seriously). [If that seems unbelievable, check out the memo from DHS about "eco-terrorism" like tying up company phone lines.]

But what's most disturbing is how this presentation on "extremism" and "eco-terrorism" includes so much First Amendment activity. The first slide on "major tactics" lists four "extremism" examples: one has only happened in the UK ("physical assaults") and the other three are legal (posting personal information, videotaping, and demonstrations at executives' homes).

The State Department admits as much, noting that activists "push the envelope right up to the line where another step would mean they are breaking the law." In other words, most of these "terrorists" aren't committing any crimes.

But that hasn't stopped the government from surveilling, harassing and demonizing legal activists. In fact, this State Department briefing includes a flier for the Animal Rights 2006 National Conference, a mainstream event with hundreds of attendees where I spoke about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This year, among the "terrorists" in attendance was Heather Mills.

"Although many legitimate activists attend these events," the presentation notes, "the conference holds workshops on successful tactics used against your companies..."

So what gives? Why are these activists such a threat?

The first reason: money. These activists are directly targeting corporate profits. "Although incidents related to terrorism are most likely to make the front page news, Animal Rights Extremism is what's most likely to affect your day-to-day business operations..."

These activists don't just want reforms, they want to force corporations like Huntingdon Life Sciences out of business. And they're "calculating, persistent and often effective."

The second reason: activists aren't afraid. Despite the "eco-terrorism" rhetoric, despite the FBI attempting to infiltrate vegan potlucks, despite Joint Terrorism Task Forces arresting activists for wearing masks, and on and on and on, activists aren't backing down and they aren't caving in to fear. That, after all, is the entire point of all the "eco-terrorism" scare-mongering: to instill fear in everyday people and make them afraid of using their rights. If this chilling effect doesn't occur, well, the government and corporations have quite a problem on their hands.

"Never confront the protesters," the State Department warns corporations. "These individuals are clever. Most of them know what their rights are..."

Thanks to Counterpunch

Lawyer claims police demand for protester IDs not based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Rocky Mountain News reports

Two protesters were arrested Sunday for not giving their names to police, raising questions about when that constitutes a crime.

"Isn't this America?" asked Denver attorney John Holland. "Don't you have the right to protest? Don't you have the right to remain silent?"

Law-abiding protesters don't have to give their names to police, he said.

But police can "require" a person to give their name and address when there is a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed.

"Cops don't have any right to demand identification from people unless they have reason to believe a crime has been committed, and then you are obligated to give your name," said Denver lawyer David Lane.

"Otherwise they have no authority to do that," he said. "The cops can't just walk up to any old person on the street and demand ID and then arrest them if they say no. You are not allowed to lie to the cops but you can say, "Take a walk.'"

In this case, the two protesters whose faces were covered with bandannas attracted police attention by engaging in "suspicious" activity by ducking down and appearing to hide items behind public toilets near 7th and Lawrence Streets as police passed by.

"Why didn't they see what they put behind the toilets before they asked them for their names?" Lane asked. "Those protesters may end up in federal court on a civil rights violation case and I'd be happy to represent them."

The duty to respond to a request for identification, Holland said, "depends on a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, not that you're dressed in a mask and attending a demonstration. They better have something on the criminal side or it is a wrongful violation of your constitutional right to protest."

The two protesters, Austin Hunter and Frank Anello, were cited for violating a Denver city ordinance for giving false information to police.

Police listed them as "John Does", but it's unclear whether the two gave John Doe as their names or if police identified them as John Does after they refused to identify themselves.

Hunter told the judge, "I didn't give them any information at all."

The two gave their names in court after the judge told them he couldn't set bond unless they identified themselves.

Telling police your name is John Doe or Bugs Bunny could be construed as giving false information, "but what that means to any reasonable person is that I'm not going to give you my name," said Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Under the city code, not giving your name or saying you are John Doe is still a violation under the Denver ordinance if police say they are investigating something.

A 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld the authority of police to demand identification upon "reasonable suspicion" of a crime, Holland said.

"But they can't just stop you for running breathlessly down the street," he said. "There has to be a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct."

The court held that requiring identification under such circumstances did not violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to be protected against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination, he said.

In the case of the two protesters,"police may have found something or may say they are worried about threats to public safety or that something dangerous could have been put behind the toilet," Holland said.

"To hide something in a public place is not a normal behavior," he said. "You've got this tension in a sitaution like this, between their duty to protect the public from dangerous conditions and our constitutional right to protest."

Holland advised protesters asked to identify themselves to ask the police what their concern is. If police say they suspect criminal conduct, police have the right to demand identification.

"Reasonable suspicion is central here," Holland said. "What is the conduct that is criminal? They can't 'suspect' everything that is not something they would do. If they're just targeting protesters and picking them up, First Amendment rights to protest are being violated."

(Written by  RU Sirius)

 

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden has been arguably the most extreme drug warrior in the United States Senate since at least 1982 when he coined the mega-authoritarian phrase "drug czar" to describe the head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.  He is also the man who is most responsible for pushing the "Rave Act" through Congress.  The "Rave Act" is possibly the most absurd and potentially repressive piece of legislation the Congress has passed in recent years (and that's saying something!).

 

Biden's act was originally titled "Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy." The bill was introduced in 2002 during the great Ecstasy (aka MDMA) panic of the early 2000s.  (More people die from bad reactions to normal doses of aspirin than from MDMA every year.) It was reintroduced in 2003. That year, another version of the law, titled "The Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act" was added to the "Amber Act," an emotionally fraught piece of legislation that created a national system for responding to child abduction, and which very few congress-people dared vote against.  The "rave act" part of this legislation, signed into law by President George W. Bush, makes the sponsor of any public event legally responsible for any illegal drug exchanges or use that occurs at their event.  The initial bill actually singled out raves as the likely enforcement target, but that language was changed as clearly prejudicial. In the words of a missive from the Drug Policy Alliance, which organized the opposition to this law, "Because of its broad language, the proposed law would even potentially subject people to twenty years in federal prison if guests smoked marijuana at their party or barbecue."

 

In fact, taken literally, the sponsor of the recent 68th annual Jackpine Gypsies motorcycle rally at the Buffalo Chips Campground, in South Dakota where John McCain was third-billed behind Kellie Pickler and Kid Rock, and where the smell of marijuana smoke  wafted through the air - would be up for 20 years in an iron cage. A month after Biden's act was signed into law, DEA agents in Montana used it to intimidate the owners of a venue into canceling a benefit to raise money for Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 

 

It is unclear whether this law has been used since that time, but every time the host of a private party, musical event, or Republican Party rally doesn't do everything within his or her power to make sure that absolutely nobody in attendance uses or exchanges any plants or chemicals that are currently illegal, he or she is technically liable for a punishment that is far more severe than the punishment that is meted out to the user or (probably) the dealer of the illicit substance.

 

Biden also wrote the law against shipping drug "paraphernalia" through the mail - that's the one that put Tommy Chong in jail.

 

Regarding medical marijuana for pain management, in 2007 Biden said, "There's got to be a better answer than marijuana."  Of course, as every educated, informed person knows, the opiate drugs currently used for the management of intense pain are addictive, substantially harmful to health, and often fatal.  The off-prescription use of these narcotics is the biggest drug problem today, particularly among young people. Marijuana has very few health counter-indications and there has never been a fatality from smoking or eating it.

 

There may be some recent signs of moderation in Biden's lifelong rut war fanaticism.  In 2007, Biden introduced a bill to end the discrepancies between the punishment for possession of powdered and crack cocaine, effectively reducing the draconian sentences for possession and/or sale of small amounts of crack.  And while campaigning in the recent Presidential primaries, Biden said he would end federal raids on medical marijuana patients (Of course, G.W. Bush said the same thing during the 2000 election campaign... and Bill Clinton told Rolling Stone we should decriminalize marijuana as he was leaving office).

 

It's interesting to note that earlier in the campaign, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, a stalwart advocate of drug reform, was much discussed as the leading contender to become Obama's VP pick.  Webb withdrew his name from consideration for that spot and has since commented on valuing his freedom to speak his mind. 

 

Obama's positions on drug reform have been a moving target. Most famously, in 2004, Senator Obama said, "I think the war on drugs has been a failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws." He went on to say that he opposed "legalizing" marijuana.

 

For the most part, Candidate Obama has been silent on the drug war, although he recently suggested that an extra DEA office would be just what the doctor ordered for New Orleans.

 

Looking on the bright side, it's possible that a stalwart drug warrior like Biden would have the credibility necessary to start winding down the excesses of the drug war (the "Nixon Goes to China" theory that only conservatives can get away with introducing certain types of reforms).

 

Really, the most disheartening thing about Obama's selection of Biden for Vice President isn't the selection itself, but the fact that Biden's history as a drug war fanatic doesn't even warrant mention... on CNN, MSNBC (including Keith Olbermann), or even on the first day's coverage at Huffington Post.  The terrible reality is that the approximately 11 million pot smokers and the many other mostly responsible users of recreational drugs that don't happen to be on the approved list just don't count at all as far as the American political mainstream is concerned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seized assets from drug raids have become the cash cow of choice for NY state and local police.

Op-Ed from Buffalo News

On the streets, New York's police chiefs are losing the decades-long drug war but, ironically, back in their precinct headquarters, many of these officers depend on drug raids to fatten their operating budgets.

Many states, wary of overzealous police departments, require that the proceeds from seized assets be used for education or other non-police purposes. But the 1984 federal Comprehensive Crime Control Act offers a way to get around these state laws.

State and local police departments, working with U. S. agents, "federalize" money and property seized during local drug raids. The federal government gets at least 20 percent of the seized assets, but the feds give back up to 80 percent of the seizure -- now exempt from state law -- to state and local police agencies.

According to federal statistics, the share going to New York law enforcement agencies went from $31 million in 2000 to $34 million in 2007.

Not all police departments ride this drug raid gravy train. But those that do profit handsomely. While the Erie County Sheriff's Office drug raid income went down from $39,000 in 2000 to $21,000 in 2007, the Buffalo Police Department's share of seized assets grew from $272,000 to $306,000.

