Reporter doesn't like questioning

Washington Post ^ | 3/24/03 | Courtlan Milloy

[Tspud1]

Something Suspicious Is in the Air

By Courtland Milloy Monday, March 24, 2003; Page B01

The sign above the highway leading into the nation's capital advised motorists to "Report Suspicious Activity" and gave an 800 number for the Office of Homeland Security. As a reporter, I figured this was right up my alley and set out yesterday to report on things that struck me as suspicious.

For instance, near the Jefferson Memorial, I saw a five-foot-tall metal box that was hooked up to an electrical outlet and equipped with a high-tech antenna and chrome-dome receptor. What was it?

I asked a couple of National Park Service workers and some Cherry Blossom Festival organizers whose tent was set up next to the thing if they knew. Little did I know that my inquiry would become a suspicious activity in itself.

"We hear you've been asking curious questions," U.S. Park Police officer Michael Ramirez said as he and fellow officer Karl Spilde approached me from behind a blossomless cherry tree. "Why are you doing that?"

Both officers carried 9mm semiautomatic pistols, Mace and batons. Perhaps because I had just left the Jefferson Memorial, where I'd read a few lines about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and "all men are created equal," I felt bold enough to pose a question of my own: "Why are you asking me that?"

[Henrietta]

It's different because the folks who just knocked over the 7-11 are probably being stopped because they fit the description of those who just knocked over a 7-11. Knocking over a 7-11 is a crime.

This guy was taking photos and asking questions. Those things are not crimes, and don't warrant police intervention. See the difference.

[Henrietta]

"Like in your third post on this thread, where you described the folks who have the temerity to disagree with you as "pathetic". "

No, I described those willing to give up basic freedoms for the illusion of security as pathetic. They are not pathetic merely because they disagree with me.

"You lose - get your high and mighty butt off this thread."

No, I think I'll stay, thanks.

[general_re]

Of course you will, and despite your nasty snarky suggestions that the people who disagree with you are "pathetic" or "must have failed civics class", you'll keep on whining about ad hominem attacks against you.

Pathetic.

[Jhoffa_]

You twit, you wouldn't know the difference between a jackboot and a hole in the ground.

Oh, I bet I would..

So there. Ha!

[Henrietta]

"Of course you will, and despite your nasty snarky suggestions that the people who disagree with you are "pathetic" or "must have failed civics class", you'll keep on whining about ad hominem attacks against you. "

Pointing out the obvious ignorance of a fellow citizen is not an ad hominem attack.

But of course, you are free to feel as you like, and I'll feel free to ignore you.

[delacoert]

The old adage regarding shaving cream and a donkey's ass comes to mind. This thread had it moments.

[ladyinred]

Ah gee whiz fella, we were attacked on Sept 11th. You were most likely one of the reporters screaming the loudest about how come the government didn't know this was coming in advance!!!!! Because of people like you that is why.
Idiot.

[general_re]

Gosh - thanks, Henny. Can I really have my own opinions? Mighty generous of you.

I don't know quite who you think you're fooling here - your posts are positively dripping with contempt, and yet you whine and cry about how nasty other people are with their posts. Give is a rest. If you can't post your opinions in a civil way, without slyly denigrating the people you're posting to, I suggest you go back to soliciting clients in emergency rooms, or whatever it is you do when you're not here.

[TigersEye]

This guy was taking photos and asking questions. Those things are not crimes, and don't warrant police intervention. See the difference.

OK, that was a strawman. The use of the word intervention is disingenuous though. They would be investigating in either case. Are you saying the police can't investigate anything unless it is known that a crime has already occurred?

[TigersEye]

Try an electric razor! 8^)

[Cvengr]

Why did he write the article and even more importantly, Why would anybody waste time reading it?

We can continue this for a long time,....

[Henrietta]

"I don't know quite who you think you're fooling here - your posts are positively dripping with contempt, and yet you whine and cry about how nasty other people are with their posts. Give is a rest. If you can't post your opinions in a civil way, without slyly denigrating the people you're posting to, I suggest you go back to soliciting clients in emergency rooms, or whatever it is you do when you're not here."

It's just not possible for you to debate, is it? And if my posts "drip with contempt" it's because I can't believe people are so ignorant as to their rights, and then launch ad hominem attacks (your post is a perfect example of the ad hominem attack, by the way) against those who point out that their interpretation of the law does not pass Constitutional muster.

Far from whining and crying about nastiness, I merely point out the fact that a post contains an ad hominem attack. I'm sure that you and others who resort to such tactics wish I wouldn't point them out, but alas, I feel I must.

The ad hominem attacks don't bother me; I rather expect them when I post things that tend to uphold our civil liberties.

So if you want to continue posting such attacks, it's really A-OK with me. Is name-calling really more fun and rewarding than debate?

[TigersEye]

I don't know quite who you think you're fooling here - your posts are positively dripping with contempt, and yet you whine and cry about how nasty other people are with their posts.

I'd have to agree. I've been uncharacteristically patient here considering how high your horse is.

[=Intervention=]

Understood and agreed to, for the most part. The ultimate physical security does rest with the individual, and by extension, the security of neighborhoods and cities rests with those within them. However, one of the reasons we do have a police force is to serve in the stead of the citizenry, who may not have time to keep tabs on the neighborhood. That right there is a surrender of some freedom to an external agent in the hopes that the power of survelliance and interdiction will prevent crime. To some extent, this does work. Cops walking around do prevent casual crime and puts criminals on edge. I won't argue the finer points of the Patriot act here, but generally, the idea of information sharing across departments (CIA/FBI) is a breakthrough and should have been done years ago. Will it and other departmental changes do nothing? No, they will raise the opportunity cost for terrorism. Will they stop terrorism once and for all? No. But I'll bet they'll raise the opportunity cost so high that the incidence of terrorism plummets. You take that and combine it with an armed populace and the cost may become prohibitive.

[PhilDragoo]

It's a race-baiting wise-ass detector, citizen, and you're proof that it works.

[Henrietta]

"Are you saying the police can't investigate anything unless it is known that a crime has already occurred?"

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course police have the right to ask questions, and people have the right not to answer. And if a cop has a "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that a crime is about to be committed or has been committed, then he has the right to briefly detain the suspect for investigative purposes. But the standard is one that has a sense of immediacy to it; you can't say, "Well, I think that that person taking pictures might, at some point in the undefined future, commit a crime." You have to believe that it is about to be committed.

In the instant case, they definitely did not have the right to detain him, much less arrest him, under the Terry standard. The reporter had the right to refuse to answer questions and simply walk away.

By the way, I admire your admitting to the strawman argument. It takes courage to do that on a public forum. I mean that most sincerely, no sarcasm.

[xdem]

> A cop isn't a stranger.

My definition of a stranger is anybody you don't know.

[Henrietta]

"The old adage regarding shaving cream and a donkey's ass comes to mind."

I've never heard that adage. Can you share?

[Henrietta]

"I'd have to agree. I've been uncharacteristically patient here considering how high your horse is."

And I think I've been very, very patient with you, too. Bravo for us both!

(Oh, and thanks for that little dig!)

[general_re]

(your post is a perfect example of the ad hominem attack, by the way)

No, Henny, it isn't. In addition to being nasty and snarky, you must have failed Logic 101 - hey, that is kind of fun.

An "ad hominem" attack is when I attack you personally as a means of refuting your argument, suggesting that your argument is flawed because of some personal circumstance of yours. I have made no intimations about the quality of your argument, merely your quality as a poster and as a person. Pointing out that you're a nasty, horrible person is not an ad hominem attack - it is a statement of fact. If my argument was essentially that your posts were flawed because you're a nasty, horrible person, that would be an ad hominem argument.

I'm available to continue educating you in basic logic and rhetoric, by the way, but I do charge by the hour.

I'm sure that you and others who resort to such tactics wish I wouldn't point them out, but alas, I feel I must.

Silly person. If you held yourself to that same high standard, I never would have said a word. But you want to be free to insult and belittle others, while at the same time whining about how you're being personally attacked. Sorry, peddle that line of junk elsewhere.