Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reporter doesn't like questioning
Washington Post ^ | 3/24/03 | Courtlan Milloy

Posted on 03/25/2003 2:40:51 PM PST by 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?"

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: antiamerican; ccrm; clymer; idiot; lifeinwartime; pushingbuttons; pushingtheirbuttons; shifty; thisisseries; troublemaker; washingtondc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-232 next last
To: Jhoffa_; Henrietta; aruanan
Hair-triggers [yawn]
81 posted on 03/25/2003 4:53:33 PM PST by delacoert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

Even knowing I'd never get a straight answer, I pointedly asked whether I had been detained because I was African American or whether I looked Middle Eastern. The officers just smiled wryly.

A Park Police detective would later say that "a tourist" had reported me to police. As soon as I heard that, I knew which one it was. I recalled that as I began photographing the metal box, a woman pulled out her cell phone and began keeping a not-so-discreet eye on me.

This is the kind of busybody that ties up the police with unnecessary work while inconveniencing honest citizens.

It brings memories of the lady who claimed that three Middle Eastern men were speaking in English about blowing up something in Florida. Finally, it was revealed that they were med students, and all the brouhaha about running a Florida toll was media hype.

82 posted on 03/25/2003 4:53:42 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

If these types are citizens, why not?

What's to stop me from wandering around town with a camcorder? Do I deserve to be grilled for an hour and a half because I happen to be carrying a camera or take a picture of something I helped pay for on a street in my town?

If you haven't committed a crime, then you deserve to be left alone. What's next, "thought crimes" ?

"Well, he looked like he was thinking about that box in a malicious fashion."

This is nuts.

83 posted on 03/25/2003 4:53:56 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville, and this is "Freepin for Zot!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: TruthNtegrity

Perhaps other people in Virginia have different experiences, or in other states as well.

84 posted on 03/25/2003 4:57:02 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta
I don't blame the cops at all, since they were following a [false] lead by a cell-phone caller.

An innacurate report by a witness, plus the natural lack of cooperation from a journalist, will create this situation any time.

85 posted on 03/25/2003 4:57:24 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
I see that I didn't need an account but I still had to answer 3 questions (and of course all of my answers were completely false).

Knowing more about our audience will help us continue to improve our web site and provide ads that are relevant to our audience.
It's fast and it's FREE.

Please specify your Gender.
Please enter your Zip Code.
Please enter your Year of Birth.

Reading the article I found this tidbit:

A Park Police detective would later say that "a tourist" had reported me to police. As soon as I heard that, I knew which one it was. I recalled that as I began photographing the metal box, a woman pulled out her cell phone and began keeping a not-so-discreet eye on me.

He was so curious about this device that he photographed it? Did he have a lot of film to waste? He never bothered to run the picture of this curious device with his article. Was it a digital photo? Did he show the officers the pictures of this device? I still contend that the time spent with the air testing contraption was a McGuffin to get to his "profiling" argument. He knows that he could have provided his ID when asked. He knows that he could have identified himself as a journalist. Instead he gave them a hard time (watch "Cops" sometime and see how far refusing to state your name or show your ID gets you).

If he won't take the time to write about "papers please" laws and travel policies, then he doesn't get to bitch about it when it happens to him in the park during wartime.

Does he refuse to show his driver's license when he gets on a plane? Does he ask questions like "are you sure there are no bombs on this plane?".

This is series folks.

86 posted on 03/25/2003 4:57:42 PM PST by weegee (McCarthy was right, Fight the Red Menace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ez
"Oops, you ignored the "acting suspicious" part..."

The police have to articulate what about his behavior is or was suspicious.

According to the Supreme Court, "[I]n justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."

I don't think that the taking of pictures in a public place, and asking about a funny box near a national monument is a specific and articulable fact which would reasonably justify the intrusion of the police on this guy's right to be left alone. You don't agree with me, but hey, it's a free country...or used to be!
87 posted on 03/25/2003 4:57:59 PM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Fair enough. But where do you draw the line between such farcial antics that this reporter employed and our Constitutional rights? What others mean by "baiting" is that the reporter deliberately did things that would arouse suspicion. Is that a crime in itself? Of course not. But how can you blame the cops for suspecting him? This is borderline shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, which the courts have always ruled is NOT free speech. The real question is the bind we're putting the cops in. The instant they get too nosy people yell "civil rights" but if the reporter really was a terrorist, then the cops would be defamed for not catching him. The cops must have some standard by which to judge threats. Even the most anarchic has to admit that if we're going to have a society. Likewise, citizens must have freedom of person and of movement and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, among others. Hysterical rants against the survelliance state (while resonant here) are NOT the answer. Hysterical rants for the survelliance state are NOT the answer either. We are a nation that has to defend herself against terrorist threats AND head them off before they kill any more of us, AND individuals who must remain free. There's a tension there.
88 posted on 03/25/2003 4:58:33 PM PST by =Intervention= (so freaking sick of the lies...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: zip
"You win the "Dumbest statement of the day"."

Ad hominem attack, you lose!
89 posted on 03/25/2003 4:59:02 PM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
If these types are citizens, why not?

Actually I agree with you. So where does that leave us? What is the point of watching these facilities and reporting "suspicious" activities around them like people taking videos and pictures and notes?

90 posted on 03/25/2003 4:59:03 PM PST by TigersEye (Let the liberals whine - it's what they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
"Thanks for outing yourself as a one dimensional thinker. Go hide behind your ad hominem attack now."