The Amherst Police Department's slice went from $7,000 in 2000 to $37,000 by 2007 and the Cheektowaga Police Department did well too, going from $17,000 to $22,000 during that period. The Hamburg Town Police Department, however, took in $2,700 in 2007, down from $18,000 in 2000.

At the state level, the New York State Police's income from seized assets shot up from $2.4 million in 2000 to $6.9 million in 2007 and the State University of New York at Buffalo Police "earned" $1,682 in 2007.

Property owners need not be charged with a crime for their property to be taken. The property itself, however remotely associated with the drug trade has, under civil forfeiture laws, "committed" a crime and can be seized. For example, a motel is seized because drugs were traded on the premises despite the owners' extensive efforts to prevent such activity; boats and airplanes damaged beyond repair during fruitless searches for drugs go uncompensated by the government; and cash is seized only to be returned years later after the owner is forced into a long and costly legal battle.

One study reports that 40 percent of the nation's local police agencies depend on seized assets as a budgetary supplement. Why is this bad news?

Years ago the primary reason police seized assets was to break up the illegal drug supply lines. Today, however, that original goal has been largely replaced by self-serving budgetary considerations. Citizens can now legitimately ask why their local police force conducts drug raids. Is it to rid the town of drugs, or are the raids an easy source of extra income that harms innocent people along the way?

Thanks to Who's
your nanny

7th grader in Missouri town barred from school after dyeing her hair pink in honor of her dead father.

CNN reports (video)

KMBC Kansas City reports

A southern Missouri school district has suspended a pink-haired seventh-grader.Mountain Grove Middle School student Amelia Robbins said she dyed her hair pink to honor her father, who died of cancer when she was 6 years old. She said that to her, pink is the cancer color.The 12-year-old said that when she finished 6th grade with pink streaks in her hair, school administrators warned her not to continue wearing the color. But with her mother's permission, Amelia dyed all of her hair pink, and her school year ground to a halt just days after it started.
She doesn't think her hair color is a distraction.The school handbook said administrators have the authority to decide whether a student is causing a distraction. Officials declined to discuss specifics of Amelia's case.
Thanks to jgodsey

Cops shut down roadside stand where eleven-year-old Katie and three-year-old Sabrina Lewis were selling spare melons, radishes, and  zucchini from their family garden . City mayor calls girls self-centered, saying, ""They may start out with a little card-table and selling a couple of things, but then who is to say what else they have. Is all the produce made there, do they make it themselves? Are they going to have eggs and chickens for sale next." 

KGO-TV San Francisco reports

CLAYTON, CA (KGO) -- Two young East Bay girls are trying to find out if you really can fight city hall. The youngsters are battling to get their produce stand back after the city of Clayton shut them down.

The mayor himself is getting involved in this issue; he says the produce stand, operated by two young sisters, had to be shut down because of public safety and a zoning ordinance. But members of the Lewis family say - we have just begun to fight.

On a Clayton street corner is where 11-year-old Katie and 3-year- old Sabrina Lewis had been selling their families surplus fruits and veggies - stuff like:

"Zucchini, melons, tomatoes, radishes," said Sabrina Lewis.

They did it for maybe four hours on Saturday mornings to make a little money. They haven't sold a thing since the police showed up recently in response to one complaint to the mayor's office.

"They said traffic was being stopped and then they came up with we can't have a roadside stand and then they said it was a commercial enterprise," said Katie Lewis, former produce seller.

As for the traffic issue, neighbor Terri Highsmith says there isn't one.

"On the weekends is when I mostly notice them selling. I come and go a lot and I've never seen any traffic problems," said Highsmith.

Clayton Mayor Gregg Manning disagrees. And wonders what Katie and Sabrina might do with that produce stand if the zoning laws weren't enforced.

"They may start out with a little card-table and selling a couple of things, but then who is to say what else they have. Is all the produce made there, do they make it themselves? Are they going to have eggs and chickens for sale next," said Manning.

Lucky for Katie and Sabrina their folks don't have lemon trees.

"Lemonade stands are technically illegal, but they don't last long enough to do anything about," said Manning.

Thanks to Reason Hit and Run

So says police bulletin sent out in advance of DNC protest rallies.

Raw Story reports


Almost everyone can be a potential violent protester at the Democratic National Convention, according to a new bulletin issued by the Denver Police Department and leaked to the ACLU.

The bulletin lists myriad items police should watch out for, including "caches of supplies that could be used by violent demonstrators." The publication intended for commissioned police officers was provided to RAW STORY Thursday.

On the list? Plastic shields, football helmets, gas masks, baseball catch protectors, cases of nails, hand held radios, maps, bicycles, and protest sign handles ("perfect for swinging at first responders"). The police say they're also worried about people with large numbers of city maps or "camping information."

"Football, baseball, motorcycle and bicycle helmets are all used by violent protesters," the bulletin warns. "Bicycles are used to blockade sidewalks, streets and can be used to slow down responding emergency vehicles."

Camping information is a threat, too, such as "information concerning the camping, boarding or housing of potential violent protesters that have rented campaign spaces, rented farms or land for the time period around the DNC."

Maps are worrisome because they're "frequently used by violent prot