I think you misunderstood my question. Testy, aren't we?
91 posted on 03/25/2003 4:59:39 PM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Tspud1; Henrietta; Jhoffa_
My first thought after reading it was "What a dick!"

My second thought, though, was that he has a point. Later in the story, he quotes an officer as saying "if anyone shows a particular interest in something, we get suspicious." The reporter also says he pointed out that plenty of people in the area were using video cameras to record things without being stopped and questioned.

This should raise the question of why the reporter, jerk though he may be, was questioned by 10 officers for merely asking a question about an innocuous piece of equipment. Is this reporter an angel? No, but he behaved the way he did to make a point about the misuse of the Homeland Security tip line leading to useless paranoia and intrusive police behavior.

Of course we need to be more vigilant now, but does that really justify detaining and questioning citizens (with 10 officers, no less) for no more pretext than asking "curious questions?" It's clearly both excessive and a waste of law enforcement resources.

Being patriotic includes a lot of things, including questioning whether some post-9/11 law enforcement measures are ill-conceived. These may be trying times, but we shouldn't forget the importance of safeguarding are basic rights as citizens even as we do our best to ensure our security.

92 posted on 03/25/2003 5:00:16 PM PST by Polonius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delacoert
"Hair-triggers [yawn] "

Ah, yes, it's always easier to call names than to engage in rational debate.
93 posted on 03/25/2003 5:00:20 PM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
If it's not how to deal with yellow jackets its a primer on police-civilian relations. We're going to have to start calling you 'Ms.Advice' around here. ; )
94 posted on 03/25/2003 5:00:56 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
"If these types are citizens, why not?

Actually I agree with you. So where does that leave us? What is the point of watching these facilities and reporting "suspicious" activities around them like people taking videos and pictures and notes?"

These are both really good questions and food for thought. What should the standard be for detaining people we think are acting "suspicious?" How much freedom do we want to grant to the state to stop us if someone else thinks we are acting "suspicious?" How do we balance our needs to be safe with our civil liberties, which are rapidly being eroded by the "War on Drugs" and now the "War on Terror?"


95 posted on 03/25/2003 5:05:15 PM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Polonius
"No, but he behaved the way he did to make a point about the misuse of the Homeland Security tip line leading to useless paranoia and intrusive police behavior."

Exactly! We need to know what is going on here, and even though this reported is undoubtedly a Leftist idiot, I still appreciate the fact that he's exposing some of the abuses going on "for our own safety."

96 posted on 03/25/2003 5:07:10 PM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta
Why am I not surprised that the war on drugs suddenly entered the equation? Minus a few points on credibility with that one. While we can argue all day about the divine right to blow out brain cells with the chemical of our choice, does anyone really want to see the traffic wrecks caused by widespread recreational crack use? No? Well then it's back to the old "restrict drugs until we fix the court system" or "legalize drugs and who cares if innocents die; they're stupid" type arguments. I've yet to hear a rational libertarian answer for the societal chaos that widespread recreational substance use would cause.
97 posted on 03/25/2003 5:09:51 PM PST by =Intervention= (so freaking sick of the lies...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Polonius

I think you're correct. The nature of our right's and liberties makes them easy to lose and tough to re-gain. As such, we should tread carefully in any area that may abridge them.

98 posted on 03/25/2003 5:13:10 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville, and this is "Freepin for Zot!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta
I think you misunderstood my question. Testy, aren't we?

Was there another way to take your question? It only made sense as a sarcasm. To answer it directly (which is more than you now deserve), I haven't changed at all. I believe in the rule of law and I support authority when it is in the right. When it is corrupt or abusive I condemn it with fury.

If he had acted in a respectful but firm manner and refused to answer their questions I would be backing him up. But he deliberately baited them. The antagonism in his counter questions was obvious to me and, as I said before, that is from HIS version of it. One can easily imagine how much of an ass he really was. Admitting to playing the race card surely blows his credibility.

So far you still haven't taken a crack at answering my questions in post #44.

If he was really concerned about suspicious objects in the park wouldn't he have immediately identified himself and layed out his suspicions to the first authority figure to come along? Wouldn't he have been actively seeking one out?

Instead he was evasive and antagonistic. What is a cop supposed to think when that is coupled with a report that he was photographing equipment and taking notes?

99 posted on 03/25/2003 5:15:15 PM PST by TigersEye (Let the liberals whine - it's what they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: =Intervention=
I'm not in favor of recreational drug use, but am alarmed that the War on Drugs is being used to justify alot of shenanigans that Americans would not have otherwise put up with, like those infamous "no-knock" raids that seem to get the wrong house, putting innocent people in danger, or worse, killing them.

My point was that we have to be careful about seeing every War on (insert your most hated thingy here) as an answer to our problems, and individual rights to be secure in our persons and papers be damned.

This isn't about the "divine right to blow out brain cells," as you so eloquently put it. It's about our right as citizens to decide how much search and seizure we're willing to put up with in exchange for some illusion of security.

The expanded police powers to search for drugs has not stopped people from getting drugs, and the expanded police powers to search for terrorists will not stop terrorists from doing what they are determined to do. I used the WOD as an example because it is but the most illustrative of how giving the government more power is not the answer to the problem of illegal activity.

100 posted on 03/25/2003 5:16:49 PM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-232 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson